![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | → | Archive 50 |
I just noticed that |ship type=
parameter is not showing in the infoboxes, for example
here,
here,
here, and
here. Why is that? IMHO it is an extremely relevant field.
Tupsumato (
talk)
06:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
|Ship class=
and |Ship type=
have been separate parameters for a long time and they serve different but vaguely similar purposes; see the
Usage guide. I don't foresee one subsuming the other.|Ship class=
displays "Class & type: Whatever" while |Ship type=
displays "Type: Whatever". If both are used, this obviously creates an issue, but as I said before, the Sclass family is used quite a bit to display both class and type information in the class field. That's the immediate issue. —
Huntster (
t
@
c)
18:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)|ship class=
is used, |ship type=
should not be used. The latter is intended for vessels which do not belong to any particular class, which is the case for most ships (including sister ships which do not have an established class). There's nothing more to it.
Tupsumato (
talk)
23:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)|Ship class=
and |Ship type=
. Use of the {{
sclass}}
family of templates in |Ship class=
seems a sensible thing to do since it accords with the instructions in the Usage guide. In your earlier post you wondered if "type" is actually necessary. I think it is because the Usage guide provides for its use when
|Ship class=
is not used. This use is well demonstrated in the examples that Editor Tupsumato provided in the intial post of this discussion.{{sclass}}
with |Ship class=
. {{
Infobox ship characteristics}}
doesn't have to figure out how to format the class name. To get the same functionality from {{Infobox ship characteristics}}
, we'd need to build in named parameters for the five {{sclass}}
positional parameters, plus something to indicate if the link should be hyphenated ({{
sclass-}}
) and whether the class name should be rendered in italics or upright font ({{
sclass2}}
). This allows editors a great deal of flexibility.{{sclass}}
family that would act much like |Ship class=
acts now. The {{sclass}}
templates if written like this: {{sclass|||1}}
would automatically accept class name and ship type from the appropriate properties at wikidata. We can't do this now because the wikidata property P289 (ship class) contains the class name and the ship type and extraneous text and apparently there isn't a wikidata ship type property.Can an admin move HMS St. Vincent (1908) to HMS St Vincent (1908) over the redirect for me? Apparently the Brits don't use a full stop when abbreviating "Saint". Thanks in advance.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 17:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Editor Laddo has updated {{
Infobox ship characteristics}}
so that as they become available, wikidata items will be used when not supplied in the article's infobox or when the parameter value is not specifically set to none
. A list of ship articles that are using wikidata is at
Category:Ship infoboxes importing Wikidata (currently only |Ship class=
).
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 12:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
ship class=none
in {{
Infobox ship characteristics}}
, like
in this case;Is it contemplated that editors will have to go Wikidata to edit infoboxes? Kablammo ( talk) 23:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
A WD team is actively working at supporting edits to Wikidata properties directly from a change in a WP infobox. Is that safe? I don't know.
|Chip class=
only if that parameter is empty or omitted. If an editor sets the value of |Ship class=<anything>
then the template will display <anything>. To display nothing, in essence prevent autofilling by Wikidata, set |Ship class=none
. So, local always takes precedence over Wikidata. Right now, |Ship class=
in {{
Infobox ship characteristics}}
is the only parameter that accepts (improperly formed) data from Wikidata.Can we make the category:Ship infoboxes importing Wikidata into a hidden category please? Mjroots ( talk) 08:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
(ec) Another question - why is there a Ship class field in both Infobox: ship career and Infobox: ship characteristics? Surely the field should only be in one? This leads to confusion like in HMS Melton Nigel Ish ( talk) 19:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
|Ship class=
is in both {{
Infobox ship career}}
and {{
Infobox ship characteristics}}
. It is not in both templates because of anything related to the Wikidata change. Is there any reason why we shouldn't remove |Ship class=
from {{
Infobox ship career}}
.|Ship class=
is not documented in
Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide#Infobox ship career. The ship info box allows for multiple instances of {{
Infobox ship characteristics}}
so it would seem appropriate to use one {{Infobox ship characteristics}}
template to describe a ship's characteristics first as a
Tacoma-class frigate and then with a second {{Infobox ship characteristics}}
template as a
Colony-class frigate including those details that distinguish one class from the other even if the only distinction is the class name.|Ship class=
in {{Infobox ship career}}
is inappropriate and should be removed.{{
Infobox ship characteristics}}
, an alternative for
HSwMS Remus (28) and similar ships might be:
|Ship class={{Sclass|Spica|torpedo boat|1}} 1934–1940<br />{{Sclass|Romulus|destroyer|1}} 1940–1958
{{
plainlist}}
is more appropriate but <br />
is easier to do as an example. This particular ship is also odd in that
Romulus-class destroyer is a redirect to
Spica-class torpedo boat but nowhere in that class article is Romulus class mentioned.|Ship class=
should be removed from {{
Infobox ship career}}
.On May 7th of this year we will observe the 100th anniversary of one of the most consequential events in maritime history. May I suggest a full court press to get this article up to FA status in time for the anniversary? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
bit surprised there's not an article on this series of sternwheelers yet, but then lots of the roster of BC ships still needs an article; Samson V' is the Samson V Museum in New Westminster. I'm not sure what dab to use for a Samson (sternwheelers) dab...or should each one be listed without a coordinating dab page. Lots of technical resources to create articles are here and here and here. I'm very busy right now in real life as well as in wikipedia, and I know there's people who specialize in "ship-bios" so dropping this here, and will try to remember to put them on List of historical ships in British Columbia. Skookum1 ( talk) 06:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Per discussion at talk:MS Norman Atlantic#Total number of persons aboard and recent events in the Adriatic Sea, articles need creating on MV Blue Sky M (IMO 7510690) and MV Ezadeen (IMO 6614279). Mjroots ( talk) 13:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
If a ship was derelict for a very long time, would you create a infobox ship career entry for this? For example, MV Kalakala was beached and used as a canning factory for nearly 30 years, and then was repeatedly moved around as various owners tried to find money to restore it. Would you create a ship career of 1967-1998 as shrimp processing building, and as 1998-2015 as attempting restoration? Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 16:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
While stub-sorting I came across TSS Rathmore (1908). As usual when finding a stub with a disambiguation, I checked to see whether it was linked from the undisambiguated version: there's a redlink at TSS Rathmore. Normally I would move the article to the undisambiguated form, but I know ships are special ...
One question: Looking at WP:SHIPNAME I can't see anything which suggests adding a disambiguator to an unambiguous ship name. Is there a rule somewhere which this and many similar article titles are following, which mandates or allows the addition of an unnecessary date disambiguator? Or am I mis-reading WP:SHIPNAME?
Another question: Rummaging around in this sort of area, I found TSS Duke of Argyll (1909) and TSS Duke of Argyll (1956), linked nicely from a ship set index page at TSS Duke of Argyll, which is linked from a hatnote at Duke of Argyll. This all looked very sensible, disambiguation needed, used, and linked. But I then also found RMS Duke of Argyll (1928) (which wasn't included in that set index page, though I've now added it, and which doesn't have a redirect from RMS Duke of Argyll). Is it appropriate that the set index is still at "TSS", when one of its entries isn't TSS but RMS? Should it be renamed to something like Duke of Argyll (ship), or perhaps there be a redirect at that title for use in the Duke of Argyll page hatnote?
There was no mention of TSS Rathmore (1908) on the Rathmore disambiguation page, to which I've now added it. I thought this was an oversight in the creation of a new stub ... but then found it was created 4 years ago.
I can see there is a careful structure of ship names used by the cognoscenti, but I wonder whether there are enough helpful redirects, dab page entries, set indexes, etc to help the naive reader who just wants to find out about some ship which they find mentioned in a family history or other document?
Or have I just found a rare bad example? I see that TSS North Wall (1883) is linked by a redirect from TSS North Wall and a dab page entry at North Wall, just as it should be - though there's still the unexplained (or, I can't find the explanation) apparently unnecessary disambiguation.
I would hope that the policies on ship naming and ship name navigation would be such that for every ship "XXX Shipname (date)" there would be a link, or a dab page entry, from both "XXX Shipname" and "Shipname". And that there would be a clear note somewhere stating that date is/may be added to unambiguous ship names, if this is the case.
I'm not a ships expert, just a Wikignome who stub-sorts and mends dab pages etc and wants our readers to have as easy a time as reasonably possible in finding the stuff they are looking for. And to minimise the chance of some good faith editor creating a duplicate article (eg at "XXX Shipname" without a date) because there weren't enough links to help them find the existing one. Thanks for reading. Pam D 12:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
An illustration of a problem with the approach I suggest can be seen at Corsair where an editor insists ships have to be included in transportation, no red links and no pipelines. Palmeira ( talk) 15:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Update: Clarityfiend ( talk) has clarified things about dab pages not being ship lists—and I now tend to agree—so that may help with an approach. A general dab page, say "Monterey" or " Mariposa" covering a wide variety, would have a single link to the NAME (ship) list page that would be a more complete ship index. That would be a two click move from a bare "Mariposa" entry to a page with enough information to distinguish which Mariposa is the likely subject and, if covered here, a third click to the correct page. For the reasons I mention above, such a list would help editors here as a quick reference of a list for sanity checks they indeed have the right ship and even potential new articles. Palmeira ( talk) 00:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
As a related request, can someone move HMS Bat (1896) to HMS Bat as this appears to be the only ship of this name to serve in the Royal Navy. Nigel Ish ( talk) 20:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Participants in WikiProject Ships may wish to comment on the Style Proposal in
Talk:City of Adelaide (1864)
ThoughtIdRetired (
talk)
22:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
More important than this discussion, please see the request for information on apparent financial difficulties of those in charge of City of Adelaide (1864). This appears on Talk:City of Adelaide (1864). ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 21:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
As a note,
Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ships) (which I assume from the talk page is a WP:SHIPS guideline and consequently can be applied to all ships) provides the exact same advice on pronouns in its
Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Pronouns section as the abovementioned MILHIST guideline. The SHIPS guideline has done so since
September 2012, when it was
moved over from
Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines to consolidate naming information (I'm too lazy to look for when the advice was originally added to Guidelines). It was originally
added to Guidelines from MILHIST in April 2008, following the consensus of project members at
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Archive_9#Using_feminine_pronouns_when_referring_to_ships. The shortcuts
were
created at the start of 2009... maybe those shortcuts should be redirected to the SHIPS naming convention page as a more valid target? --
saberwyn 02:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC) --
saberwyn
02:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi ship lovers. I've just finished an initial translation of the above article and hope to run it for a DYK. I'd also like to try and get it to B class status if possible. Hope you enjoy it anyway! -- Bermicourt ( talk) 21:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion at WT:SHIPWRECK re the various lists of shipwrecks and overlinking. Please make your views known. Mjroots ( talk) 09:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej ( talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I asked [1] about this at the Reference Desk earlier, but got not reply. I thought I'd try it here as well:
I'm passing on a question by Christopher Braun regarding a painting by Cornelis Verbeeck. What is the green flag flown from the mizzen mast of the Spanish ship (to the left) in this painting?
I've searched around a bit, but can't find references to all-green flag relating to any specific Habsburg territory. My guess is a command flag squadron commander (rear admiral?), but I don't know if these were flown from the mizzen in the early 1600s. The red flag on the stern of the Dutch ship is apparently a signal flag showing intention to engage in combat. The red and yellow flag appears to be the flag of Enkhuizen in North Holland.
Peter Isotalo 16:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
An ip editor has made cut and paste moves from Douro-class destroyer (the correct name for the class according to Whitley and Conways to Vouga-class destroyer, and dropped an article covering a different class of Portuguese destroyer (known as the Guadiano class in Conways and Whitley), referenced to a blog in its place, with no discussion on article talk pages. Can someone fix this and either move it back or fix the edit history? Nigel Ish ( talk) 23:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
If someone here might be willing to review the new article Autonomous spaceport drone ship, especially with respect to its marine, ocean, and ship-type information, that would be greatly appreciated. In addition to a good set of marine-knowledgeable editor eyes on it, perhaps a ship infobox would be helpful, but I get confused on all the varieties of information that can go into those. You might also want to add your WikiProject tag to the Talk page; but since I am not a member, I'll leave that also to someone here who knows what s/he is doing. Thanks. N2e ( talk) 19:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if some ship knowledgeable folks might take a look over at the Autonomous spaceport drone ship article once again, just to see if we non-ship editors have correctly classed this maritime vessel. Specifically, would like help on ensuirng the classification is correct. It was clearly a barge when initially launched in the late 1990s. It was refit in 2014, has a bunch of azithrusters, and may even be capable of self-propulsion over some distance, albeit at slow speeds. Furthermore, SpaceX, the new owner/leasor/(or whatever the correct term is) has explicitly named it the Autonomous spaceport drone ship; but hey, they're obviously an aerospace company. (see the CEO, Elon Musk's, original Twitter post announcing the ship and publicizing a photograph for the first time.)
So, to you nautical types, is it unambiguously a ship? Or still a barge? -- no matter what propulsion and refitting was done? I don't know. And it seems pointless to have the spaceflight geeks like me and others try to figure it out. Would very much appreciate some help. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 00:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Looks like the NHC changed all the DANFS links recently. Lots of dead links out there. Can someone program a bot to crawl through and fix them? It looks like it might be too much for a bot to handle though, http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/l33/lynde_mccormick.htm is now http://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/l/lynde-mccormick.html -- Dual Freq ( talk) 03:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/e4/enterprise-vii.htm
http://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/e/enterprise-cv-6-vii.html
{{PAGENAME}}
to get the hull number. Of course there is no guarantee that hull numbers used in Wikipedia article page titles will match the hull number used in DANFS article titles. It is may be possible that the Wikipedia article title won't have a hull number though I think this unlikely since it will serve as a useful disambiguator.http://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/e/enterprise-sloop-i.html
http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs
. There are 9150 transclusions of {{
DANFS}}
, and 454 transclusions of {{
cite DANFS}}
.http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/m12/missouri-iii.htm
http://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/m/missouri-bb-63-iii.html
http://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/m/missouri-iii.html
{{
DANFS}}
templates don't require a url so there will be instances where there is nothing to fixYes, searching the new site is a pain, and worse, at least some of the DANFS entries appear to be missing.
However, the new site is not all bad news. Though there are only a handful of photos made available so far, many of them are HUGE - I am talking 20 Mb tiffs! The photos page says they are in the process of digitizing 150,000 images, which they hope to have completed by summer. If they are all digitized to the new size, they are going to be a fantastic resource for Wikipedia. It sounds as if the new website is going to take them quite a while to get fully functional though, so I guess we will just have to exercise patience and see how things turn out. Gatoclass ( talk) 16:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I can't fix the broken infobox at HMS Phoenix (1832). It's not the usual culprits, and I suspect it may be to do with changes to the templates. Clearly the double use of {{infobox ship characteristics}} used to work, and now it doesn't. I tried Firefox and Chrome - doesn't seem browser related. Any ideas? GraemeLeggett ( talk) 19:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
{{
plainlist}}
seems to have fixed the problem. I'm on wikibreak right now so don't have time to noodle-out why unordered lists, which used to work, don't.I've been expanding the {{ Surviving ocean going ships}} to include vessels built before 1965 (was 1960). All was going well until I added the 1964 ships. Can't work out what is wrong, and am in need of a kip (medication). I'll revert back to the last good version, but would appreciate someone fixing whatever is wrong. Mjroots ( talk) 14:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
This seems to be badly broken with the lead statement at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Articles US "This page contains a list of all articles in Category:Ships of the United States and its subcategories" meaningless. The concentration on USS articles apparently is the result of originating only in the listed articles on that page. Any fix? It would be handy as a quick check to see if any articles associated with one under development or major editing are also being actively worked. It is so limited now as to be not particularly useful for that. Palmeira ( talk) 00:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Texan schooner Invincible, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset ( talk) 20:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Extra eyes would be appreciated on the latest IP address of our favorite prolific vandal. I am pretty sure their previous IPs are all blocked. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Of possible interest to other editors on this project, especially those with an interest in ocean liners, is The Scientific American Handbook of Travel from 1910. The link is to the PDF of a book which contains tons of photographs of ships, both interior and exterior that I have never seen before. Unfortunately I have no idea how to copy images from a PDF. But if anyone does, I believe the images are in the public domain. Beyond which the book is an absolute treasure trove of material about pre-war (the first one) travel with a heavy emphasis on ships of the period. Honestly, I would even recommend taking a look purely for the entertainment value. In any event I thought I would pass it along for those looking for period source material or photos. Regards... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 05:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey I created this article on the Rio Damuji-class Frigate of Cuba a while back and am unsure of how to add it to ships project (or the Cuba project, really). I don't really know what to do so please help ^-^ Lollipoplollipoplollipop ( talk) 17:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello;
I've recently gotten involved with Wikipedia:WikiProject Haiti, working on articles about Haitian history. I started with Hammerton Killick, who was the admiral of the Haitian Navy in the late 1800s up to 1902. Needless to say when writing an article about an Admiral, there are a lot of ships that could use articles as well. Unfortunately I know virtually nothing about ships or how to find technical information about them (to fill in info boxes). I've written one article on the Crête-à-Pierrot, and would like to write more (see red-links in Hammerton Killick), but I was wondering if I could get some help from this project on finding sources. Thank you. ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 19:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Can someone move HMS Douglas (D90) to HMS Douglas (the latter is currently a redirect to Admiralty type flotilla leader) as there appears to only ever have been one HMS Douglas? Nigel Ish ( talk) 21:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Someone has created Djebel Chenoua Class corvette; I have interwiki'd it to the corresponding articles in French and Arabic. The lead is in English, the rest needs translation; the French article has an infobox and a list of the three vessels in the class that should be added here. Probably a quick job for a member of this project, but I would get all knotted up in the infobox. Yngvadottir ( talk) 16:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Is there anything in the MOS about abridging ship names within articles? For example, USS Frank E. Evans (DD-754) is abridged to Evans in the Melbourne–Evans collision article, even the title. It seems like it would be necessary to use the ship's full name (at least in the title) to be proper / respectful. Additionally, there were several USS Evans including USS Evans (DE-1023) which was apparently in service in the late 1960s era. Truncating the ship name in that article seems wrong (borderline offensive) to me, but perhaps I'm overreacting. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 03:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I recognize the annoyance of having to spell out or read Frank E. Evans each instance in that article where it currently says Evans so I can see the value in just saying Evans in the article body. However, based on the naming convention listed above, and the fact that there was a USS Evans in commission, but not involved with the collision, I would think at a minimum the article name should be changed from Melbourne–Evans collision to Melbourne–Frank E. Evans collision. Before I post to the article talk page over there, are there any WP:Ships folks that feel strongly that the title should remain Melbourne–Evans collision? -- Dual Freq ( talk) 22:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I can see the rationale on usage of just Evans within the article after the first correct usage in the article lead. I do think it's necessary and appropriate to use the full name in the article title. Are we saying the current title Melbourne–Evans collision is fine? Would the title listed on the jag-man site ( Collision of USS Frank E. Evans and HMAS Melbourne or ship names swapped) would be better than my earlier suggestion of Melbourne–Frank E. Evans collision? -- Dual Freq ( talk) 02:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
How many collisions involving ships named Evans and Melbourne have there been? Only one. There is therefore no confusion about which Evans is referred to in the article title. The body of the article quite correctly gives the full name of each ship at the first mention. Beyond that the shorter versions of the names are quite adequate in accordance with the customary style for maritime writing and to make the article more readable. - Nick Thorne talk 05:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Yesterday's
cleanup of
Wauwatosa (YTB-775) brought to light a bug in {{
navsource}}
. The template was changed from this:
{{navsource|14/09775|USS Wauwatosa (YTB-775)}}
to this:
{{navsource|14/09775|''Wauwatosa'' (YTB-775)}}
I think that I have fixed the template in its sandbox so that now all of the various forms of ship names are supported:
Have I missed anything?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 12:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
A template works for the non commissioned ships too, but contains more keystrokes than just doing [[[]] as far as I can tell. Any ideas? Perhaps {{nc|NAME|hull#| could be an always invisible "prefix"? Palmeira ( talk) 13:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
{{navsource/sandbox|14/09775|USS Wauwatosa (YTB-775)}}
[http://www.navsource.org/archives/14/09775.htm Photo gallery] of USS ''Wauwatosa'' (YTB-775) at NavSource Naval History
{{ship||Norma|AK-86|3}}
for
Norma (AK-86) requires extra typing and is a bit more complex than the double bracket link [[Norma (AK-86)|''Norma'' (AK-86)]]
using a cut and paste. My question is whether the prefix of USS, USAT, SS, etc., could be "nc" for not commissioned that would default to an invisible prefix? Thus the template {{nc|NAME|HULL#|#}}
could be used for shortcut formatting. Such a construct, {{nc|Norma|AK-86|6}}
now gives
{{SNNP}}
(ship name no prefix) or even {{NP}}
(no prefix). If, before we do that, we count keystrokes:
{{ship||Norma|AK-86|3}}
– 23{{SNNP|Norma|AK-86|3}}
– 22{{NP|Norma|AK-86|3}}
– 20[[Norma (AK-86)|''Norma'' (AK-86)]]
– 35{{ship||Norma|AK-86}}
– 21{{ship||Norma|AK-86|3}}
with that ship|| usage after becoming very used to {{prefix| use.
Palmeira (
talk)
16:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that when {{
ship}}
is used in a sentence and when article to be linked does not begin with a prefix of some sort then the template inserts an extra space:
Harbor tugs {{ship||Piqua|YTB-793}}, at left, and ''Natick'' ...
Looking at the output of the template shows why:
[[Piqua (YTB-793)|''Piqua'' (YTB-793)]]
I have fixed this is the template's sandbox:
[[Piqua (YTB-793)|''Piqua'' (YTB-793)]]
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 21:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Please could someone replace the bespoke infobox on Carter Safari 28 with something more standard? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | → | Archive 50 |
I just noticed that |ship type=
parameter is not showing in the infoboxes, for example
here,
here,
here, and
here. Why is that? IMHO it is an extremely relevant field.
Tupsumato (
talk)
06:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
|Ship class=
and |Ship type=
have been separate parameters for a long time and they serve different but vaguely similar purposes; see the
Usage guide. I don't foresee one subsuming the other.|Ship class=
displays "Class & type: Whatever" while |Ship type=
displays "Type: Whatever". If both are used, this obviously creates an issue, but as I said before, the Sclass family is used quite a bit to display both class and type information in the class field. That's the immediate issue. —
Huntster (
t
@
c)
18:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)|ship class=
is used, |ship type=
should not be used. The latter is intended for vessels which do not belong to any particular class, which is the case for most ships (including sister ships which do not have an established class). There's nothing more to it.
Tupsumato (
talk)
23:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)|Ship class=
and |Ship type=
. Use of the {{
sclass}}
family of templates in |Ship class=
seems a sensible thing to do since it accords with the instructions in the Usage guide. In your earlier post you wondered if "type" is actually necessary. I think it is because the Usage guide provides for its use when
|Ship class=
is not used. This use is well demonstrated in the examples that Editor Tupsumato provided in the intial post of this discussion.{{sclass}}
with |Ship class=
. {{
Infobox ship characteristics}}
doesn't have to figure out how to format the class name. To get the same functionality from {{Infobox ship characteristics}}
, we'd need to build in named parameters for the five {{sclass}}
positional parameters, plus something to indicate if the link should be hyphenated ({{
sclass-}}
) and whether the class name should be rendered in italics or upright font ({{
sclass2}}
). This allows editors a great deal of flexibility.{{sclass}}
family that would act much like |Ship class=
acts now. The {{sclass}}
templates if written like this: {{sclass|||1}}
would automatically accept class name and ship type from the appropriate properties at wikidata. We can't do this now because the wikidata property P289 (ship class) contains the class name and the ship type and extraneous text and apparently there isn't a wikidata ship type property.Can an admin move HMS St. Vincent (1908) to HMS St Vincent (1908) over the redirect for me? Apparently the Brits don't use a full stop when abbreviating "Saint". Thanks in advance.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 17:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Editor Laddo has updated {{
Infobox ship characteristics}}
so that as they become available, wikidata items will be used when not supplied in the article's infobox or when the parameter value is not specifically set to none
. A list of ship articles that are using wikidata is at
Category:Ship infoboxes importing Wikidata (currently only |Ship class=
).
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 12:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
ship class=none
in {{
Infobox ship characteristics}}
, like
in this case;Is it contemplated that editors will have to go Wikidata to edit infoboxes? Kablammo ( talk) 23:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
A WD team is actively working at supporting edits to Wikidata properties directly from a change in a WP infobox. Is that safe? I don't know.
|Chip class=
only if that parameter is empty or omitted. If an editor sets the value of |Ship class=<anything>
then the template will display <anything>. To display nothing, in essence prevent autofilling by Wikidata, set |Ship class=none
. So, local always takes precedence over Wikidata. Right now, |Ship class=
in {{
Infobox ship characteristics}}
is the only parameter that accepts (improperly formed) data from Wikidata.Can we make the category:Ship infoboxes importing Wikidata into a hidden category please? Mjroots ( talk) 08:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
(ec) Another question - why is there a Ship class field in both Infobox: ship career and Infobox: ship characteristics? Surely the field should only be in one? This leads to confusion like in HMS Melton Nigel Ish ( talk) 19:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
|Ship class=
is in both {{
Infobox ship career}}
and {{
Infobox ship characteristics}}
. It is not in both templates because of anything related to the Wikidata change. Is there any reason why we shouldn't remove |Ship class=
from {{
Infobox ship career}}
.|Ship class=
is not documented in
Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide#Infobox ship career. The ship info box allows for multiple instances of {{
Infobox ship characteristics}}
so it would seem appropriate to use one {{Infobox ship characteristics}}
template to describe a ship's characteristics first as a
Tacoma-class frigate and then with a second {{Infobox ship characteristics}}
template as a
Colony-class frigate including those details that distinguish one class from the other even if the only distinction is the class name.|Ship class=
in {{Infobox ship career}}
is inappropriate and should be removed.{{
Infobox ship characteristics}}
, an alternative for
HSwMS Remus (28) and similar ships might be:
|Ship class={{Sclass|Spica|torpedo boat|1}} 1934–1940<br />{{Sclass|Romulus|destroyer|1}} 1940–1958
{{
plainlist}}
is more appropriate but <br />
is easier to do as an example. This particular ship is also odd in that
Romulus-class destroyer is a redirect to
Spica-class torpedo boat but nowhere in that class article is Romulus class mentioned.|Ship class=
should be removed from {{
Infobox ship career}}
.On May 7th of this year we will observe the 100th anniversary of one of the most consequential events in maritime history. May I suggest a full court press to get this article up to FA status in time for the anniversary? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
bit surprised there's not an article on this series of sternwheelers yet, but then lots of the roster of BC ships still needs an article; Samson V' is the Samson V Museum in New Westminster. I'm not sure what dab to use for a Samson (sternwheelers) dab...or should each one be listed without a coordinating dab page. Lots of technical resources to create articles are here and here and here. I'm very busy right now in real life as well as in wikipedia, and I know there's people who specialize in "ship-bios" so dropping this here, and will try to remember to put them on List of historical ships in British Columbia. Skookum1 ( talk) 06:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Per discussion at talk:MS Norman Atlantic#Total number of persons aboard and recent events in the Adriatic Sea, articles need creating on MV Blue Sky M (IMO 7510690) and MV Ezadeen (IMO 6614279). Mjroots ( talk) 13:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
If a ship was derelict for a very long time, would you create a infobox ship career entry for this? For example, MV Kalakala was beached and used as a canning factory for nearly 30 years, and then was repeatedly moved around as various owners tried to find money to restore it. Would you create a ship career of 1967-1998 as shrimp processing building, and as 1998-2015 as attempting restoration? Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 16:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
While stub-sorting I came across TSS Rathmore (1908). As usual when finding a stub with a disambiguation, I checked to see whether it was linked from the undisambiguated version: there's a redlink at TSS Rathmore. Normally I would move the article to the undisambiguated form, but I know ships are special ...
One question: Looking at WP:SHIPNAME I can't see anything which suggests adding a disambiguator to an unambiguous ship name. Is there a rule somewhere which this and many similar article titles are following, which mandates or allows the addition of an unnecessary date disambiguator? Or am I mis-reading WP:SHIPNAME?
Another question: Rummaging around in this sort of area, I found TSS Duke of Argyll (1909) and TSS Duke of Argyll (1956), linked nicely from a ship set index page at TSS Duke of Argyll, which is linked from a hatnote at Duke of Argyll. This all looked very sensible, disambiguation needed, used, and linked. But I then also found RMS Duke of Argyll (1928) (which wasn't included in that set index page, though I've now added it, and which doesn't have a redirect from RMS Duke of Argyll). Is it appropriate that the set index is still at "TSS", when one of its entries isn't TSS but RMS? Should it be renamed to something like Duke of Argyll (ship), or perhaps there be a redirect at that title for use in the Duke of Argyll page hatnote?
There was no mention of TSS Rathmore (1908) on the Rathmore disambiguation page, to which I've now added it. I thought this was an oversight in the creation of a new stub ... but then found it was created 4 years ago.
I can see there is a careful structure of ship names used by the cognoscenti, but I wonder whether there are enough helpful redirects, dab page entries, set indexes, etc to help the naive reader who just wants to find out about some ship which they find mentioned in a family history or other document?
Or have I just found a rare bad example? I see that TSS North Wall (1883) is linked by a redirect from TSS North Wall and a dab page entry at North Wall, just as it should be - though there's still the unexplained (or, I can't find the explanation) apparently unnecessary disambiguation.
I would hope that the policies on ship naming and ship name navigation would be such that for every ship "XXX Shipname (date)" there would be a link, or a dab page entry, from both "XXX Shipname" and "Shipname". And that there would be a clear note somewhere stating that date is/may be added to unambiguous ship names, if this is the case.
I'm not a ships expert, just a Wikignome who stub-sorts and mends dab pages etc and wants our readers to have as easy a time as reasonably possible in finding the stuff they are looking for. And to minimise the chance of some good faith editor creating a duplicate article (eg at "XXX Shipname" without a date) because there weren't enough links to help them find the existing one. Thanks for reading. Pam D 12:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
An illustration of a problem with the approach I suggest can be seen at Corsair where an editor insists ships have to be included in transportation, no red links and no pipelines. Palmeira ( talk) 15:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Update: Clarityfiend ( talk) has clarified things about dab pages not being ship lists—and I now tend to agree—so that may help with an approach. A general dab page, say "Monterey" or " Mariposa" covering a wide variety, would have a single link to the NAME (ship) list page that would be a more complete ship index. That would be a two click move from a bare "Mariposa" entry to a page with enough information to distinguish which Mariposa is the likely subject and, if covered here, a third click to the correct page. For the reasons I mention above, such a list would help editors here as a quick reference of a list for sanity checks they indeed have the right ship and even potential new articles. Palmeira ( talk) 00:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
As a related request, can someone move HMS Bat (1896) to HMS Bat as this appears to be the only ship of this name to serve in the Royal Navy. Nigel Ish ( talk) 20:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Participants in WikiProject Ships may wish to comment on the Style Proposal in
Talk:City of Adelaide (1864)
ThoughtIdRetired (
talk)
22:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
More important than this discussion, please see the request for information on apparent financial difficulties of those in charge of City of Adelaide (1864). This appears on Talk:City of Adelaide (1864). ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 21:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
As a note,
Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ships) (which I assume from the talk page is a WP:SHIPS guideline and consequently can be applied to all ships) provides the exact same advice on pronouns in its
Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Pronouns section as the abovementioned MILHIST guideline. The SHIPS guideline has done so since
September 2012, when it was
moved over from
Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines to consolidate naming information (I'm too lazy to look for when the advice was originally added to Guidelines). It was originally
added to Guidelines from MILHIST in April 2008, following the consensus of project members at
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Archive_9#Using_feminine_pronouns_when_referring_to_ships. The shortcuts
were
created at the start of 2009... maybe those shortcuts should be redirected to the SHIPS naming convention page as a more valid target? --
saberwyn 02:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC) --
saberwyn
02:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi ship lovers. I've just finished an initial translation of the above article and hope to run it for a DYK. I'd also like to try and get it to B class status if possible. Hope you enjoy it anyway! -- Bermicourt ( talk) 21:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion at WT:SHIPWRECK re the various lists of shipwrecks and overlinking. Please make your views known. Mjroots ( talk) 09:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej ( talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I asked [1] about this at the Reference Desk earlier, but got not reply. I thought I'd try it here as well:
I'm passing on a question by Christopher Braun regarding a painting by Cornelis Verbeeck. What is the green flag flown from the mizzen mast of the Spanish ship (to the left) in this painting?
I've searched around a bit, but can't find references to all-green flag relating to any specific Habsburg territory. My guess is a command flag squadron commander (rear admiral?), but I don't know if these were flown from the mizzen in the early 1600s. The red flag on the stern of the Dutch ship is apparently a signal flag showing intention to engage in combat. The red and yellow flag appears to be the flag of Enkhuizen in North Holland.
Peter Isotalo 16:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
An ip editor has made cut and paste moves from Douro-class destroyer (the correct name for the class according to Whitley and Conways to Vouga-class destroyer, and dropped an article covering a different class of Portuguese destroyer (known as the Guadiano class in Conways and Whitley), referenced to a blog in its place, with no discussion on article talk pages. Can someone fix this and either move it back or fix the edit history? Nigel Ish ( talk) 23:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
If someone here might be willing to review the new article Autonomous spaceport drone ship, especially with respect to its marine, ocean, and ship-type information, that would be greatly appreciated. In addition to a good set of marine-knowledgeable editor eyes on it, perhaps a ship infobox would be helpful, but I get confused on all the varieties of information that can go into those. You might also want to add your WikiProject tag to the Talk page; but since I am not a member, I'll leave that also to someone here who knows what s/he is doing. Thanks. N2e ( talk) 19:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if some ship knowledgeable folks might take a look over at the Autonomous spaceport drone ship article once again, just to see if we non-ship editors have correctly classed this maritime vessel. Specifically, would like help on ensuirng the classification is correct. It was clearly a barge when initially launched in the late 1990s. It was refit in 2014, has a bunch of azithrusters, and may even be capable of self-propulsion over some distance, albeit at slow speeds. Furthermore, SpaceX, the new owner/leasor/(or whatever the correct term is) has explicitly named it the Autonomous spaceport drone ship; but hey, they're obviously an aerospace company. (see the CEO, Elon Musk's, original Twitter post announcing the ship and publicizing a photograph for the first time.)
So, to you nautical types, is it unambiguously a ship? Or still a barge? -- no matter what propulsion and refitting was done? I don't know. And it seems pointless to have the spaceflight geeks like me and others try to figure it out. Would very much appreciate some help. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 00:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Looks like the NHC changed all the DANFS links recently. Lots of dead links out there. Can someone program a bot to crawl through and fix them? It looks like it might be too much for a bot to handle though, http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/l33/lynde_mccormick.htm is now http://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/l/lynde-mccormick.html -- Dual Freq ( talk) 03:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/e4/enterprise-vii.htm
http://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/e/enterprise-cv-6-vii.html
{{PAGENAME}}
to get the hull number. Of course there is no guarantee that hull numbers used in Wikipedia article page titles will match the hull number used in DANFS article titles. It is may be possible that the Wikipedia article title won't have a hull number though I think this unlikely since it will serve as a useful disambiguator.http://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/e/enterprise-sloop-i.html
http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs
. There are 9150 transclusions of {{
DANFS}}
, and 454 transclusions of {{
cite DANFS}}
.http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/m12/missouri-iii.htm
http://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/m/missouri-bb-63-iii.html
http://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/m/missouri-iii.html
{{
DANFS}}
templates don't require a url so there will be instances where there is nothing to fixYes, searching the new site is a pain, and worse, at least some of the DANFS entries appear to be missing.
However, the new site is not all bad news. Though there are only a handful of photos made available so far, many of them are HUGE - I am talking 20 Mb tiffs! The photos page says they are in the process of digitizing 150,000 images, which they hope to have completed by summer. If they are all digitized to the new size, they are going to be a fantastic resource for Wikipedia. It sounds as if the new website is going to take them quite a while to get fully functional though, so I guess we will just have to exercise patience and see how things turn out. Gatoclass ( talk) 16:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I can't fix the broken infobox at HMS Phoenix (1832). It's not the usual culprits, and I suspect it may be to do with changes to the templates. Clearly the double use of {{infobox ship characteristics}} used to work, and now it doesn't. I tried Firefox and Chrome - doesn't seem browser related. Any ideas? GraemeLeggett ( talk) 19:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
{{
plainlist}}
seems to have fixed the problem. I'm on wikibreak right now so don't have time to noodle-out why unordered lists, which used to work, don't.I've been expanding the {{ Surviving ocean going ships}} to include vessels built before 1965 (was 1960). All was going well until I added the 1964 ships. Can't work out what is wrong, and am in need of a kip (medication). I'll revert back to the last good version, but would appreciate someone fixing whatever is wrong. Mjroots ( talk) 14:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
This seems to be badly broken with the lead statement at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Articles US "This page contains a list of all articles in Category:Ships of the United States and its subcategories" meaningless. The concentration on USS articles apparently is the result of originating only in the listed articles on that page. Any fix? It would be handy as a quick check to see if any articles associated with one under development or major editing are also being actively worked. It is so limited now as to be not particularly useful for that. Palmeira ( talk) 00:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Texan schooner Invincible, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset ( talk) 20:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Extra eyes would be appreciated on the latest IP address of our favorite prolific vandal. I am pretty sure their previous IPs are all blocked. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Of possible interest to other editors on this project, especially those with an interest in ocean liners, is The Scientific American Handbook of Travel from 1910. The link is to the PDF of a book which contains tons of photographs of ships, both interior and exterior that I have never seen before. Unfortunately I have no idea how to copy images from a PDF. But if anyone does, I believe the images are in the public domain. Beyond which the book is an absolute treasure trove of material about pre-war (the first one) travel with a heavy emphasis on ships of the period. Honestly, I would even recommend taking a look purely for the entertainment value. In any event I thought I would pass it along for those looking for period source material or photos. Regards... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 05:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey I created this article on the Rio Damuji-class Frigate of Cuba a while back and am unsure of how to add it to ships project (or the Cuba project, really). I don't really know what to do so please help ^-^ Lollipoplollipoplollipop ( talk) 17:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello;
I've recently gotten involved with Wikipedia:WikiProject Haiti, working on articles about Haitian history. I started with Hammerton Killick, who was the admiral of the Haitian Navy in the late 1800s up to 1902. Needless to say when writing an article about an Admiral, there are a lot of ships that could use articles as well. Unfortunately I know virtually nothing about ships or how to find technical information about them (to fill in info boxes). I've written one article on the Crête-à-Pierrot, and would like to write more (see red-links in Hammerton Killick), but I was wondering if I could get some help from this project on finding sources. Thank you. ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 19:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Can someone move HMS Douglas (D90) to HMS Douglas (the latter is currently a redirect to Admiralty type flotilla leader) as there appears to only ever have been one HMS Douglas? Nigel Ish ( talk) 21:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Someone has created Djebel Chenoua Class corvette; I have interwiki'd it to the corresponding articles in French and Arabic. The lead is in English, the rest needs translation; the French article has an infobox and a list of the three vessels in the class that should be added here. Probably a quick job for a member of this project, but I would get all knotted up in the infobox. Yngvadottir ( talk) 16:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Is there anything in the MOS about abridging ship names within articles? For example, USS Frank E. Evans (DD-754) is abridged to Evans in the Melbourne–Evans collision article, even the title. It seems like it would be necessary to use the ship's full name (at least in the title) to be proper / respectful. Additionally, there were several USS Evans including USS Evans (DE-1023) which was apparently in service in the late 1960s era. Truncating the ship name in that article seems wrong (borderline offensive) to me, but perhaps I'm overreacting. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 03:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I recognize the annoyance of having to spell out or read Frank E. Evans each instance in that article where it currently says Evans so I can see the value in just saying Evans in the article body. However, based on the naming convention listed above, and the fact that there was a USS Evans in commission, but not involved with the collision, I would think at a minimum the article name should be changed from Melbourne–Evans collision to Melbourne–Frank E. Evans collision. Before I post to the article talk page over there, are there any WP:Ships folks that feel strongly that the title should remain Melbourne–Evans collision? -- Dual Freq ( talk) 22:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I can see the rationale on usage of just Evans within the article after the first correct usage in the article lead. I do think it's necessary and appropriate to use the full name in the article title. Are we saying the current title Melbourne–Evans collision is fine? Would the title listed on the jag-man site ( Collision of USS Frank E. Evans and HMAS Melbourne or ship names swapped) would be better than my earlier suggestion of Melbourne–Frank E. Evans collision? -- Dual Freq ( talk) 02:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
How many collisions involving ships named Evans and Melbourne have there been? Only one. There is therefore no confusion about which Evans is referred to in the article title. The body of the article quite correctly gives the full name of each ship at the first mention. Beyond that the shorter versions of the names are quite adequate in accordance with the customary style for maritime writing and to make the article more readable. - Nick Thorne talk 05:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Yesterday's
cleanup of
Wauwatosa (YTB-775) brought to light a bug in {{
navsource}}
. The template was changed from this:
{{navsource|14/09775|USS Wauwatosa (YTB-775)}}
to this:
{{navsource|14/09775|''Wauwatosa'' (YTB-775)}}
I think that I have fixed the template in its sandbox so that now all of the various forms of ship names are supported:
Have I missed anything?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 12:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
A template works for the non commissioned ships too, but contains more keystrokes than just doing [[[]] as far as I can tell. Any ideas? Perhaps {{nc|NAME|hull#| could be an always invisible "prefix"? Palmeira ( talk) 13:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
{{navsource/sandbox|14/09775|USS Wauwatosa (YTB-775)}}
[http://www.navsource.org/archives/14/09775.htm Photo gallery] of USS ''Wauwatosa'' (YTB-775) at NavSource Naval History
{{ship||Norma|AK-86|3}}
for
Norma (AK-86) requires extra typing and is a bit more complex than the double bracket link [[Norma (AK-86)|''Norma'' (AK-86)]]
using a cut and paste. My question is whether the prefix of USS, USAT, SS, etc., could be "nc" for not commissioned that would default to an invisible prefix? Thus the template {{nc|NAME|HULL#|#}}
could be used for shortcut formatting. Such a construct, {{nc|Norma|AK-86|6}}
now gives
{{SNNP}}
(ship name no prefix) or even {{NP}}
(no prefix). If, before we do that, we count keystrokes:
{{ship||Norma|AK-86|3}}
– 23{{SNNP|Norma|AK-86|3}}
– 22{{NP|Norma|AK-86|3}}
– 20[[Norma (AK-86)|''Norma'' (AK-86)]]
– 35{{ship||Norma|AK-86}}
– 21{{ship||Norma|AK-86|3}}
with that ship|| usage after becoming very used to {{prefix| use.
Palmeira (
talk)
16:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that when {{
ship}}
is used in a sentence and when article to be linked does not begin with a prefix of some sort then the template inserts an extra space:
Harbor tugs {{ship||Piqua|YTB-793}}, at left, and ''Natick'' ...
Looking at the output of the template shows why:
[[Piqua (YTB-793)|''Piqua'' (YTB-793)]]
I have fixed this is the template's sandbox:
[[Piqua (YTB-793)|''Piqua'' (YTB-793)]]
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 21:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Please could someone replace the bespoke infobox on Carter Safari 28 with something more standard? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)