Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:32, 19 November 2007

Ships Project‑class

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

New discussion page banner, see discussion below.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Archives

/Assessment

Assessment status report

Type	Sept 8	Sept 13	Sept 18	Oct 1	Oct 15	Nov 1	Nov 15	Change
Assessed	3087	4387	6050	7121	8017	9368	9864	6777
Unassessed	2737	1961	1034	492	386	227	225	2512
Total	5824	6348	7084	7613	8403	9595	10089	4265

Thirteen hundred articles assessed in five days - what can I say? Y'all are awesome. Let's keep blasting away at it; we've clearly proven that cleaning this up entirely is an attainable goal. Thanks for all your hard work! Maralia 04:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive work, everyone! I keep trying to tackle some of our unassessed backlog, but then I get sidetracked into articles that had not yet received the {{WikiProject Ships}} banner. Of the 150-odd assessments I have performed so far this month, at least a hundred either had just {{ WPMILHIST}} or no project tags at all. --Kralizec! (talk) 05:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've found quite a few that didn't have any project tags. I also went through my watchlist and quite a few of the ships I had there were assessed by class but not importance. I took care of those. Another question, what is the procedure if another wikiproject has rated the article as GA or FA?-MBK004 16:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, take other projects' assessments with a grain of salt - their criteria may differ, and 'B' or 'A' status could have been designated by a single person without a thorough review. The safe exceptions to this are:

assessments by MILHIST are implicitly accepted by WPSHIPS;
assessments of FA and GA quality are independent of projects and therefore implicitly accepted as well. Maralia 16:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged and assessed a combination of about 300 articles over the past 12 hours. I'm extremely tired now.-MBK004 04:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, now go to sleep! The ships will still be there tomorrow :) Maralia 04:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the past 6 hours I've tagged and assessed another 125 articles. New ones keep popping up, too. It seems like somebody is tagging but not assessing.-MBK004 21:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably partly me... I'm not so sure about assessing article's I've created though, which is why I have only been tagging them. I have assessed quite a few other articles in the last few days though. Martocticvs 21:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the status table above - we've improved from almost 3,000 to now 'only' 1,000 tagged articles left to assess. Just as importantly, we've tagged an astounding 1,200 ship articles for the project in just 10 days' time. Amazing work, guys. Maralia 03:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Table updated again. We have assessed over 4,000 articles in less than a month's time and only have 500 left to go. The beer is on me when we're done. Maralia 20:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it time for another update? (hinta, hinta)

--Kralizec! (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, how many more have we done? The list is looking rather small now.-MBK004 17:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updated table by request. Blah blah, good work, keep it up, rah rah go team, etc. Maralia 04:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most staggering statistic for me is seeing how many articles we've tagged that didn't have tags before and the total number of articles. We are close to doubling the total number of articles.-MBK004 17:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very true! It is very telling that while the number of un-assessed articles declined by only 106, the number assessed increased by 896! As Donald Rumsfeld would say, we are doing a great job at decreasing the known unknown articles! --Kralizec! (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a question to which someone here may know the answer. I've come across several list and template type articles that have been rated as "list class" or "template class", but there are no corresponding categories for them. They show up in "list class articles", not "list class ship articles". I created a Category:List-Class Ships articles, but I don't know how to direct the assessment template to this new category. Hopefully someone here can help me figure this out. Parsecboy 22:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It requires ... complicated changes to our banner's template parser. Enabling [1] the dab-class assessment took a good-sized chunk of uninterrupted time, which I probably am not going to have again until late this month or early November. Unless someone else with parser skills wants to take a gander at it, I would suggest we leave them for now. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine to me. I don't have the necessary skills to do it myself. Parsecboy 01:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I can tackle that project. My only concern is that I don't know if it's a good idea to class lists separately. I think they should be evaluated based on the same criteria of comprehensiveness, good sourcing, and organization as articles. I have no problem with creating a "template" class, though. Is there an abbreviation for "template" we'd like to use, or should we just type it out? I'm a little iffy on using "temp", since I immediately think "temporary" when I see it. TomTheHand 13:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So should we just rate them as stub or start class articles? I don't think it's really necessary to rate them B or higher. I agree with your reservations about using "temp" for templates, though. Parsecboy 15:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we be doing anything with ship disambiguation pages like HMS Benbow, to mark them as part of the project? Some projects have a 'non-article' catagory, that might be adapted for them I suppose. Benea 15:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Disambig class is enabled and I have been tagging them as 'Disambig' for class and 'NA' for importance. See Talk:HMS Vanguard and [[Category:Disambig-Class Ships articles]].MBK004 15:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Champion! Benea 15:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can give a couple of quick (very quick ... before my kids tear up the place while daddy is distracted) answers on a few of these:

dab pages were enabled [2] earlier this month [3]
from my experience with other projects, most list-class pages follow a separate criteria ultimately leading to featured list
when I labled dab-class, I used {{Grading scheme}} and Category:Articles by quality as resources, and they tend to indicate that template or Template is the magic word used for template-class articles

Ok, back to daddy-daycare. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to our own assessment criteria we should be assessing lists in the same way as other articles - it is just that they proceed to featured list instead of featured article. I rv a couple of assessments back from NA to list, on the grounds that if they were NA we might think they don't need attention, and if they are list they should show as needing assessment. I think they should definately be assessed beyond start and stub class, else we'll never get them to Featured list - and there are some good potential lists - like the battleships ones. Viv Hamilton 17:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've added "Template" as an accepted class for {{WikiProject Ships}}. TomTheHand 20:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! Thanks for adding it! --Kralizec! (talk) 23:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about another status update. Hasn't it been two weeks?-MBK004 14:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the table. I've lost my voice from a stupid cold; can someone else give the motivational speech today? Maralia 15:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, we have nearly doubled the number of articles in just two months! I continue to be amazed at all the new articles we have added. While members of this project have taken care of 159 of the unassessed articles in the past two weeks, we tagged and assessed 1192 new articles! --Kralizec! (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is about time for another update. I've identified quite a few new B, GA, and A-class articles that fall under our scope since the last update. I wonder if we've doubled the number of articles yet? If not, we must be extremely close!-MBK004 19:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Table now updated. We've passed the 10,000 article milestone!-MBK004 16:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for updating the table here! I should have pointed it out earlier, but the most current count is always available on the main project page, in the sidebar template {{Ships sidebar}}, which substs this page: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Ships articles by quality statistics. It's auto updated by bot every three days. Maralia 17:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flag templates

I noticed a bunch of articles edited by User:Malo today, which he changed from using {{USN flag}} to {{USN jack}}, a new template he apparently made today. I'm baffled - I thought we had a clear consensus, for months now at least, to use flags (ensigns) rather than jacks. Am I nuts, or did I miss a conversation? Maralia 03:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that most definitely should not be happening. I've redirected {{USN jack}} to {{USN flag}}. TomTheHand 03:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malo might not be aware of the consensus: he may believe he's done the right thing. Perhaps a word from a kindly person ... Folks at 137 18:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I wasn't aware that a consensus had been reached. I hadn't been very active until the past few days, and I didn't know. I appreciate TomTheHand leaving a message on my talk page and taking the time to find me the talk page archive with the consensus in it Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive05#Always_use_ensigns.3F. I'm not trying to be counter productive, however I don't agree with the consensus. Having now caught up on some reading, I agree with what J Clear said a year ago in regards to the jack being a better indicator because you can better see the number of stars on USN jacks, but then also because the jack not only indicates the nation, but more specifically the branch of service. Whereas the ensign (when displayed at about 48px or 60px on most articles as is common) for USN ships from 1818 is nearly indistinguishable from one from 1958. Granted this may not make a whole lot of difference for some, but it's bugging me. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 21:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it's true that differences between jacks are more visible, I feel using the jack is artificial and not indicative of the flag the ship is usually flying. It generally only flown while the ship is not underway, while the ensign is flown whether underway or not. Moreover, I just don't consider it to be a big advantage that the stars in the jack are bigger. Yes, it's easier to tell the difference between jacks, but since jacks aren't indicative of what the ship usually flies, how is that helpful? TomTheHand 21:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I rarely (never?) add/edit/remove flags from articles, I have to say that I agree with Malo on this issue. While the naval flags of other nations often changed considerably between eras (compare

with

), the evolution of the USN ensign is virtually imperceptible at this size (compare the ensign of the first USS Maine

with that of the second USS Maine

). --Kralizec! (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the Canadian Blue ensign example, just to be difficult, that was actually used as a jack; Dominion and Commonwealth navies flew the white ensign, with the "local" ensign being used as a national identifier and flown as a jack. It was really only Dominion / Commonwealth government service vessels that would use the local flag as the ensign. Therefore, it is possible to say "only use ensigns" and get around it as the ensign was actually being flown as a jack! Emoscopes ^Talk 06:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, trying to wrap my brain around that makes my head hurt. Did I mention that I rarely if ever add flags to articles? I can admit that the largest reason is because even after reading the relevant articles on jacks/ensigns/etc., I still do not understand the differences and/or when the various flags should be used. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But we can't exactly go and have a different convention for USN from the rest of the world. Well, we can, but it would lead to even more confusion. -- Kjet 19:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think consistency is an important point. I don't think we should use ensigns for some navies and jacks for others depending on which looks better. We should be applying one rule to all articles. The fact that it's difficult to tell the difference between various US ensigns just doesn't matter to me. I think having the flag that best represents what the ship actually flew all the time is a way higher priority than being able to count the stars. TomTheHand 20:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the flag indicates the nation for which the ship operated, and is merely yet another indicator of the era. The decommission date is listed a mere handful of lines below it in the infobox; the lead of an article usually indicates the era in which it operated; and mousing over the flag image (presuming you have a status bar in your browser) shows you the exact number of stars in the ensign/jack. Aren't we splitting hairs here? Maralia 20:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should stick with consistency on articles, and use ensigns in all cases. It makes little practical sense to have one rule for one navy and another for all the rest. Martocticvs 22:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that I am arguing for the use of different rules for different articles. Me, the supreme advocate for The One Simple, Consistent Rule Set. Did the sun stop burning or the laws of gravitation repeal themselves? Perhaps my wife should go buy a lotto ticket. Regardless, I should note that I am willing to recant my heretical objections and return to formation. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with wanting to display the ensign because it is what is flow when a ship is at sea. However I do really want to see the jack as well, even if the jack is only used when a ship is in port. Perhaps we can place both on USN articles. Would anyone else like to see both? It wouldn't be too difficult to change the template to include each one and personally I don't think it would be too intrusive. To me this seems like a fair compromise, particularly since both apply to what is flown from a USN ship. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 01:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what this achieves. The point of any flag in ship articles is as a visual indication of nationality and period (significant for, eg, 20th century Germany and USSR/ Russia). One's enough and there's opposition to showing flags at all. For flag enthusiasts, perhaps the evolution of ensigns and jacks can be shown in flag and naval articles. Folks at 137 05:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

failed GA nom under the scope of this project

I have just recently failed Christopher Columbus (whaleback) according to the GA criteria. Just though I'd give this project a head's up. VanTucky ^Talk 22:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vasa (ship) for GAC

The article about the Vasa has been nominated for Good Article status. Input and insights or even reviews from members of this project would be very much appreciated.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leander class cruiser template

User:Emoscopes recently changed the template for the Leander class cruiser (1931) (which is Template:Leander class cruiser 1931) to show that the Leander class is preceded by the York class cruiser rather than the Emerald class cruiser. He makes a convincing argument for how the Yorks influenced the design of the Leanders, but I feel it runs agains the listing of our cruiser classes as at List of cruiser classes of the Royal Navy, where we list our light cruisers together and our heavy cruisers together (the Leanders being light cruisers and the Yorks being heavy cruisers). I think trying to work this concept of design influences, etc, into a template is a bit confusing for the reader, in that in some places they will see that the Leanders were preceded by the Emeralds, and in others that they were preceded by the Yorks. I'm all for discussing in the article how the Leanders developed on from the designs of the Yorks, but in this case I think it's better to KISS and use the templates to simply list the chronological classes of light cruisers without hopping across boundaries to include other ship types. What do people think? And sorry to bore everyone who couldn't give a damn about the chronology of WWII British cruisers. pip pip, Benea 16:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I have always interpreted 'Preceded by' and 'Followed by' to mean the class of the same type of ship that immediately preceded/followed in chronological order, rather than a reference to classes that influenced its design. Maralia 16:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subs of the USN often have the same issue. However the class succession has not to date been added to their templates; instead it is listed in the class article's infobox. For example, the Thresher/Permit-class submarine article states it was preceded by the triumvirate of Skipjack-class submarine, USS Triton (SSRN-586), and USS Halibut (SSGN-587). Additionally, the Thresher/Permit-class was succeeded chronologically by both George Washington-class submarine and USS Tullibee (SSN-597), while its successor by type was the Sturgeon-class submarine. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've always interpreted the preceded by/followed by the same way Maralia did. If we were to use ships that influenced design, we'd have to put HMS Dreadnought as the "preceded by" for every initial class of dreadnoughts, be they German, French, American, etc. That just doesn't make sense. Parsecboy 17:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Emoscopes that in many cases it is more logical to specify the predecessor in the evolutionary line, rather than the strict chronological predecessor. U.S. submarines are a great example of a case where I think it's important to use evolution rather than strict chronology; a lot of dead-end experimental designs were produced during the Cold War. Washington/London treaty cruisers are another case. From my U.S.-centric viewpoint, I think it's more logical to list the predecessor of USS Wichita (CA-45), a heavy cruiser, as the Brooklyn class light cruiser (of which she was an 8"-gunned development) than the New Orleans class heavy cruiser. On the other hand, I would list the predecessor of the Cleveland class light cruiser as the Brooklyn class, not Wichita, while the predecessor of the Baltimore class heavy cruisers would be Wichita.

I see no need to list the predecessor of other nations' first dreadnoughts as HMS Dreadnought (1906). Several nations were planning all-big-gun battleships before HMS Dreadnought herself was laid down; they were logical advancements of pre-dreadnought designs and were a long time in coming. Nobody went "z0mg! Drop everything and copy the Brits!" TomTheHand 18:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see where Tom and Emoscopes are coming from on this, and I do think it's a very worthwhile exercise to make sure that these points are clarified in each relevant article. But I think it could confuse the average reader and hinder accessability in that it opens up a wide range of specialist viewpoints as to which developments can be traced from one class to another, where one branch of evolution died out and another begun, etc. For the templates I think it is logical to adopt a standardised view on listing by type (light cruisers seperate from heavy cruisers seperate from battlecruisers seperate from armoured cruisers seperate from second class cruisers etc). In a lot of cases, developments were going on concurrently so I worry that we're making things very confusing and argument prone for ourselves, as well as confusing for our readers. The best way seems to list chronologically within a defined type (light cruisers, heavy, protected, etc) (i.e very little room for argument or error and easily understandable for the average reader) and then go on to describe design influences, etc in the articles themselves. Benea 18:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i.e. this would give the result - 'the next class of light cruiser to enter service with the Royal Navy was the Leander.' On reading that article I see that 'ah ha, it borrowed much from the designs of the york class heavy cruiser'. And so on. I just don't think the template is the place to try and work in these complicated concepts, when there is no scope there for explaining them. Benea 18:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how problems could arise from doing things as I suggest, but at the same time, I kind of feel like relying on strict chronological order is a bit like saying the F-15 Eagle is the predecessor of the F-16 Fighting Falcon. It isn't just a matter of chronology or numbering, but of purpose and design evolution. I think it helps a casual reader more to be able to click through predecessors and successors and see the story of how ships developed, rather than giving people the impression that the Cleveland class came from the Atlantas (which were much smaller and designed for a totally different purpose). TomTheHand 18:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my lack of presence here as I seem to have kicked this off, but I have been busy with work. My rationale is that the preceded / followed by system should allow us to navigate through a chronology of a certain broad group type of ships; e.g. destroyers, frigates, battleships, cruisers etc. I don't think there is any use, and personally do not think it is very correct, in splitting up cruisers into various treaty categories - to me this just confuses the subject for readers. I think this is particularly pertinent in the Royal Navy, where there are only 2 classes of "heavy cruisers" (that weren't built under that designation, and are better referred to as "treaty cruisers") and where there is a direct evolution and chronology from them into "light cruisers" (York into Leander). Treaty categorisation aside, York is both the evolutionary and chronological predecessor to Leander. Emerald just happens to be the last 6-inch gunned cruiser that was built before Leander, and the only relation is that a later treaty grouped both types as light cruisers. I also think the list of cruisers page would be better served by having the light and heavy cruisers in under a common heading in chronological order, with explanatory notes where necessary. The Royal Navy, for example, fought World War II with WWI-era "light" and "heavy" cruisers, Washington treaty-era cruisers, London conference-era cruisers and post-treaty cruisers. There is a fairly direct line of evolution and chronology from WW1 through to the last British designs which I think is the simplest way to go about it, rather than the arbitrary "light" and "heavy" categories. Emoscopes ^Talk 18:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, I really do understand where both of you are coming from on this matter, and I think it's a valid point to make. But I think that the template is the wrong place to try and work this in. The Emeralds, in the example, were a bit of an oddity as far as cruisers go, and yes I would agree that the Leanders have more in common with the Yorks than the Emeralds. But the Emeralds were the preceding light cruiser class. The light class of cruiser that followed them were the Leanders. The light class that followed them were the Towns. And so on. The first heavy class of cruisers were the Counties. They were followed by the Yorks. What I think it comes down to is whether to do things by a technological progression and show where changes came in, which is a valid approach, but as people have admitted and where I have pointed out, problems could arise. Or to do it by chronological order, by type, as they are classified (rightly or wrongly) in the sources and as they exist on our pages that deal with them. Second class cruisers were under construction, development and usage at the same time as the armoured cruisers but I don't think it would make sense to try and work them in together. I think we should be consistent across our pages, take the path of least confusion and possibility of argument and follow established practice. The alternative is that we abolish the distinction we have at the moment between light cruisers and heavy cruisers and work them in together, which I have no particular objection to based on Emoscope's arguments. But at the moment we are split between the two depending on which page you go to, which can only be confusing to a reader. Benea 23:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm the only one pushing for using "predecessor" and "successor" to indicate evolution instead of chronology, so I can accept that it's not going to be that way ;-) What Emoscopes suggests sounds good to me. The light/heavy cruiser distinction is an arbitrary one, based on gun caliber, not displacement or purpose. It's different from the protected/armored cruiser distinction. It's probably a good idea to ignore it for the purpose of noting successors and predecessors, and just allow the user to navigate through all the treaty-era cruisers chronologically. TomTheHand 13:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement to DANFS template

Maralia and I talked last night about a possible improvement to {{DANFS}}. Maralia thinks it would be a good idea if the template accepted, as an optional parameter, a link to DANFS's page on the ship. I agree completely, but we weren't sure of how the end result should look. Maralia, did you have any ideas?

I had two trains of thought. First, should we perhaps revise the DANFS template to look like a normal web source citation? Without a web address, it could just link directly to the DANFS front page, like this:

Naval Historical Center, Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships

With a web address, it could link right to the ship article, like this:

Naval Historical Center, Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships

I just wonder if that format less clearly expresses the concept that "This article began as a copy of DANFS's entry on this ship". I feel the current format implies that better. My second thought, therefore, is that if an URL is supplied to the DANFS template, perhaps it could just add an additional sentence. You'd end up with something like this:

This article incorporates text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. The original article can be found here.

What do you guys think? TomTheHand 18:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the first two examples would work; it would be nice to have it appear as a properly formatted reference, but I feel it's necessary to retain the "text from" and "public domain" aspects of the existing DANFS template. Additionally, links will vary from NHC to Hazegray, which would likely cause confusion.

I like your last example, with two changes:

let's not use 'original' since only the published books are truly original.
suggest 'entry' rather than 'article'.

I hope expanding the DANFS template to allow a direct link will help clarify the origin of DANFS info, and cut down on the number of {{unreferenced}} tags getting dropped on USN ship articles. Maralia 19:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the NHC now has the entirety of DANFS available online, with new material that was not present in the editions transcribed by Hazegray, and they are slowly updating it as time goes on. I think we should rely on NHC exclusively. With that said, I have no problem with your suggestions. TomTheHand 19:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've figured out how to do the The entry can be found here thing, and I'm ready to add it to the DANFS template. Anyone have any objections to this being put in? It's entirely optional, and when no parameter is supplied the template will continue to work as it always has. TomTheHand 21:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's done! Simply using {{DANFS}} gives the same result as before:

This article incorporates text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships.

Using {{DANFS|http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/i2/iowa-iii.htm}} produces this:

This article incorporates text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. The entry can be found here.

If you create a new article based on DANFS, please provide a link to the DANFS entry in the template. If you edit an article that has a DANFS template on it, and it already links to the entry in its "External links" section, it would be awesome if you could move the link inside the template. TomTheHand 13:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another ships infobox?

This caught me by surprise ... was anyone else aware that we apparently have a dedicated {{Greek Ship}} infobox ... ? --Kralizec! (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Words aren't even coming to me. TomTheHand 20:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try "arg!" or "headdesk ... thwap!" --Kralizec! (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that this morning - haven't gotten around to looking at it because I am still fixing all the footer templates which were "improved" by removing all italics formatting when nameless.editor was 'updating to use navbox template'. I can't believe someone would be so irresponsible as to not fix them after their errors were pointed out. GRRRRRR! Maralia 20:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After going out of town for the weekend, it took me a while to make it far enough up my watchlist to discover the new super deluxe infobox (dang my employer making me work!). As to your frustration with footer fixing, I know the feeling ... but to keep from getting burnt-out while working on a big, monotonous task like that, I often take 'breaks' and whore myself out to other tasks and/or projects. Now that I think about it, I believe I have been on a break from working on our Kategory Konfusion for at least a year now. I only wish the same avoidance technique worked on my wife's honey-do list. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repetitive, boring work is one thing - work created by someone else's errors they can't be bothered to fix is another thing entirely. Maralia 21:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We call that "nega-work" or "Wally work," but either way, you are my hero for fixing it!! --Kralizec! (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Greek Ship

Template:Greek Ship has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response needed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships)

Somebody please respond to this. If I do so myself, I will most certainly fall on my sword, which would be a sad occurrence seeing as it's my birthday, and my party's not till Saturday. Maralia 17:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear God, the number of 'ships' that will need renaming if this gets through. We use HMS whether it's a ship or submarine or a sloop or a frigate or whatever, no matter how it was rigged. As I also recall, we backdate, so HMS/USS etc used for ships that wouldn't neccessary have been named that (e.g. HMS Ark Royal (1587)). I vote consistency, and to overturn this...but I'm scared of posting that on the talkpage all on my lonesome. Benea 17:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is to say, overturn the current use of U.S. Brig Niagara (replica) in favour of a USS prefix. It certainly should NOT have those full stops (or periods as you prefer) in there. Benea 17:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relevent bit quoted here -

However, it is common practice to backdate the use of a prefix so that it applies to ships of that navy that historically would not have been referred to with that prefix, and Wikipedia follows this practice:

HMS Royal Charles (not "English ship Royal Charles")
USS Constellation (not "United States ship Constellation")

and I might add - USS Niagra (not "U. S. Brig Niagra") Benea 17:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I've had a closer look and he's talking about the replica ... duh, slaps self repeatedly round head with haddock a la Monty Python. In that case, I'm not sure what the convention is (except that those pesky dots are superfluous). And that we shouldn't rename every vessel that wasn't ship rigged to something like HM Sloop 'such and such'. Benea 18:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The replica ship is what started this iteration of the conversation - but he does appear to be proposing broad application of archaic prefixes, and in fact applying the archaic definition of 'ship' as well, hence my utter speechlessness. Maralia 19:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our guidelines are clear, and for once they tally with wikipedia's general guidelines (hurrah!). In this country we call that 'not having a leg to stand on.' I've pointed it out on the talkpage. And that I would think should be that. All together now...Happy Birthday to You, Happy Birthday to You, Happy Birthday dear Maralia...Happy Birthday to You! Benea 19:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user is back - this is what he has posted -

es, but we don't suggest listing Livy as "Herodotus", either, nor do we call him a Spaniard. If the use of "US Brig" is troubling, call 'em all "Niagara (XXX)", but to call a brig a ship in the title is neither modern nor SOP. As the convention makes clear, it's not necessary to write "the Victory". Why, then, should not we write "Niagara" and eschew the prefixes that seem to be at the heart of the conflict? There's a wide gap between avoiding archaisms or obsolete terms -- it would be foolish to list USS Constitution as a frigate, though she was then, because the term has taken on new meaning -- and using iinaccurate and misleading ones.

I started to respond but my blood pressure couldn't cope - can we please establish a consensual response? I'm really bothered that he seems to be advocating dropping the prefixes for every vessel that wasn't 'ship rigged' because technically they can't be Her Majesty's Ship xxx if xxx was a submarine, say. Despite the fact that WAS the name they were commissioned under, served under, were known by her contemporaries and are known in every reputable scholarly work that deals with the world's navies that I can think of. Benea 17:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a response. Disrupting the 'pedia to make a point is strictly against guidelines. Article names are supposed to help interested people find the article. Discussions about whether a vessel is a brig or a ship should be confined to articles about the language, and not embedded in article names. (And that's all I have to say about that.) Jinian 19:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

Could a template wizard look at Talk:SS_Christopher_Columbus#Infobox? I substituted the commercial vessel template for the previous one. One field, although filled, is not displaying, and there is a slight offset to how information is lining up. Thanks. Kablammo 15:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick question...

Should Warrior (1832) be at Warrior (ship)? Benea 23:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She was not a ship. US steamboat Warrior (1832) is a possibility.--Toddy1 10:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just following what seemed to be the protocol on other boat and ship articles, was this incorrect? I have never created an article about any type of water vehicle before. IvoShandor 10:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following our naming conventions - "But when the name is ambiguous, append disambiguation information in parentheses as usual. The date of launching can be used if there are several ships with the same name", and the example used is "Santa Maria (ship) (compare Santa Maria)". We would use the prefix if she had one. So SS Warrior would be the first choice I think, if that was how she would have been known. Failing that, it would be Warrior (ship), Warrior (steamboat) or Warrior (1832 steamboat), or maybe even Warrior (1832 ship), depending on how much disambiguation was needed. From interpreting the guidelines, I think 'SS Warrior', or failing that, 'Warrior (steamboat)' are the two best alternatives. I think we should be making clear in the title that the Warrior in question is a vessel, rather than some other alternative. Am I right? Benea 12:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome of this may also affect Enterprise (1814). Benea 12:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warrior (ship) would not be correct, and would most likely be accessed by someone looking for one of the HMS Warriors. Why not leave Warrior (1832) as is? ('"First, do no harm" . . . or "when in doubt, do nothing.") Kablammo 13:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be for moving it to anything but Warrior (steamboat) or something similar. I don't know that SS is appropriate, (or is it?) because I have never seen it referred to that way. Originally, I was going to name it "Warrior (steamboat)" until I saw other articles used the year to dab. I don't think there is any conceivable way someone could arrive at this article and not have been actively searching for it. Especially since Warrior is a dab page. But, of course, whatever is best, or whatever folks think is best is what I would defer to. IvoShandor 13:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Warrior goes to what you think, a warrior that fights wars, but the dab is linked prominently. Just to append and correct what I actually meant to say. IvoShandor 13:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) - I don't particularly mind. I think it would be helpful to make clear in the title that it as a ship/vessel/boat/whichever you prefer as opposed to anything else an article titled 'Warrior' might be. We disambiguate firstly by type and secondly by year, so it might be good to keep to that convention in this case. But I don't have any really strong feelings on the subject. I think Ivo's original suggestion of Warrior (steamboat) is the clearest, most accurate and helpful, and most in keeping with our guidelines. Anyone opposed to moving it there? Benea 13:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not here. Either can link to the other. Kablammo 15:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)No problems with the move, as I said, that was what I was going to originally call it anyway, I just thought I wouldn't be doing it right if I did. Thanks everybody for the input too. Hope you enjoyed the article, it was like unraveling a mystery doing the research, really fun. IvoShandor 17:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just moved it, it's now at Warrior (steamboat). Hopefully everyone is happy (or at least non-committal) about this. I agree it's a good article, well written and sourced. We could use a lot more like them! Well done for all your hard work in this area. Benea 17:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds about right to me. Glad to see an article about an early steam warship! I really must get on with finishing User:The Land/Wooden steam warship - please feel free to add stuff about American steamers if you want to! The Land 22:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carrier armor/armour

A new article, Comparison of armoured to unarmoured flight deck designs, could use the attention of one versed in WWII carriers. While the article is well-written, some of the facts may be incorrect and some of the conclusions may go too far. Kablammo 15:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to take a long look at this right now, but this essay may be useful in improving the article. TomTheHand 18:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might be an idea to move it to something like "Flight Deck Armour" or "Flight Deck Design" The Land 22:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

from the spund of the title it smacks of OR. especially with use of comparison and conclusion. GraemeLeggett 09:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article, while new, is spun off from another. Some of its conclusions are sound; others are open to debate, as shown in the article TomTheHand cites. It is almost unsourced. Kablammo 12:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why was it spun off, I wonder. Was it superfluous to the original or contentious.?149.254.192.195 14:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was spun off from Flight deck because it occupied a disproportionate amount of space there. It does seem like an essay and parts of it have uncited POV. While it appears to have OR, there likely are sources which would support most of it, unfortunately not cited. the piece also could be trimmed.

I suggest that further discussion be taken to the article's talk page, so that potential contributors can have the benefits of the thoughts and suggestions of the members of this project. Kablammo 14:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misnamed Ship

The USS Mettawee (AOG-17) has been misnamed the USS Mattawee (AOG-17) in Wikipedia -- appears to be a typographical error. I've added a comment to the article's talk page, along with rationale for the typo claim. I know Wikipedia is DIY, and considered attempting to correct the article myself, but am not an experienced Wikipedian and balked at the thought of changing an article title, associated class article title and internal references. My thanks to the many Wikipedians who have made Wikipedia an excellent reference for historical and contemporary ships. -- Jonathan Weesner 74.74.67.49 10:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have much else to do today, so I made the shift. The reasoning looks sound, DANFS lists her as Mettawee and half the article actually refers to her as Mettawee. I corrected any occurances of Mattawee in the text, so hopefully that's the matter sorted. I'm a Royal Navy man myself, so if there's some mistakes I've made and she is actually Mattawee, I'm happy to accept correction. Benea 10:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two CfDs of note for this project

Members of this project may wish to take note of a CfD that has been opened on Category:Disambiguation lists of ships. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 2#Category:Disambiguation lists of ships for more details. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Members of this project may also wish to take note of a CfM that has been opened on Category:Royal Canadian Navy ship names that proposes its merger into Category:Canadian Forces ship names. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 5#Category:Royal Canadian Navy ship names for more details. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please help

File:Pharaoh-MILHIST.PNG

What is Tag & Assess 2007? It's a Wiki-wide call for volunteers. To explain ... a month or so back, we ran a script to list all the articles in categories related to military history. This gave us about 165,000 articles. Some of these are already tagged and assessed as military history; some are military history but not yet tagged and assessed; some are not military history articles at all. This huge project — working thorough 165,000 articles — is called Tag & Assess 2007. To make it manageable, the list has been broken down into 330 ranges each of 500 articles. This is where youcan help.

Just... adopt-a-range from the available worklists then keep track of your tally on participants' list. The tagging is easy, just follow the simple instructions. Afterwards, as our way of thanking you, you'll be presented with service awards and barnstars based on the number of articles you process. Remember... the ranges are broken down into sub-sections of ten articles, so you work through them at twenty or thirty articles a day if you wish. To make Tag & Assess 2007 a success, we need your help. Please sign up now. Thanks.--ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 09:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ships called "The London"

Can any of the experts on this wikiproject help....Has there been more than one ship called "The London"? The article Rapparee, Ilfracombe discusses the wreck of "The London" in 1796, & see Morris, Steven (2007-11-06). "Prisoners or slaves? New row over wrecks bones". The Guardian. Retrieved 2007-11-06. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help), but the article it links to The London says it sank in the Bay of Biscay in 1866. Any help or explanation appreciated.— Rod ^talk 12:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ship names are rarely unique, and that's a particularly popular one. There have been no less than sixteen Royal Navy ships by the name of HMS London, for example; it's easy to imagine two merchant ships sharing the name within the span of 100 years. I suspect the person who wrote Rapparee, Ilfracombe just didn't check where his interwiki link went. That's an interesting article, and I'd be happy to help if you decide to write an article based on it. Maralia 14:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ship was (probably) the London rather than "The London". GraemeLeggett 14:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although not directly related, there have also been several (commercial) ships called The Londoner (none have a Wiki article as far as I know). -- Kjet 17:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um,

I'm not sure if you guys are aware of this, and i may be out of line for bringing it up, but when I was surfing through the list of articles for what links to your project I found an a-class review that no one from here has commented on here. At first I thought it was for the armed service group, but on closer inspection it says ships at the top; so i guess thats your project. It seems abadoned, hence why i bring it up; it ought to be commented on or closed or something; it looks wierd just sitting there unused. -- Wendy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.132.227.61 (talk) 10:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USS Kentucky (BB-66) is now an A-class article

This article has passed its Military History WikiProject A-class review. I did a quick check of all of our articles and this is currently the only A-class article in our project scope. Next stop Featured Article?-MBK004 20:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Kentucky (BB-66)? ;) Comments are welcome. Woodym555 20:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes ... man Tom doesn't rest for long. It just finishes the A-class review and he puts it up as a FAC almost immediately.-MBK004 20:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it is a quick, never stopping system (well, until it gets to FA). No rest for the wicked! Woodym555 20:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization question

In a recent CFD, it was noted that many ship articles are double-categorized in both a parent cat and its sub-category. Specifically, articles are put in both by-country and by-navy cats. For example, all articles in Category:Frigates and destroyer escorts of the United States Navy are also in Category:Frigates and destroyer escorts of the United States. All United States Navy frigates are frigates of the United States (obviously), so why can't you just make the by-navy cat a sub-category of the by-country cat, then put ships in the appropriate by-navy cat? I don't see any need to put them in both, it creates a lot of clutter. jwillbur 06:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message on your talk page to explain some of the background. Basically, the double categorization in "Ships by navy" and "Ships by country" has long been a thorny issue for would-be ship categorizers.

One of the problems with the proposal you're making here is that certain navies span several different political entities. The Royal Navy, for example, spans ships of the UK, ships of Britain and ships of England. And then navies can also change their names from time to time. For example, Germany had about five different navies during the 20th century. So this isn't as straightforward as it may first appear. Gatoclass 09:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Country and navy categories are not parent and child categories, but separate structures. Please don't remove country categories from articles or cats. TomTheHand 14:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, let me step back and answer more thoroughly. First, thank you for the categorization work you're doing. The work you've done to clean up the categorization mess on articles such as USS Litchfield County (LST-901)is awesome. Now, to explain the country/navy thing. There are a few opinions on the matter. On the one hand, there is a group of people who feel that ships should be categorized by country, because that's the easiest thing for laymen to browse. On the other hand, other people feel that ships should be categorized by navy, because it's more precise. There are also a number of people who feel that both categories should be used, to ensure absolute accuracy when the country or navy names have changed through history.

Merges have been proposed one way or another over the course of the past few years, and none are successful because the issue is so evenly split. If you'd like to try to change consensus on the issue, please go for it, but please don't just go ahead and make the changes. If hundreds of articles are categorized a particular way, there is a reason for it, and you need to discuss before making mass changes. TomTheHand 16:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the most cluttery thing is the presence of navy or country categories on ship articles. If the ship article has a class category, and that class category has the appropriate country or navy categories, there's no need for them to be on the ship article. That's something we did at one time, but we abandoned it as confusing, unnecessary, and messy. Your work removing those is invaluable. Thanks. TomTheHand 16:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For those coming late to the discussion, or for those who do not completely follow what TomTheHand said ... the gist is that individual ship articles do not need to be in the same navy/nation categories as the ship class category. As an example, USS San Francisco (SSN-711) does not need to be in Category:Submarines of the United States or Category:United States Navy submarines because the parent category for USS San Francisco (SSN-711), Category:Los Angeles class submarines, is a member of both Category:Submarines of the United States and Category:United States Navy submarines. Please note that this is not the case for other kinds of categories like eras. (Largely because ship classes often span multiple areas, even though the ships in the class do not. For example, while some Baltimore-class cruisers were built during World War II, later members of the class were commissioned years after the war's end.) --Kralizec! (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for putting era categories on class articles

There's a couple of issues I'd like to raise. First, there is nothing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Categorization that addresses the "Ships by type" tree. I really think we should work out a system for this tree as well, otherwise someone is eventually going to have to go back over all the articles and do them for this tree. I'm not sure how advanced the "Ships by place of construction" tree is, but I think a little time spent now working out a basic format for it, assuming it hasn't already been done, would also be useful.

On a more specific note, I disagree with the categorization guideline which says eras should not go on class articles, in fact it appears to contradict what TomTheHand said to me only the other day. It makes sense that era categories should not go on ship class categories, but I think eras have to go on the class articles because the era tree lacks class categories altogether and users need some means of a finding a particular class of ships in that tree. Gatoclass 22:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Ships by Type" tree is very high level and splits early into countries, navies, eras, and classes. Nothing related to "Ships by Type" should go on ship articles, class articles, or class categories. If we added every battleship to Category:Battleships it'd be really messy and hard to navigate.

I don't think eras should go on class articles, for the same reason that eras shouldn't go on class categories: you can very rarely specify eras that apply to an entire class. Let's take the Balao class as an example. Most were completed during World War II and served in that war, but not all. Some were completed after the war, while others were cancelled. Many went on to Cold War service, but not all; some served off of Korea, some off of Vietnam. There are many classes that are in the same boat (heh, that sounds silly): the Essexes, the Gearings, the Battles. I consider World War II categories to be inaccurate descriptions of these ships, and I don't think it's necessary to be able to browse classes through the era structure. Additionally, they make for messy browsing, if there are class articles scattered through a category of mostly ship articles. I think era categories should only go on ship articles. TomTheHand 23:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason, though, why more than one era cat cannot go on a class article. Since class articles are not ships, there aren't many other cats that exist for them, so I see no problem with having the Essex class article you mentioned going into Category:World War II aircraft carriers of the United States, Category:Korean War aircraft carriers of the United States and Category:Vietnam War aircraft carriers of the United States. I mean, look at it. The current article is only in two cats! And after all, if the user has gone to that particular page, he is going to find out that ships of this class were used in all those wars so it's hardly likely to be confusing.

As for it "making for messy browsing", on the contrary, I think it can enhance the neatness and convenience of the categories. For example, a while back (before I knew about the current guideline) I put all the amphibious warfare ship class articles into Category:World War II amphibious warfare ships of the United States, they are all listed logically at the start of the listings, go and take a look (I request you don't go altering them until at least this discussion is through). I think this sort of thing would be of great assistance to the user, because it enables him to see at a glance which classes were active at the time, and to go to any of the articles in question and then navigate straight to the individual ship articles through the class template. If you don't have a means of selecting by class here, you just have a whole mass of ships and no way to distinguish between one type and another unless you are familiar with the hull classification numbers.

So unless there's some other reason it shouldn't be done that hasn't yet been raised, I think it's worth considering adopting this method. Gatoclass 00:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But not all Essexes served in WWII, or Korea, or Vietnam, and so I don't think those categories should be used to describe the class. I do think what you've done at Category:World War II amphibious warfare ships of the United States looks good. Categorizing the class categories would look equally good, I think, and there'd be no need for sorting tricks: the categories would be listed separately at the top, and by clicking on them you'd be able to see a full listing of the ships in the class as well as being able to easily access the class article.

I don't know. I can see the advantage of giving era categories to classes, but I still feel it's better to keep them off to avoid implying blanket statements about the ships of the class. It's for the same reason that I wouldn't put Category:Submarines of Brazil onto Category:Balao class submarines or Balao class submarine, even though five Balaos were purchased by Brazil. TomTheHand 01:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sure, not all of the ships served in these conflicts, but some of them did. So putting the era cats on the class articles gives the reader a thumbnail view of the classes that were active in a particular era. That seems to me an advantage rather than a problem. And I think it outweighs the possible disadvantage that maybe some reader, at some point in time, might wrongly assume that the classes he is looking at only fought in that particular conflict, or that all the ships in that class necessarily fought in it. I mean, I think we should be prepared to give readers a little credit for being able to figure things out for themselves. Gatoclass 02:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kralizec? Maralia? Benea? Bueller? Bueller? I have no intention of speaking for WP:SHIPS here; my opinion is that era cats shouldn't be attached to classes, but I'm not strongly opposed to what Gatoclass is proposing. What do you guys think? TomTheHand 14:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reiterate - I can see the logic in excluding class categories from era parent-categories because if you do that you end up listing a whole bunch of ship articles in that era cat which did not actually serve in that era. But this is not the case for class articles. The class article gives an overview of the history of the class, not of individual ships. And since it includes, or should include, a potted history of all the eras the class was active in, it's hardly likely to confuse the reader. So there are no real disadvantages to listing class articles in era cats, and the advantage is that it gives readers a thumbnail view of all the classes which were active in that era.

It seems that most class articles currently have only a couple of attached categories anyway, so the addition of a couple of extra era categories is not going to overwhelm them and may be seen as an advantage. Moreover, the addition of era cats to these articles again gives the reader a quick thumbnail view of all the eras the class was active in, so I think it's useful in that respect too. Gatoclass 10:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have desperately strong feelings about this, both sides have their logic, so I'm unsure which approach would be best. Put me down as neutral, with a side order of non-committal. pip pip, Benea 14:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much like Benea, I do not have very strong feelings either way on this issue. I kinda lean toward not including era cats on class articles because the order-obsessed part of my brain wants both class articles and class categories to be in the same cats, and I definitely feel that class cats should not have era cats. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there's no obvious reason why class articles cannot be in both class cats and era cats. In fact, that's essentially what I've been proposing.

Anyhow, I'm still thinking about this proposal and how viable it is, to be honest I find the ship cats to be such a maze that it's difficult to figure out in advance which approaches might be viable and which might not. In fact I'm still not even convinced the current organization is viable :) It's certainly a big mess right now, so maybe the sensible thing to do is to try and sort out the existing mess rather than potentially adding to it.

Does anyone know where I might be able to get a full view of the ship categorization tree? I'm sure I've seen this somewhere but I can't remember where to look. Gatoclass 21:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Careful what you wish for. Rumours say that the last editor who stared into the inky, imponderable depths of our categorization structure ... went mad! --Kralizec! (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can verify that statement, because it was me. Wait, that's original research. Damn! Anyway, if you figure out how to view the full ship categorization tree, let me know because I'd love to see it too. TomTheHand 21:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, I got it! Special:CategoryTree! TomTheHand 21:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yuck. I think you can keep it. Gatoclass 22:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I have not posted here because this issue (era cats on class articles) is, in my opinion, a drop in the bucket. I'm going to start some BOLD cleanup of categories tonight. I won't mess with the era issue, or country vs navy, but there's a shitpile of other categories that are entirely misplaced. Get your pitchforks ready. Maralia 22:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right this is a relatively minor matter. I look forward to seeing what you can achieve. Someone certainly needs to be working on these categories, I'm afraid I personally have gotten a bit discouraged as I've become more aware of their complexities. Gatoclass 23:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, got a decent start. Began clearing up the ugly patrol craft/vessel/boat redundancy, and refined a lot of categories out of Category:Ships and Category:Ships by type into already existing subcats. All pitchfork-wielding parties please stand by till morning, as my eyes started crossing and I'm going to sleep. Maralia 07:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been giving the era-on-class-article issue further thought, and it's starting to make sense to me. I was kind of having the same issue as Kralizec: "I see no reason why class articles should have different categories from class categories, and I don't think era categories should go on class categories because it implies that the ships in the cat all served in that era." However, I've been thinking about a few things:

Class articles are currently hardly categorized. They're in the class cat, and they're in the Category:Ships by class cat, but the latter is probably redundant.
In many cases (minor navies, etc), we have a class article but no (or few) ship articles, and due to the lack of readily available sources, we may not have ship articles in a realistic timeframe. As a result, the era categories are underpopulated.
I can get over my mental block by thinking that era cats on class articles don't imply that every ship in the class served in that era, while sticking them on class cats does; therefore, class articles should be categorized differently from class cats.

So... shall we change the categorization guidelines? Era cats continue to stay off class cats, but they go on class articles. Class articles should be listed at the head of era categories, above all articles, like Gatoclass has done it. TomTheHand 15:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the undercategorization of class articles. However, I think the clause prohibiting class articles from country categories will also have to be removed along with the one prohibiting them from era categories.

I do think classes should be represented in some form in the era cats and this seems a logical way to go about it. Gatoclass (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that class categories carry country categories, I see no reason why class articles should have them as well. TomTheHand (talk) 05:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've currently given up trying to understand ship categories. However, as I recall the era categories are themselves divided up into country cats, thus you have for example "World War II amphibious warfare vessels of the United States". So I'm not entirely sure what that guideline which says class articles should not have country cats, means. Gatoclass (talk) 05:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It means don't put Category:Battleships of the United States on Iowa class battleship, because it's already on Category:Iowa class battleships. TomTheHand (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I still think the clause should be dropped, because it's not at all clear what it means and it seems to be addressing a commonly encountered kind of categorization issue that is usually resolved by commonsense anyhow. Gatoclass (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the clause should be dropped, because country categories shouldn't be put onto class articles and we need to say that somewhere. If it's phrased badly, it should be rephrased so it's clear. TomTheHand (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current FACs in the scope of this project

There are currently two Featured Article Candidates that come under the purview of this project in conjunction with the Maritime Warfare Task Force of the Military History WikiProject.
They are currently rated as A-class and also are the only A-class articles under our purview.
They are:

USS Kentucky (BB-66) review here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Kentucky (BB-66)
Pre-dreadnought review here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pre-dreadnought

Your participation and any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks, MBK004 22:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LSMR-401 class landing ship mediums

Two categories for US military ship classes are being considered for merging/renaming here. Assistance with determining at which title the categories should be located would be most appreciated. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I asked nicely,

would you guys assess the class and importance of the newly created article Sacramento class fast combat support ships? I would apreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rated as start and high respectively. Feel free to jump up and down on me if you disagree. Benea 14:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is this picture?

Check out Image:Harnett County AGP-821.jpg. The pink water is ... very odd. I presume it is not a red tide or something similar, but I really have no idea what it is. Any thoughts? --Kralizec! (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mud or sand, perhaps, from the landing craft? - BillCJ 17:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could be a sandbar or something similar its defiantly some kind of sediment in the water. MarVelo 21:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know where this is? Could be river outflow, depositing sediment. Or could be she's leaking oil. Trekphiler 08:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bleached coral? Does anyone know her history - Did she ground? Viv Hamilton 11:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Watseka (YT-387)

A.B. posted about this AFD on MILHIST a little while ago, and I think it's of interest to us. Quote:

Are commissioned naval vessels, including ocean-going tugs, inherently notable? --A. B. ^(talk) 13:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please weigh in. Thanks! TomTheHand 14:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

???

Can someone with a bit more experience in this field take a look at Trip pilots? At the moment it seems to be little more of a thinly veiled attack page, but perhaps something could be made of it? Benea 00:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I agree with your assessment of the article in question and have nominated it for speedy deletion via the G10 criteria. --Kralizec! (talk) 05:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A-Class review for USS Illinois (BB-65) now open

The A-Class review for USS Illinois (BB-65) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! TomStar81 (Talk) 06:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amphibious assault ships vs. amphibious warfare vessels

Articles

For a long time, I've thought the Amphibious assault ship article is a mess. THe Tarawa class amphibious assault ship page, for example, links to Amphibious assault ship, but instead of an aricle on the type of ships the LHA/LHDs are (large-deck ampibs), you get a noarrow opening definition of the ships, and the the article wanders all over discussing every type of amphibious warfare vessel. Is there any way we can address this? Perhaps the general information could go to Amphibious warfare vessel, with the Amphibious assault ship page covering LHDs, LHAs, LPH, LSDs, and those that are more properly called ships. THese are just my random opening thoughts - I wlecome any othe ideas/comments. - BillCJ 16:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably go so far as to say that the article should be renamed to "amphibious warfare vessel", and a new article at "amphibious assault ship" should be created at some point in the future. -- TomTheHand (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Do you think a move needs to be proposed at the article page, or just go ahead and do it? I'd probably be able to work up a basic stub on the big ships at the same time, somewhat like the LCAC page below. - -- BillCJ (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luxembourg Merchant Navy?

In the useful Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Ensigns, there's an ensign for the Luxembourg Merchant Navy. Luxembourg is landlocked. Is this ensign real? Folks at 137 17:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of landlocked countries at least Swizerland and Mongolia have (or have had) a merchant navy - so it's possible that the ensign is real. I'm not an expert though, so someone might know better. -- Kjet 18:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

NOTE: This is a copy of a proposal on the Maritime History task force page talk page; replies should be posted there.

Bouncing off an idea from MBK004 (talk · contribs), would there be any interest in treating featured topics for ship classes by updating the class page and ship pages to FA status? It could help expand our featured topic selection, which would be benificial to both the Military history Project and the Ships project. Comments? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WW2 Merchant shipping notability

Hi, I was wondering what (if any) were the notability guidelines regarding merchant ships operating or sunk during the Second World War? I've noticed a few ships gaining article which really do not seem to be especially exceptional (like SS British Premier) and I was wondering if all merchant ships sunk in WW2 or whether there are more stringent rules than that. I don't have strong feelings on this one way or another, but clarification would be useful.--Jackyd101 15:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All ships are notable in my opinion. Gatoclass 15:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Were the vessel to sink today, there would be a new article instantly created, with hundreds of edits in the first few days. (For that matter, if Edmund Fitzgerald were to go down now, the article would be much longer and fully sourced.) Presentism may be a jarring word but it decribes valuable concepts. Does notability attenuate over time? If so, why? What was notable in 1944 (or 1914, or 1912) should remain so today. Kablammo 16:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm to thank/blame for a good few of these articles (SS British Premier, SS Clearton and SS Atheltempler). Incidentally the Atheltempler was on the main page a couple of days ago as a DKY, so I think that's the most likely opportunity for anyone to weigh in with notability concerns. And there wasn't a peep. Whether ships are notable in their own right (I lean towards thinking that if a sourced article can be written on them, they are) is one thing, the fact these were actually sunk in combat, often with loss of life, at a time when the fate of nations depended on whether ships like this survived or not, makes ships like these notable beyond reasonable doubt. -- Benea (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all ships are notable and ships sunk in war are certainly notable. -- Inge (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) MV Golden Nori is a good example I think of a ship getting caught up in a situation, and an article being created about it. There seems little difference to me in the notability of the two situations. -- Benea (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, I have no opinion about this issue one way or another, but it is worth noting that literally thousands of ships were sunk by military action during the Second World War and even more during the First World War. I actually have a book which lists them and I would be surprised if the worldwide total was much less than 10,000 in each war. Now that is an awful lot of articles about an awful lot of ships which may not say anything substantially different from each other. The great difference between a ship sunk today and a ship sunk in 1942 or 1916 is that only a few dozen ships a year go down today, back then hundreds did. Now I am by no means opposed to the principle that all these ships deserve articles, but if so perhaps some guidelines should be set governing notability requirements (e.g. is every fishing boat sunk during the first world war notable?) and also a more refined category structure should be devised to maintain this potentially huge database of ship articles. This is why I raise the quesiton here, as this seems the place for the discussion of such things.---- Jackyd101 (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing it here-- given the level of response this is clearly the right place. You raise some good points, especially on where the line is drawn. But rules are always most difficult to enforce at the margins. The loss of a ship, with loss of life, may be notable; the loss of boat may not be. (And I would not go so far as to say that every ship is inherently notable, but others here do.) But is the loss of a ship in wartime less notable simply because of greater carnage going on contemporaneously? Is notability relative?

In part the multiplicity of articles can be controlled by treated some events in groups, e.g. PQ17. -- Kablammo (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there was one other thing I wanted to bring up, what are the rules regarding article titles? Because most ship articles, where possible, have the ship's prefix before the name in the title (which would make sense, aid disambiguation and tell readers that they are looking at a ship rather than anything else). Yet some long-established ship articles do not have the prefix e.g. Arandora Star or Empress of Britain (1930) for just two. What is the rule here?---- Jackyd101 (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked for a while, but I believe that prefixes are pretty much optional. I personally only use them when I need to disambiguate from something else, say if you have a ship called "George Washington" you are obviously going to want to name the article "SS George Washington" to disambig.

I don't believe prefixes should be used where they can be avoided because (a) they are not the most common name by which ships are usually referred to, thus violationg basic Wiki policy, (b) they are unsightly, (c) they are misleading in that the articles themselves generally don't bother with the prefix, and (d) they make it harder to search for something, ie what do you do when you know the name of the ship but are unsure of the prefix? So leaving out the prefix makes searching easier, and also creates less work for people wanting to link to the page. As I said though, if you have two different items with the same name then using the prefix makes a lot more sense. -- Gatoclass (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-military prefixes are often not consistently used in the real world and are not mutually exclusive. A MV (motor vessel) can also be a MT (motor tanker); MS (motor ship) and MV (motor vessel) are the same thing; a PS (paddle steamer) is likely also a SS (steamship), and different sources often use different prefixes for the same ship . . . long story short, non-military prefixes are kind of a crapshoot, so we often don't title by them unless a prefix is demonstrably well-known for that ship (RMS Titanic) or, as you mentioned, where it's handy for disambiguation. -- Maralia (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Era cats on class articles

Yesterday, I made a new post to last week's discussion on putting era cats onto class articles. I had reconsidered the situation and am thinking that perhaps we should change the guideline. I know most folks did not have a strong opinion on this, but I'd nevertheless like to ask that anyone interested check it out here. -- TomTheHand (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LCAC article

A few months ago, I noticed that there was no article specifically about the USN LCAC. I've finally been able to knock one together at LCAC, with some good pics. My knowledge of the type is very limited, and I don't have the time right now to do anything deeper. If anyone would like to help expand the article, there are some ELs included that should help one get started. Also, the German de:Landing Craft Air Cushioned page is a good start for anyone who reads the language. Thanks for whatever you can do to help this often-overlooked type. - -- BillCJ (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transclusion cost/benefit?

I recently edited the Tribal class destroyer (1936) page to replace many confusing links to vessels with the Template:Warship, however these were reverted shortly afterward and the editor pointed me toward the Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits while noting on my talk page that this template is too taxing for server processing. Does anyone have any thoughts about this? I would argue that the benefits of standardizing and simplifying links to articles on vessels, not to mention the kilobytes saved, would trump any minuscule increase in server effort....Thanks! Plasma east (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I routinely use the {{HMS}} template for linking to RN ships, but only when making new links - there's not really any purpose to be served by changing extant links in an article to use a template. Martocticvs (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Class and type categories

User:Jackyd101 has recently been going around removing the Category:Royal Navy ships of the line and Category:Ships of the line of the United Kingdom from articles (eg HMS Albion (1763)) that also have a class category attached to them. As far as I am aware, it is normal for us to include the class category AND the type category in these cases - but I think particularly so when it comes to ships of the line as the concept of a class, although real, is nowhere near as defined as it is in the modern sense. I think it is more useful to the reader to have the type categories present on the articles as well as the class. Martocticvs (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We used to put a type/country category onto every article, but you wind up with an overwhelming number of categories on ship articles, so the guideline is now to put it on the class category where possible and remove it from the ship articles. You bring up a good point about ships of the line, so perhaps they should be an exception, but I don't think country cats should go on every single article. List articles are a better way to provide people with a complete list of ships of a particular type. TomTheHand (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well perhaps that is best, then. There were a rather large number of ships of the line in total, so that list was already becoming quite long. Martocticvs (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ship pronoun usage

At the risk of asking a question discussed many times, what are the guidelines regarding the us of feminine personal pronouns for ships in regualr text (not in quotatations)? I've found no mention in the Project guidelines. I've always understood that formal ENglish used netral pronouns for inanimate objects, including ships. - BillCJ (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a lengthy discussion on the subject. There is one suggestion to use it instead of she there. --MoRsE (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an enormous can of worms to be opening. Conventional English language use is to refer to inanimate objects as 'it', i.e. "I have a new desk, it is 5ft by 7ft." Ships have long been a historical exception to this, with the argument that bestowing a name, when a ship is christened, bestows a gender, as with children, animals, etc. So, "HMS Victory was Nelson's flagship. She fought at..." I think we take the first use of the pronoun as the guideline for that article, like when deciding on US/British English spelling on articles when there is no national basis for choosing one over the other. Though sometimes the user who makes a major page expansion can set the precedent as well. Following common usage means we tend towards 'she' rather than 'it'. Benea (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your personal opinion on common usage, Benea. However, I asked if there were MOS guidleines for formal English usage, ie what would be proper for an encyclopedia. THere are many traditions in common usage of English, both American and UKish, that we do not use for formal writing, which isthe basis for the Wiki MOS. As a user of Southern AMerican English, would you support using "y'all" and "ain't" in an article on the US states of Alabama and Georgia, if that was what the first editor used? I somehow think not. - BillCJ (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no MOS mandate for pronoun usage in reference to ships. Benea accurately described the consensus under which we operate here, not his 'personal opinion'. Maralia (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I think I touched a nerve there. I understood what you asked, but I think you misunderstood my reply, which as Maralia has kindly pointed out, is not my personal opinion but what I thought was an accurate description of consensus on a subject that has been a bit too contentious so far to establish a sold MoS guideline. But I'm happy to take correction, if phrased in a slightly more pleasant way than your response was. Benea (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no MOS mandate for pronoun usage in reference to ships. is the answer I expected, not not some long, drawn-out rambling about history and usage that I already know. I'll just chalk this up as another case where formal English rules apparently don't apply to Wikipedia because people have emotional attachments to common usage. Or, in the style in which I will now start writing in mainspace, "Y'all don't make no sense!" :) - BillCJ (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT ;-) TomTheHand (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to add WP:DICK, since you obviously won't allow me the use of sarcasm. :P - BillCJ (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As another linguistic group might say, "Very bad form sir. That's just not cricket." Benea (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who objected to my unpleasant resonses because of misunderstandings, I see you have no objection to exercising both towards me. I've been around here a lot longer than you, so I'm well familiar with the alphabet soup "experienced" editors like to use to intimidate others who disagree with them. If the rest of you will please refrain from piling on as he has, please stick to the actual discussion at hand, or don't say anything. - BillCJ (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm genuinely a bit confused. At first I thought you were being a bit uncivil. Then I thought you were joking. Now I don't know what to think. Should I be laughing or taking offense? Help! Computerspeak may be all very well but it means we can't use the normal British gestures like facial expressions, winks, or secret handshakes (my personal favourite). I'll admit I'm a bit adrift at the moment. Please insult me slightly more explicitly (references to tea or cricket will do) if that was your intention. pip pip, Benea (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I quite like alphabet soup. Is that a bad thing? Benea (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting involved in a contentious issue such as this is not worth my time anymore. See this diff for an admin's attempt to edit war with me when he changed the pronouns already in the article, prompting my good-faith query here. Given this admin's quickness to edit war wih me on a French carrier article, I am certainly not going to correct the use of "his" on the Light aircraft carrier page for Spanish ships per this diff, even tho I believe it is wrong. Given the lack of clear consensus on the pronoun issue, I will no longer be changing any pronoun usages for ships in any articles, even if they don't match existing usage on that page. - BillCJ (talk) 08:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Hampton Roads

Does this article come under our scope? It is listed as a Featured Article on the project main-page, but about a week ago I looked at the article talk page and noticed that our banner was not there. Since it was listed on the main page I added the project banner there. Now I'm having doubts about if it belongs or not. Thoughts?MBK004 (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Seminole War ships

is orphaned. Please can one of the ship experts find a home for it, or (if it's not needed, nominate it for renaming or deletion? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 564: / Line 564: @@
 Does this article come under our scope? It is listed as a Featured Article on the project main-page, but about a week ago I looked at the article talk page and noticed that our banner was not there. Since it was listed on the main page I added the project banner there. Now I'm having doubts about if it belongs or not. Thoughts?[[User:MBK004|MBK004]] ([[User talk:MBK004|talk]]) 19:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
+== Category:Seminole War ships ==
+[[Category:Seminole War ships]] is orphaned. Please can one of the ship experts find a home for it, or (if it's not needed, nominate it for renaming or deletion?  Thanks! --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 15:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)