Talk:Lists of ships

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lists of ships article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Lists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Ships

This article 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

Military history: Maritime / National

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	National militaries task force

Untitled

Is there a list of just Ironclad ships used in the Civil War?

What is the significance of the use of italics in the article? -Arb. 15:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Referring to ships, we italicize the name of a ship (but not its prefix or designation). Maralia 16:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reference. There is some interesting and useful information there. And Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Capital_letters_or_italics.3F explains the why and wherefore. -Arb. 16:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you are a piece of donkey shit 151.111.138.54 (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review outcome

I knew this would get complex. There was a deletion review on this. I am searching for it and will put the link here shortly.

In the meantime I have removed the speedy deletion flag. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's here, sorry about the G4. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to it! Understandable. I wish that "something" had been done instead of "nothing". I knew this would happen Fiddle Faddle (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of ships – No action necessary. Point to this if anyone tries to G4 the current Lists of ships. – lifebaka++ 05:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I was the original nominator of this at AfD. During the process the article was completely rewritten. Any consensus that obtained before that rewrite became irrelevant because of the rewrite. Because of the rewrite I withdrew my nomination (by no means expecting this to close the discussion early - one editor one opinion). The fact of the massive rewrite was flagged, and I believed a new consensus had formed in favour of keeping the article. It appears to me, despite the closer giving a rationale on his/her own talk page when challenged, that this was an improperly read consensus and that the deletion should be overturned. The closer has suggested that this be taken to Deletion Review, so I see no further need to negotiate with them. If it is then felt essential a procedural AfD should be undertaken to find a true consensus. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the cache link reflects the "pre-rewrite" version of the article, as originally proposed for deletion, not the version at the close of the AfD, which may now be found at Lists of ships -- Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Correct the result but don't relist. Agree with the reasoning; the first delete !votes are in regards to a completely different article than the latter keep-!votes, so any consensus of this discussion could never be determined by comparing the arguments of those batches. But the article has been recreated in the latter state already, so there is no reason to relist it back. But a note should be attached to the article and the AfD that the close itself was not correct judgment of consensus so we don't get G4-taggings and suchlike. Regards So Why 23:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- clarify, please because I can interpret this as either "this is the correct result", or "please correct the result". Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, yes, sorry. I meant "correct the result". Must have forgotten the "the". Regards So Why 23:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I was the one who closed this AfD. While I personally believe that I interpreted the situation correctly, it is of course possible that I was wrong. I encouraged the nominator to take this to deletion review because I'm not horribly fond of the idea of reversing my own administrative actions when I'm still convinced that they were right. But I would take no offense should another admin like to overturn the deletion without going through all the bureacratic motions and I would not consider it wheel-warring. L'Aquatique[talk] 23:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rjd0060 correctly relisted the debate because of the major changes to the article and the rewrite was clearly marked within the discussion. None of the comments that came after the changes were in favor of deletion, so the result should be corrected (changed to keep instead of delete) to reflect that. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
overturn- the consensus had clearly shifted towards keep after the relist. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
overturn apparently only one person wanted to delete the rewritten version, and didn't give much of a reason. The closing admin doesn't give a reason for this decision. I really hope this isn't just a case of a bean-counting, no-reading AFD close gone embarrassingly wrong... but there seems to be little reason given to delete the rewritten article. The delete comments, except for the late one which contained no argument, were all clearly talking about a fundamentally different version of the article. --Rividian (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do nothing. If I read the logs correctly, the rewritten version was moved to Lists of ships before it was deleted so the only thing deleted was a redirect which has since been recreated. While that makes the deleting admin doubly guilty, for both for misreading the AfD and not noting that the article was not the one under discussion (how can a redirect be an indiscriminant list?), it makes the solution simple. The status quo is fine so there's nothing to do unless someone wants to ammend the AfD (a practice I don't much like) or make sure that things are clear on the articles (new) talk page. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, I think you are correct so far, but I think a correction of the AfD's outcome would benefit us so everyone knows the new list is not against the AfD's consensus and that it cannot be targeted by G4. Regards So Why 08:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I support that view (G4 proofing). I also do wonder at the technical parts of the closing of this AfD since the article, bizarrely (and pleasingly) survives! Do admins have some sort of "autoclose" bot that takes the task over, but that needs rather more careful supervision than may have happened here? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Most admins use User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD.js, a very good script to automate the needed template changes and tasks when deleting. Assessing the consensus is nothing an bot could ever do, so that is still the job of the admins. Regards So Why 09:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do nothing per Eluchil404. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do nothing per Eluchil404. Sandstein 18:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

I bet someone speedies it again, though :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added these hidden comments to the top of the article. This will be the first thing one sees after hitting "edit"...

<!-- Please do not tag this article with db-afd. --> 
<!-- Please review "Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 November 26" for the reason why -->

--Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed hidden comments. It's been a month since the AFD so they shouldn't be needed anymore. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]