![]() | 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 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | → | Archive 50 |
Hello,
Wikimedia France has provided me with the complete collection of Demerliac numenclature of French ships from 1610 to 1871 [1]. They contain basic data on virtually all ships afloat at these times (warships, privateers, East indiamen, merchantmen, fishing and whalers, etc.). Do not hesitate to ask me if I can be of any help with this ressource.
Cheers! Rama ( talk) 11:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC) PS: If you can forward this annoucement to Wikipedias in a language that I do not speak, or to other interested projets of which I have not thought, I would be grateful. Rama ( talk) 12:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, if you have the time, could you take a look at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Battleships of Italy/archive1 and post your thoughts? Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 12:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
The following journals/magazines are fairly highly cited on Wikipedia (see WP:JCW)
Any help on writing these articles would be much appreciated. You can consult our guides at WP:JWG and WP:MWG for help on writing them. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Pennsy22 has made several cut-and-paste moves of several ship articles in the past few days. I reverted the one that was on my watchlist, but I'm trying to go to sleep now, so I don't need to try to revert these moves myself. I don't currently have an opinion on whether or not the page names should be changed, just that it shouldn't be by cut-and-paste. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 10:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Help, I mistakenly copy/pasted the Denver-class cruisers from their "CL" pages to their "C" pages because I thought I had seen somewhere that the ship should be placed on the page that either they were known as for the longest or if they were more famous under a different designation. These cruisers were C-X from 1902-1920 and then changed to CL-X after 1921 until scrapping around 1930. I think they should be moved but I don't know where to find the rule for this. Thanks for any help you can give me. Pennsy22 ( talk) 10:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
known as for the longestbut likely does if the ship was
more famous under a different designation.
Following the conclusion of the ship article titles RFC over four months ago (which was abandoned, bot-archived, then closed with a consensus for the broad idea but no consensus on the specifics or the implementation), the lack of action since, and the ongoing complaining about the issue, I am commencing a draft of proposed ship naming conventions to satisfy the consensus achieved in the RFC. -- saberwyn 02:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Editors may interested to know that I've started a discussion on merging the B-class destroyer article into the A-class destroyer (1929) article, matching how most of our other British interwar destroyer class articles are organized.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 21:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
A batch of images was recently uploaded to Commons under the category Category:Media_contributed_by_SMM:_2015-09. It contains a lot of material relating to maritime history. Might be useful in a wide range of articles.
Peter Isotalo 13:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
A couple of days ago the article Sobraon (ship) was created. It is on the same subject as HMAS Tingira, but the creator of the Sobraon article appears to argue that the Tingira article is flawed and inaccurate and that a second article on the ship is therefore needed. It seems that the creator of the Sobraon article is also the author of the book used as the main source for that article.
What to do? I don't think we should have two articles on the same ship. The creator of the Sobraon article has opposed a deletion of the article. Manxruler ( talk) 17:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you
Following a Request for Comment on the matter of ship article disambiguation, I have drafted an updated version of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships). The proposed text can be found at User:Saberwyn/Proposed ship naming and disambiguation conventions update. Your project is being notified because the proposal affects a large number of articles in your scope.
The most significant change to the guideline is that the only form of disambiguation for articles on ships is the year of launch, expressed in the format "(yyyy)". All other forms of disambiguation are depreciated, such as pennant/hull number, ship prefix, or ship type. Using ship prefixes in article titles for civilian/merchant ships is also depreciated, unless part of the ship's "common name". Examples have been updated as a result of the RFC and other recent discussions, and in some cases, elaborated on. A list of other changes can be found at User:Saberwyn/Proposed ship naming and disambiguation conventions update#Summary of changes for proposal.
Discussion and comments are welcomed at User talk:Saberwyn/Proposed ship naming and disambiguation conventions update. -- saberwyn 03:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
See WP:RM/C#September_11,_2015 for several USN ship renames that have showed up -- 70.51.202.113 ( talk) 04:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree that just because a ship was in the armed services does not make it an automatic name clincher. Otr500 ( talk) 01:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I saw a template warning on some ship articles. Examples are Mein Schiff 1 and Mein Schiff 2, but this may effect thousand of articles.
The error is related to recent changes to {{ Infobox ship begin}}. It is now in conflict with {{ Italic title}}, see Template:Italic title/doc.
I have started a discussion here: Template talk:Infobox ship begin#Conflict with Template:Italic title. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 21:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
We have {{
barge}}
and {{
tugboat}}
. Why? {{barge}}
is not used in article space. {{tugboat}}
is used in three articles where all three instances refer to one tugboat article. Both of these templates semantically misuse the prefix template form.
Is there any reason to keep? If not then I propose to subst the instances of {{tugboat}}
either with standard wiki markup or with {{
ship}}
which can accomplish the same thing:
{{Tugboat|Trabajador|1931}}
{{ship|Tugboat|Trabajador|1931}}
(that article should probably be moved to Trabajador – no need for either form of disambiguation)
We can take these templates to TfD or simply delete them. Opinions?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 13:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
{{
Barge}}
and {{
Tugboat}}
have been nominated for deletion. The WP:TfD nominations are
here.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 00:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
We have automatic ship name formatting. We have it in {{
infobox ship begin}}
where it controls formatting for article titles and for the infobox caption and also in {{
navsource}}
where the template takes the article title or an unformatted string and formats the ship name correctly. Well, mostly correctly. In the past week I discovered that {{navsource}}
was choking on this string: 'USS LSM(R)-190'. {{navsource}}
renders it like this:
{{navsource|10/06/06190|USS LSM(R)-190}}
to make the ship name render correctly, I did this:
{{navsource|10/06/06190|USS LSM(R)-190}}
We shouldn't have to do that.
So, I set about finding a solution. The result of my search is Module:WPSHIPS utilities. Why a module? Because Lua is a much more powerful and flexible tool for doing stuff like ship name formatting. Right now, the code only takes one parameter, the ship name; that could change. Because it is early days, the code is not implemented anywhere yet. Here it is for HMS Victory:
{{#invoke:WPSHIPS_utilities|ship_name_format|name=HMS Victory}}
for USS Will Rogers (SSBN-659):
and the problematic one:
One of the long-standing weaknesses of the automatic name formatting as it exists now is the inability to automatically format names for ships in navies that do not use standardized prefixes. This new tool will do that kind of name too:
{{#invoke:WPSHIPS_utilities|ship_name_format|name=German battleship Bismarck}}
I have added a call to this code to {{
infobox ship begin/sandbox}}
so that you can experiment with your favorite ship article. To do so, simply comment out (with <!-- -->
) or remove, {{italic title}}
or {{italic title prefixed}}
or {{DISPLAYTITLE:}}
and then change {{infobox ship begin}}
to {{infobox ship begin/sandbox}}
and click Show preview. Or, simply try your favorite ship names in the invocation. Here's a blank one:
{{#invoke:WPSHIPS_utilities|ship_name_format|name=}}
Please do this. The code depends on a list of nationalities and a list of ship types. These lists are very incomplete. If you find ship types or nationalities that don't work, it is probably because they are not listed. Feel free to add to the lists. There are instructions on how to do this in the module. Or, leave me a note here and I'll do the work.
The items in the ship types list are limited to one or two words (you could use more words but the results might not be what you expect). This covers the usual cases of 'battleship' and 'aircraft carrier'. Are there ship types used in article titles that are three words or more? Similarly, nationalities are limited to one word. Are there nationalities used in ship article titles that are two words or more?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 23:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Some ship articles, icebreakers and clippers, for example, are disambiguated as <ship name> (<ship type>). The tool supports this style:
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 10:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Another weakness is automatic name formatting for ship-class articles. I'm sure that part of the problem with that is that there are two formats: Italicized-class title and Roman-class title. There are also lingering article titles that are not yet hyphenated as they should be.
To more-or-less automate ship-class formatting, I have assumed that the default case is italicized. So, without any editor intervention, titles in the form <name>-class <ship type> will render:
If the class name is not in the adjectival (hyphenated) form, the tool does nothing:
{{#invoke:WPSHIPS_utilities|ship_name_format|name=Mission Buenaventura class transport oiler}}
Because there are two styles of ship-class title, a way must be found to indicate to the tool that a particular title is not to be italicized. It is not possible to know by inspection that the title is or is not to be italicized. We can modify {{
infobox ship begin}}
to take a parameter, |sclass=2
which is passed along to the formatting tool:
{{#invoke:WPSHIPS_utilities|ship_name_format|name=Mission Buenaventura-class transport oiler |sclass=2}}
{{
sclass2}}
which renders properly formatted, non-italicized links to ship-class articles)For those articles that provide an infobox caption, it is appropriate to use the class' noun form for the caption. For that, |adj=off
:
{{#invoke:WPSHIPS_utilities|ship_name_format|name=Mission Buenaventura-class transport oiler |adj=off}}
We can modify how {{infobox ship begin}}
handles |infobox caption=yes
to invoke this functionality.
I have made these last two changes to {{
infobox ship begin/sandbox}}
. Because it it used on fewer pages, and because the code supporting it is more complex, I am going to move the |info box caption=
changes to the live infobox with the display title change to follow in a day or two. If you see anything obviously bad, feel free to revert. Do post a note here explaining what, where, and why, please.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 23:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Automatic formatting now supports:
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 13:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
One thing leading to another, as often happens, has led to an experiment in {{
infobox ship begin/sandbox}}
. Yesterday, while reading over the draft WP:SHIPNAME proposal at
§Article titles for individual ships, I noticed that we have four ways of controlling how an article title is styled: {{
Infobox ship begin}}
, {{
Italic title}}
, {{
Italic title prefixed}}
, and {{
DISPLAYTITLE}}
. The three templates all use the magic word {{DISPLAYTITLE}}
.
I wondered to myself if all of these are really necessary. Can't we simplify life by making {{infobox ship begin}}
more useful? The template is required if the article will have an infobox.
Module:WPSHIPS utilities, described above, can auto format <prefix> <name> <(dab)>, <nationality> <ship type> <name> <(dab)>, <name> <(dab)> (where dab is recognizable as a hull or pennant number or as a year or contains a recognized ship type), <name>-class <ship type> <(dab)> (can be told about theme-named classes).
To cover the cases where auto-formatting fails (prefix or nationality not recognized, ship type not recognized, dab not recognized) or for when styling would be inappropriate, we can add a single parameter to customize article title display. This parameter takes these values:
{{italic title}}
to format the article title{{DISPLAYTITLE:article title with markup}}
to format the article titleFor class articles where the article title has the form <name>-class <ship type> <(dab)>, it is necessary to indicate when the class name is a theme name. To do that, requires another parameter:
{{
sclass2}}
which creates links to theme-named-class articles, this parameter forces unstyled title and also unstyled infobox caption (if enabled by |infobox caption=yes or |infobox caption=nodab).One last optional parameter:
The Module:WPSHIPS utilities has been in {{infobox ship begin}}
since 9 September and has been in use in {{
navsource}}
since 12 September. In a day or so I propose to move {{infobox caption/sandbox}}
to {{infobox sandbox}}
.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I have updated {{
infobox ship begin}}
to use the above described auto-formatting. If you see anything untoward, let me know.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
|sclass=2
causes {{
infobox ship begin}}
to render theme-named classes correctly (described above). You can see that it works at
French Barracuda-class submarine.{{
italic title}}
, {{
italic title prefixed}}
and {{DISPLAYTITLE}}
. I have fixed all of the FA articles where this was happening.{{
italic title prefixed|9}}
{{
infobox ship begin}}
add |display title=Submarine ''U-475 Black Widow''
{{
italic title}}
{{infobox ship begin}}
add |display title=ital
{{
italic title prefixed}}
.|display title=none
for all but the one chosen (should be the first, I think) to format the article title.Hi. Anyone familiar with current and perhaps upcoming WP:NC-SHIPS care to share their opinion regarding the proposed change of article name for Finnish pollution control vessel Louhi? Depending on where the debate ends, it may affect a number of other ship articles as well. Tupsumato ( talk) 05:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
At sometime, Historic Naval Ships Association revamped its website, so a lot of the links to ships there are now broken. They are a bit more consistent in their article link conventions that DANFS but not consistent enough for a machine to accurately predict what the new url ought to be.
Still, stuff like this is a pain. So, I've created a template modeled on {{
navsource}}
that looks like this:
{{hnsa|uss-kidd-dd-661|USS Kidd}}
The second positional parameter, ship name, is optional and if not provided will use the article title.
This insource: search string finds articles that use the old-style url:
insource:"www.hnsa.org/ships/"
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Remember these conversations?
Part of the fallout of the above conversations was some modification to {{
infobox ship characteristics}}
that added a couple of hidden categories which show how the community is or is not using the one supported Wikidata supplied value (|Ship class=
):
What can we learn from this?
It seems that WP:SHIPS has not embraced Wikidata. Why? What do we do now? Keep it? Discard it?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per above discussion, I propose to remove any and all functionality that automatically imports and includes data from Wikidata into {{
infobox ship characteristics}}
. If any data is cited from Wikidata, it should be included manually and cited to a
reliable source.
Tupsumato (
talk)
05:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm closing the discussion with pretty clear consensus. Now, if someone could kindly edit the functionality out of {{
infobox ship characteristics}}
.
Tupsumato (
talk)
15:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Since my latest article was put under your project, I thought to come here with a proposed merger and ask for advice. The articles involved are Spitz barge and Péniche (barge). No comments have been added since the proposal. Ideas anyone? Thanks. Sander1453 ( talk) 17:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I've created the SS Kuroshio Maru article, which is about a tanker with a rather colourful history. It's lacking in details of her construction, which I suspect that Japanese souces will be able to provide (I'm about ja-minus 3). Chinese sources will likely be able to provide further detail re her requisitoning by Hong Kong in 1951 and the fallout therefrom. Mjroots ( talk) 08:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi - I've recently requested comment on an article I recently composed ( Leschi (fireboat)) here - Talk:Leschi_(fireboat)#RfC:_Mission_Statement. This is a relatively minor edit so I'm hoping to get rapid feedback (either for or against the RfC) so it can be closed quickly and the article's stability won't be impacted for GA-review. LavaBaron ( talk) 07:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
History | |
---|---|
Name |
|
Namesake | not a list |
Owner | *list error: too many * at start of list (
help)
|
Builder | Single list item |
Homeport | list error: <br /> list (
help) linebreak item 1 linebreak item 2 |
Nickname(s) | list error: mixed text and list (
help)
|
Class overview | |
Name |
|
General characteristics | |
Class and type |
|
Propulsion |
|
Another topic that has been discussed before:
Lists are an important part of {{
infobox ship career}}
and {{
infobox ship characteristics}}
. But, there are problems with how they are implemented. The advice at the infobox
usage guide reads:
<br />
, {{
unbulleted list}} or, alternatively, {{
plainlist}} so that each entry is listed on a new line. Avoid bullet points, asterisks, or similar.The problems as I see them are:
<br />
– use of the html line break to create lists presents an accessibility problem for those who use screen readers. As I understand it, this construct:
|Ship name=First<br />Second<br />Third
is read as:{{plainlist}}
– makes proper lists except when it is desirable to have a sublist because it cannot do second+ level indenting. At the time of the previous conversation, a fix was made to the plainlist class at
Mediawiki:Common.css. Fairly shortly thereafter, the css fix was reverted because it broke existing use of the plainlist class elsewhere.{{unbulleted list}}
– uses the same plainlist class as {{plainlist}}
so suffers from the same problems.Here is a possible solution. The infobox in the corner of this topic is a mock-up. It uses some code that is in Module:WPSHIPS utilities/sandbox to intercept lists using standard asterisk wikimarkup. These lists are rewritten as html unordered lists with appropriate css styling that does not rely on the plainlist class so it supports indenting. If the parameter value isn't a list, the code simply returns it as is; if the list has only one item, the code strips off the asterisk and leading white space and returns that. If the list wikimarkup is broken, a blank line between list items, improper increase in the number of asterisks (* to *** for example) the code returns an error message
Benefits:
<br />
separated listsStill to do:
{{
infobox ship class overview}}
, {{infobox ship career}}
, and {{infobox ship characteristics}}
<br />
separated lists and add that page to a maintenance category to make cleanup easierRequired cleanup:
<br />
separated lists to wikimarkup{{
br}}
separated lists{{plainlist}}
and {{unbulleted list}}
templates— Trappist the monk ( talk) 13:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
From my list of things to do, all of {{
infobox ship class overview}}
, {{
infobox ship career}}
, and {{
infobox ship characteristics}}
have been sandboxed. The code detects <br />
separated lists and adds pages with that style of markup to ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:WPSHIPS:Infobox list errors.
From my cleanup list, I have written an AWB script that converts {{
br}}
and <br />
separated lists to standard * markup unordered list. The script also strips {{
plainlist}}
markup from the list it contains. For the time being, I have elected to leave {{
unbulleted list}}
templates in place though may reconsider this decision.
Error messages are currently turned off. List items are now rendered with hanging indents. See the example in the characteristics infobox.
I am testing my AWB script. When I think that it handles most of whatever peculiarities exist in the infoboxes, I'll update the live versions of {{infobox ship class overview}}
, {{infobox ship career}}
, and {{infobox ship characteristics}}
. It is expected that the only noticeable change when that happens is that the bullets of unordered lists will disappear. Following the update I'll start using the AWB script to do the cleanup work.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I have updated {{
infobox ship class overview}}
, {{
infobox ship career}}
, and {{
infobox ship characteristics/paramlineP}}
to support unordered lists in infobox parameters. You should see no difference in the appearance of an infobox except where the infobox uses unordered lists. Lists previously rendered with bullets in the infobox will have been rendered without bullets (once the article has passed through the MediaWiki job queue).
I will begin running my AWB script today to remove line break (<br />
), {{
plainlist}}
, and {{
unbulleted list}}
formatting.
Some infoboxen use {{
Infobox service record}}
. I have created a sandbox version of that template that supports the same unordered list formatting as the ship infobox templates. Because that template is used across projects, I do not intend to make that template live until I have consulted with
WP:MILHIST
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I have been through the articles in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:FA-Class Ships articles. Of those articles, the AWB script edited 162. A few still need work:
</div>
tags in the infobox<div>
tags in the infobox|armor=
|armament=
|armament=
|displacement=
|armament=
|Cost=
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I have submitted the awb script to brfa which see. If approved, Monkbot will do the grunt work.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 10:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
<br />
tags may make rendered parameter values visually attractive, may make lists that appear to be visually correct, but those renderings may not be or are not correct for those who use screen readers. Screen readers are much more sophisticated and capable than a simple text-replacer bot. If screen readers have difficulty interpreting the content of an infobox, so too, will the bot. Neither tool can know the editor's mind. For these reasons, there are specific markup requirements and limitations imposed on editors; see, for example,
MOS:ACCESS §Vertical lists. The overwhelming majority of <br />
tags in ship infoboxen are used (improperly) to create lists of items. It is not surprising then that the relatively rare cosmetic use of <br />
tags is mistaken for list markup.1919-1928
(why is that there anyway? – it conveys no more information than if it were omitted) from |Ship operator=
you can see that.too much informationcomment. The infobox is an extension of the article lede so entries should be terse and not overly detailed; detail belongs in the article text.
|Ship propulsion=
parameter is two <ref>...</ref>
tags, the template sees the parameter value as malformed. Those two <ref>...</ref>
tags probably belong at the end of the first list item.{{Infobox ship ...}}
templates will display an error message at the start of the parameter value which may help to explain why the rendered template looks the way it does. Simply edit the article, change {{Infobox ship ...}}
to {{Infobox ship .../sandbox}}
and click Show preview. There are links in the error messages to ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:WPSHIPS:Infobox list errors which may be helpful.Following the implementation of this change, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:WPSHIPS:Infobox list errors had some 20,000 articles in it. Monkbot took care of about 18,000 of those. Through a combination of my own manual and semiautomated edits and those edits made by other editors, the category is now down to less than 900 articles. I have turned on error messages so that perhaps the remaining articles can be more quickly cleaned up.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 23:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
{{
Spruance class destroyer armament VLS}}
causes problems, at least in
USS Cushing (DD-985).
Nigel Ish (
talk)
10:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC){{
Spruance class destroyer armament VLS}}
is processed before {{
infobox ship characteristics}}
. I'm not sure why, but the expanded template content goes to the next line leaving an empty list item:
|Ship armament=*{{Spruance class destroyer armament VLS}}
produces:
* *2 x [[5"/54 caliber Mark 45 gun |5 in (127 mm) 54 calibre Mark 45 dual purpose guns]] *2 x 20 mm [[Phalanx CIWS]] Mark 15 guns *1 x 8 cell [[ASROC]] launcher (removed) *1 x 8 cell [[NATO]] [[Sea Sparrow]] Mark 29 missile launcher *2 x quadruple [[Boeing Harpoon|Harpoon]] missile canisters *2 x [[Mark 32 Surface Vessel Torpedo Tubes|Mark 32 triple 12.75 in (324 mm) torpedo tubes]] ([[Mark 46 torpedo|Mk 46 torpedoes]]) *1 x 61 cell Mk 41 VLS launcher for [[BGM-109 Tomahawk|Tomahawk]] missiles *1 × 21 cell [[RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile]] launcher
To fix the problem, remove the *
from |Ship armament=
.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
History | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Name | {{
shipboxflag}} |
![]() | |
Name | {{
shipboxflag}} |
![]() | |
Name | {{
flag|UK}} |
![]() | |
Name | {{
navy|Malta}} |
![]() ![]() | |
Name | Two flags |
Name | No flag and no country |
![]() | |
Name | [[File:Flag of Antigua and Barbuda.svg|80px]] |
![]() | |
---|---|
Name | [[File:Flag of Antigua and Barbuda.svg|60px]] |
First there was this discussion:
then there was this discussion:
and here I am talking about it again.
Ship infoboxes are tables that are two columns wide where the left column is field names and the right column is values associated with the names. The same two column arrangement applies to the header at the top of {{infobox ship career}}
. The complaint at (1) is illustrated in the live infobox. Note how the |Ship name=
parameter rendering is different between the live infobox and the last example in the sandbox infobox.
The sandboxed versions of {{
infobox ship career}}
answer the complaint at (1) by making the <th>...</th>
span both columns. The flag image comes first because I couldn't figure out how to fix its position relative to the right edge of the infobox and keep the text vertically centered in the header. And, I realized that flag templates that render text along with the flag image all render it image left text right right. This format also renders correctly when editors use {{
flag}}
or {{
navy}}
.
From the discussion at (2) I have kept the change that created a standalone 'History' header so that there is more space available for |Ship country=
.
Also new with this version of the sandbox is a snippet of code in
Module:WPSHIPS utilities/sandbox that initially fixed the size of the flag image to the size specified by {{
shipboxflag}}
(100x35px) so no flag image would be wider than 100px nor taller than 35px. It is quite common with the current infobox for editors to set flag size to a variety of sizes to accommodate long text in |Ship country=
; see for example, FA
Vasa (ship) where flag width is set to 70px so that its height (40px) fits nicely with the header text.
Because the the css that specifies the header characteristics sets header height to 30 pixels, I reduced the flag image size to 100x30px. I see no reason why the addition of an image to the header should increase the vertical height of the header.
Opinions? Comments?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I have further reduced flag image size so that there is a thin gap between the flag and the edges of the header. Within the next days I intend to update the live {{
infobox ship career}}
template to this sandbox version.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The list of acceptable values used with |Hide header=
in {{
infobox ship career/sandbox}}
are now: Yes
and yes
to hide the header entirely and title
to hide the History title bar. |Hide header=title
better conveys the purpose of the parameter value than |Hide header=bar
did.
I need to figure out how to set |Hide header=title
for all but the first when there are multiple {{
infobox ship career}}
templates in a ship infobox.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 10:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
It is done. I have an AWB script that I will use to troll through articles containing {{
infobox ship career}}
and, where there are multiples of the template, in second and subsequent templates set |Hide header=title
where that parameter is not already set to something else.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
|Hide header=
was not set, the template does not display the country/flag header bar. I think that this is documented at
Usage guide §Infobox ship career. If you are seeing both the history and empty country/flag header bars in a single {{
infobox ship career}}
template after a purge or null edit, let me know.At the bottom of {{
infobox ship characteristics}}
are these parameters (not listed in the template skeleton in the documentation):
|Ship badge=
|Ship honors=
|Ship honours=
|Ship nickname=
|Ship motto=
Do these really belong there? They have been part of {{infobox ship characteristics}}
since its
inception in January 2007 and were added to {{
infobox ship career}}
about a
month later. That addition caused
this discussion.
Is it not true that these parameters attach more tightly to the ship's name than to the physical ship itself and so more properly belong in {{infobox ship career}}
? Should we deprecate and remove these parameters from {{infobox ship characteristics}}
?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
{{infobox ship characteristics}}
which describes the physical ship.
Tupsumato (
talk)
13:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)About a week ago I modified {{
infobox ship characteristics}}
so that it would add pages with the duplicate parameters to ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:WPSHIPS:Infobox deprecated parameters. At present there are about 170 articles listed.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 12:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Is there any recognition for contributing to subjects pertaining to ships in this WikiProject? I feel as though my 27 articles on World War II U.S. Navy vessels and Philippine Navy patrol craft have gone unnoticed, i'm not trying to sound rude or anything, honest. My works can be found on User:Luis Santos24/My Works. All i'm saying is that i simply think my large amount of articles have slipped through the cracks, that's all.
Cheers, -- The Haze Master ( talk) 01:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
{{
WikiProject Ships Barnstar}}
; that's the 'yes'. It's been awarded less than a handful of times; that's the 'no'.Just spotted this article on a relatively significant class of Israeli missile boats. It badly needs fixing up, with large chunks appearing to be a machine translation, the words left untranslated. Nigel Ish ( talk) 15:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Somewhere along the way, the Navy's DANFS website has been reorganized. A lot of ship articles have a reference note saying:
As you can see if you click the "here" in the line above, some of those links are now bad. I'm guessing it's a LOT of them. I've corrected the link for a couple of ships, such as this one:
I had to do a bit of searching and clicking to find the new link. I'm wondering if people here are aware of this change, and of the probably very large number of articles it affects. If there isn't one already, there should probably be some sort of tool or BOT that fixes this stuff. I'm not up to creating that myself. Lou Sander ( talk) 01:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
{{
DANFS}}
template instead of editing every article that uses it. Did that suggestion get passed on?Well, it looks like you can find the articles by running them through AWB transcluding Template:DANFS and then skipping all that "Doesn't contain: history.navy.mil/danfs" since all the url's that are dead used that old format. But after that, I had to copy and paste. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 17:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed that ibiblio.org has an archive of the photo galleries that all show up as dead links since earlier this year. It would be an easy bot substitution for some motivated person:
One wrinkle is that I have been going through some pages and linking the web archive for those: https://web.archive.org/web/20120921113514/http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-w/id3171.htm which might screw up a bot run. Would it be better to link the ibiblio mirror or web.archive.org ? -- Dual Freq ( talk) 12:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
She is listed as being part of the Reserve Fleet, but in the notes it states she is "undergoing nuclear deactivation". Does anyone know how far through this process she is? Far enough to de-list her from the reserve? (I can't check the NVR). I want to avoid what happened with the Enterprise (CVN-65)... she was listed as being in reserve even after she was irreversibly cut-up and ripped apart. Thanks. - theWOLFchild 09:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
We have an answer! Thanks to a fellow editor over at Project Military History, I found the Norfolk listed at the Ship-Submarine Recycling Program. it states there that she is not scheduled to begin her deactivation until next May, so it's safe to say we can keep her on the "Reserve" list until then. This is good, she was the only ship I was unsure of after updating the fleet the other day. Thanks everyone for your replies. - theWOLFchild 23:48, 1 November 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 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | → | Archive 50 |
Hello,
Wikimedia France has provided me with the complete collection of Demerliac numenclature of French ships from 1610 to 1871 [1]. They contain basic data on virtually all ships afloat at these times (warships, privateers, East indiamen, merchantmen, fishing and whalers, etc.). Do not hesitate to ask me if I can be of any help with this ressource.
Cheers! Rama ( talk) 11:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC) PS: If you can forward this annoucement to Wikipedias in a language that I do not speak, or to other interested projets of which I have not thought, I would be grateful. Rama ( talk) 12:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, if you have the time, could you take a look at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Battleships of Italy/archive1 and post your thoughts? Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 12:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
The following journals/magazines are fairly highly cited on Wikipedia (see WP:JCW)
Any help on writing these articles would be much appreciated. You can consult our guides at WP:JWG and WP:MWG for help on writing them. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Pennsy22 has made several cut-and-paste moves of several ship articles in the past few days. I reverted the one that was on my watchlist, but I'm trying to go to sleep now, so I don't need to try to revert these moves myself. I don't currently have an opinion on whether or not the page names should be changed, just that it shouldn't be by cut-and-paste. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 10:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Help, I mistakenly copy/pasted the Denver-class cruisers from their "CL" pages to their "C" pages because I thought I had seen somewhere that the ship should be placed on the page that either they were known as for the longest or if they were more famous under a different designation. These cruisers were C-X from 1902-1920 and then changed to CL-X after 1921 until scrapping around 1930. I think they should be moved but I don't know where to find the rule for this. Thanks for any help you can give me. Pennsy22 ( talk) 10:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
known as for the longestbut likely does if the ship was
more famous under a different designation.
Following the conclusion of the ship article titles RFC over four months ago (which was abandoned, bot-archived, then closed with a consensus for the broad idea but no consensus on the specifics or the implementation), the lack of action since, and the ongoing complaining about the issue, I am commencing a draft of proposed ship naming conventions to satisfy the consensus achieved in the RFC. -- saberwyn 02:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Editors may interested to know that I've started a discussion on merging the B-class destroyer article into the A-class destroyer (1929) article, matching how most of our other British interwar destroyer class articles are organized.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 21:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
A batch of images was recently uploaded to Commons under the category Category:Media_contributed_by_SMM:_2015-09. It contains a lot of material relating to maritime history. Might be useful in a wide range of articles.
Peter Isotalo 13:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
A couple of days ago the article Sobraon (ship) was created. It is on the same subject as HMAS Tingira, but the creator of the Sobraon article appears to argue that the Tingira article is flawed and inaccurate and that a second article on the ship is therefore needed. It seems that the creator of the Sobraon article is also the author of the book used as the main source for that article.
What to do? I don't think we should have two articles on the same ship. The creator of the Sobraon article has opposed a deletion of the article. Manxruler ( talk) 17:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you
Following a Request for Comment on the matter of ship article disambiguation, I have drafted an updated version of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships). The proposed text can be found at User:Saberwyn/Proposed ship naming and disambiguation conventions update. Your project is being notified because the proposal affects a large number of articles in your scope.
The most significant change to the guideline is that the only form of disambiguation for articles on ships is the year of launch, expressed in the format "(yyyy)". All other forms of disambiguation are depreciated, such as pennant/hull number, ship prefix, or ship type. Using ship prefixes in article titles for civilian/merchant ships is also depreciated, unless part of the ship's "common name". Examples have been updated as a result of the RFC and other recent discussions, and in some cases, elaborated on. A list of other changes can be found at User:Saberwyn/Proposed ship naming and disambiguation conventions update#Summary of changes for proposal.
Discussion and comments are welcomed at User talk:Saberwyn/Proposed ship naming and disambiguation conventions update. -- saberwyn 03:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
See WP:RM/C#September_11,_2015 for several USN ship renames that have showed up -- 70.51.202.113 ( talk) 04:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree that just because a ship was in the armed services does not make it an automatic name clincher. Otr500 ( talk) 01:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I saw a template warning on some ship articles. Examples are Mein Schiff 1 and Mein Schiff 2, but this may effect thousand of articles.
The error is related to recent changes to {{ Infobox ship begin}}. It is now in conflict with {{ Italic title}}, see Template:Italic title/doc.
I have started a discussion here: Template talk:Infobox ship begin#Conflict with Template:Italic title. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 21:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
We have {{
barge}}
and {{
tugboat}}
. Why? {{barge}}
is not used in article space. {{tugboat}}
is used in three articles where all three instances refer to one tugboat article. Both of these templates semantically misuse the prefix template form.
Is there any reason to keep? If not then I propose to subst the instances of {{tugboat}}
either with standard wiki markup or with {{
ship}}
which can accomplish the same thing:
{{Tugboat|Trabajador|1931}}
{{ship|Tugboat|Trabajador|1931}}
(that article should probably be moved to Trabajador – no need for either form of disambiguation)
We can take these templates to TfD or simply delete them. Opinions?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 13:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
{{
Barge}}
and {{
Tugboat}}
have been nominated for deletion. The WP:TfD nominations are
here.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 00:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
We have automatic ship name formatting. We have it in {{
infobox ship begin}}
where it controls formatting for article titles and for the infobox caption and also in {{
navsource}}
where the template takes the article title or an unformatted string and formats the ship name correctly. Well, mostly correctly. In the past week I discovered that {{navsource}}
was choking on this string: 'USS LSM(R)-190'. {{navsource}}
renders it like this:
{{navsource|10/06/06190|USS LSM(R)-190}}
to make the ship name render correctly, I did this:
{{navsource|10/06/06190|USS LSM(R)-190}}
We shouldn't have to do that.
So, I set about finding a solution. The result of my search is Module:WPSHIPS utilities. Why a module? Because Lua is a much more powerful and flexible tool for doing stuff like ship name formatting. Right now, the code only takes one parameter, the ship name; that could change. Because it is early days, the code is not implemented anywhere yet. Here it is for HMS Victory:
{{#invoke:WPSHIPS_utilities|ship_name_format|name=HMS Victory}}
for USS Will Rogers (SSBN-659):
and the problematic one:
One of the long-standing weaknesses of the automatic name formatting as it exists now is the inability to automatically format names for ships in navies that do not use standardized prefixes. This new tool will do that kind of name too:
{{#invoke:WPSHIPS_utilities|ship_name_format|name=German battleship Bismarck}}
I have added a call to this code to {{
infobox ship begin/sandbox}}
so that you can experiment with your favorite ship article. To do so, simply comment out (with <!-- -->
) or remove, {{italic title}}
or {{italic title prefixed}}
or {{DISPLAYTITLE:}}
and then change {{infobox ship begin}}
to {{infobox ship begin/sandbox}}
and click Show preview. Or, simply try your favorite ship names in the invocation. Here's a blank one:
{{#invoke:WPSHIPS_utilities|ship_name_format|name=}}
Please do this. The code depends on a list of nationalities and a list of ship types. These lists are very incomplete. If you find ship types or nationalities that don't work, it is probably because they are not listed. Feel free to add to the lists. There are instructions on how to do this in the module. Or, leave me a note here and I'll do the work.
The items in the ship types list are limited to one or two words (you could use more words but the results might not be what you expect). This covers the usual cases of 'battleship' and 'aircraft carrier'. Are there ship types used in article titles that are three words or more? Similarly, nationalities are limited to one word. Are there nationalities used in ship article titles that are two words or more?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 23:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Some ship articles, icebreakers and clippers, for example, are disambiguated as <ship name> (<ship type>). The tool supports this style:
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 10:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Another weakness is automatic name formatting for ship-class articles. I'm sure that part of the problem with that is that there are two formats: Italicized-class title and Roman-class title. There are also lingering article titles that are not yet hyphenated as they should be.
To more-or-less automate ship-class formatting, I have assumed that the default case is italicized. So, without any editor intervention, titles in the form <name>-class <ship type> will render:
If the class name is not in the adjectival (hyphenated) form, the tool does nothing:
{{#invoke:WPSHIPS_utilities|ship_name_format|name=Mission Buenaventura class transport oiler}}
Because there are two styles of ship-class title, a way must be found to indicate to the tool that a particular title is not to be italicized. It is not possible to know by inspection that the title is or is not to be italicized. We can modify {{
infobox ship begin}}
to take a parameter, |sclass=2
which is passed along to the formatting tool:
{{#invoke:WPSHIPS_utilities|ship_name_format|name=Mission Buenaventura-class transport oiler |sclass=2}}
{{
sclass2}}
which renders properly formatted, non-italicized links to ship-class articles)For those articles that provide an infobox caption, it is appropriate to use the class' noun form for the caption. For that, |adj=off
:
{{#invoke:WPSHIPS_utilities|ship_name_format|name=Mission Buenaventura-class transport oiler |adj=off}}
We can modify how {{infobox ship begin}}
handles |infobox caption=yes
to invoke this functionality.
I have made these last two changes to {{
infobox ship begin/sandbox}}
. Because it it used on fewer pages, and because the code supporting it is more complex, I am going to move the |info box caption=
changes to the live infobox with the display title change to follow in a day or two. If you see anything obviously bad, feel free to revert. Do post a note here explaining what, where, and why, please.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 23:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Automatic formatting now supports:
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 13:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
One thing leading to another, as often happens, has led to an experiment in {{
infobox ship begin/sandbox}}
. Yesterday, while reading over the draft WP:SHIPNAME proposal at
§Article titles for individual ships, I noticed that we have four ways of controlling how an article title is styled: {{
Infobox ship begin}}
, {{
Italic title}}
, {{
Italic title prefixed}}
, and {{
DISPLAYTITLE}}
. The three templates all use the magic word {{DISPLAYTITLE}}
.
I wondered to myself if all of these are really necessary. Can't we simplify life by making {{infobox ship begin}}
more useful? The template is required if the article will have an infobox.
Module:WPSHIPS utilities, described above, can auto format <prefix> <name> <(dab)>, <nationality> <ship type> <name> <(dab)>, <name> <(dab)> (where dab is recognizable as a hull or pennant number or as a year or contains a recognized ship type), <name>-class <ship type> <(dab)> (can be told about theme-named classes).
To cover the cases where auto-formatting fails (prefix or nationality not recognized, ship type not recognized, dab not recognized) or for when styling would be inappropriate, we can add a single parameter to customize article title display. This parameter takes these values:
{{italic title}}
to format the article title{{DISPLAYTITLE:article title with markup}}
to format the article titleFor class articles where the article title has the form <name>-class <ship type> <(dab)>, it is necessary to indicate when the class name is a theme name. To do that, requires another parameter:
{{
sclass2}}
which creates links to theme-named-class articles, this parameter forces unstyled title and also unstyled infobox caption (if enabled by |infobox caption=yes or |infobox caption=nodab).One last optional parameter:
The Module:WPSHIPS utilities has been in {{infobox ship begin}}
since 9 September and has been in use in {{
navsource}}
since 12 September. In a day or so I propose to move {{infobox caption/sandbox}}
to {{infobox sandbox}}
.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I have updated {{
infobox ship begin}}
to use the above described auto-formatting. If you see anything untoward, let me know.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
|sclass=2
causes {{
infobox ship begin}}
to render theme-named classes correctly (described above). You can see that it works at
French Barracuda-class submarine.{{
italic title}}
, {{
italic title prefixed}}
and {{DISPLAYTITLE}}
. I have fixed all of the FA articles where this was happening.{{
italic title prefixed|9}}
{{
infobox ship begin}}
add |display title=Submarine ''U-475 Black Widow''
{{
italic title}}
{{infobox ship begin}}
add |display title=ital
{{
italic title prefixed}}
.|display title=none
for all but the one chosen (should be the first, I think) to format the article title.Hi. Anyone familiar with current and perhaps upcoming WP:NC-SHIPS care to share their opinion regarding the proposed change of article name for Finnish pollution control vessel Louhi? Depending on where the debate ends, it may affect a number of other ship articles as well. Tupsumato ( talk) 05:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
At sometime, Historic Naval Ships Association revamped its website, so a lot of the links to ships there are now broken. They are a bit more consistent in their article link conventions that DANFS but not consistent enough for a machine to accurately predict what the new url ought to be.
Still, stuff like this is a pain. So, I've created a template modeled on {{
navsource}}
that looks like this:
{{hnsa|uss-kidd-dd-661|USS Kidd}}
The second positional parameter, ship name, is optional and if not provided will use the article title.
This insource: search string finds articles that use the old-style url:
insource:"www.hnsa.org/ships/"
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Remember these conversations?
Part of the fallout of the above conversations was some modification to {{
infobox ship characteristics}}
that added a couple of hidden categories which show how the community is or is not using the one supported Wikidata supplied value (|Ship class=
):
What can we learn from this?
It seems that WP:SHIPS has not embraced Wikidata. Why? What do we do now? Keep it? Discard it?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per above discussion, I propose to remove any and all functionality that automatically imports and includes data from Wikidata into {{
infobox ship characteristics}}
. If any data is cited from Wikidata, it should be included manually and cited to a
reliable source.
Tupsumato (
talk)
05:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm closing the discussion with pretty clear consensus. Now, if someone could kindly edit the functionality out of {{
infobox ship characteristics}}
.
Tupsumato (
talk)
15:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Since my latest article was put under your project, I thought to come here with a proposed merger and ask for advice. The articles involved are Spitz barge and Péniche (barge). No comments have been added since the proposal. Ideas anyone? Thanks. Sander1453 ( talk) 17:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I've created the SS Kuroshio Maru article, which is about a tanker with a rather colourful history. It's lacking in details of her construction, which I suspect that Japanese souces will be able to provide (I'm about ja-minus 3). Chinese sources will likely be able to provide further detail re her requisitoning by Hong Kong in 1951 and the fallout therefrom. Mjroots ( talk) 08:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi - I've recently requested comment on an article I recently composed ( Leschi (fireboat)) here - Talk:Leschi_(fireboat)#RfC:_Mission_Statement. This is a relatively minor edit so I'm hoping to get rapid feedback (either for or against the RfC) so it can be closed quickly and the article's stability won't be impacted for GA-review. LavaBaron ( talk) 07:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
History | |
---|---|
Name |
|
Namesake | not a list |
Owner | *list error: too many * at start of list (
help)
|
Builder | Single list item |
Homeport | list error: <br /> list (
help) linebreak item 1 linebreak item 2 |
Nickname(s) | list error: mixed text and list (
help)
|
Class overview | |
Name |
|
General characteristics | |
Class and type |
|
Propulsion |
|
Another topic that has been discussed before:
Lists are an important part of {{
infobox ship career}}
and {{
infobox ship characteristics}}
. But, there are problems with how they are implemented. The advice at the infobox
usage guide reads:
<br />
, {{
unbulleted list}} or, alternatively, {{
plainlist}} so that each entry is listed on a new line. Avoid bullet points, asterisks, or similar.The problems as I see them are:
<br />
– use of the html line break to create lists presents an accessibility problem for those who use screen readers. As I understand it, this construct:
|Ship name=First<br />Second<br />Third
is read as:{{plainlist}}
– makes proper lists except when it is desirable to have a sublist because it cannot do second+ level indenting. At the time of the previous conversation, a fix was made to the plainlist class at
Mediawiki:Common.css. Fairly shortly thereafter, the css fix was reverted because it broke existing use of the plainlist class elsewhere.{{unbulleted list}}
– uses the same plainlist class as {{plainlist}}
so suffers from the same problems.Here is a possible solution. The infobox in the corner of this topic is a mock-up. It uses some code that is in Module:WPSHIPS utilities/sandbox to intercept lists using standard asterisk wikimarkup. These lists are rewritten as html unordered lists with appropriate css styling that does not rely on the plainlist class so it supports indenting. If the parameter value isn't a list, the code simply returns it as is; if the list has only one item, the code strips off the asterisk and leading white space and returns that. If the list wikimarkup is broken, a blank line between list items, improper increase in the number of asterisks (* to *** for example) the code returns an error message
Benefits:
<br />
separated listsStill to do:
{{
infobox ship class overview}}
, {{infobox ship career}}
, and {{infobox ship characteristics}}
<br />
separated lists and add that page to a maintenance category to make cleanup easierRequired cleanup:
<br />
separated lists to wikimarkup{{
br}}
separated lists{{plainlist}}
and {{unbulleted list}}
templates— Trappist the monk ( talk) 13:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
From my list of things to do, all of {{
infobox ship class overview}}
, {{
infobox ship career}}
, and {{
infobox ship characteristics}}
have been sandboxed. The code detects <br />
separated lists and adds pages with that style of markup to ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:WPSHIPS:Infobox list errors.
From my cleanup list, I have written an AWB script that converts {{
br}}
and <br />
separated lists to standard * markup unordered list. The script also strips {{
plainlist}}
markup from the list it contains. For the time being, I have elected to leave {{
unbulleted list}}
templates in place though may reconsider this decision.
Error messages are currently turned off. List items are now rendered with hanging indents. See the example in the characteristics infobox.
I am testing my AWB script. When I think that it handles most of whatever peculiarities exist in the infoboxes, I'll update the live versions of {{infobox ship class overview}}
, {{infobox ship career}}
, and {{infobox ship characteristics}}
. It is expected that the only noticeable change when that happens is that the bullets of unordered lists will disappear. Following the update I'll start using the AWB script to do the cleanup work.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I have updated {{
infobox ship class overview}}
, {{
infobox ship career}}
, and {{
infobox ship characteristics/paramlineP}}
to support unordered lists in infobox parameters. You should see no difference in the appearance of an infobox except where the infobox uses unordered lists. Lists previously rendered with bullets in the infobox will have been rendered without bullets (once the article has passed through the MediaWiki job queue).
I will begin running my AWB script today to remove line break (<br />
), {{
plainlist}}
, and {{
unbulleted list}}
formatting.
Some infoboxen use {{
Infobox service record}}
. I have created a sandbox version of that template that supports the same unordered list formatting as the ship infobox templates. Because that template is used across projects, I do not intend to make that template live until I have consulted with
WP:MILHIST
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I have been through the articles in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:FA-Class Ships articles. Of those articles, the AWB script edited 162. A few still need work:
</div>
tags in the infobox<div>
tags in the infobox|armor=
|armament=
|armament=
|displacement=
|armament=
|Cost=
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I have submitted the awb script to brfa which see. If approved, Monkbot will do the grunt work.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 10:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
<br />
tags may make rendered parameter values visually attractive, may make lists that appear to be visually correct, but those renderings may not be or are not correct for those who use screen readers. Screen readers are much more sophisticated and capable than a simple text-replacer bot. If screen readers have difficulty interpreting the content of an infobox, so too, will the bot. Neither tool can know the editor's mind. For these reasons, there are specific markup requirements and limitations imposed on editors; see, for example,
MOS:ACCESS §Vertical lists. The overwhelming majority of <br />
tags in ship infoboxen are used (improperly) to create lists of items. It is not surprising then that the relatively rare cosmetic use of <br />
tags is mistaken for list markup.1919-1928
(why is that there anyway? – it conveys no more information than if it were omitted) from |Ship operator=
you can see that.too much informationcomment. The infobox is an extension of the article lede so entries should be terse and not overly detailed; detail belongs in the article text.
|Ship propulsion=
parameter is two <ref>...</ref>
tags, the template sees the parameter value as malformed. Those two <ref>...</ref>
tags probably belong at the end of the first list item.{{Infobox ship ...}}
templates will display an error message at the start of the parameter value which may help to explain why the rendered template looks the way it does. Simply edit the article, change {{Infobox ship ...}}
to {{Infobox ship .../sandbox}}
and click Show preview. There are links in the error messages to ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:WPSHIPS:Infobox list errors which may be helpful.Following the implementation of this change, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:WPSHIPS:Infobox list errors had some 20,000 articles in it. Monkbot took care of about 18,000 of those. Through a combination of my own manual and semiautomated edits and those edits made by other editors, the category is now down to less than 900 articles. I have turned on error messages so that perhaps the remaining articles can be more quickly cleaned up.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 23:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
{{
Spruance class destroyer armament VLS}}
causes problems, at least in
USS Cushing (DD-985).
Nigel Ish (
talk)
10:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC){{
Spruance class destroyer armament VLS}}
is processed before {{
infobox ship characteristics}}
. I'm not sure why, but the expanded template content goes to the next line leaving an empty list item:
|Ship armament=*{{Spruance class destroyer armament VLS}}
produces:
* *2 x [[5"/54 caliber Mark 45 gun |5 in (127 mm) 54 calibre Mark 45 dual purpose guns]] *2 x 20 mm [[Phalanx CIWS]] Mark 15 guns *1 x 8 cell [[ASROC]] launcher (removed) *1 x 8 cell [[NATO]] [[Sea Sparrow]] Mark 29 missile launcher *2 x quadruple [[Boeing Harpoon|Harpoon]] missile canisters *2 x [[Mark 32 Surface Vessel Torpedo Tubes|Mark 32 triple 12.75 in (324 mm) torpedo tubes]] ([[Mark 46 torpedo|Mk 46 torpedoes]]) *1 x 61 cell Mk 41 VLS launcher for [[BGM-109 Tomahawk|Tomahawk]] missiles *1 × 21 cell [[RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile]] launcher
To fix the problem, remove the *
from |Ship armament=
.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
History | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Name | {{
shipboxflag}} |
![]() | |
Name | {{
shipboxflag}} |
![]() | |
Name | {{
flag|UK}} |
![]() | |
Name | {{
navy|Malta}} |
![]() ![]() | |
Name | Two flags |
Name | No flag and no country |
![]() | |
Name | [[File:Flag of Antigua and Barbuda.svg|80px]] |
![]() | |
---|---|
Name | [[File:Flag of Antigua and Barbuda.svg|60px]] |
First there was this discussion:
then there was this discussion:
and here I am talking about it again.
Ship infoboxes are tables that are two columns wide where the left column is field names and the right column is values associated with the names. The same two column arrangement applies to the header at the top of {{infobox ship career}}
. The complaint at (1) is illustrated in the live infobox. Note how the |Ship name=
parameter rendering is different between the live infobox and the last example in the sandbox infobox.
The sandboxed versions of {{
infobox ship career}}
answer the complaint at (1) by making the <th>...</th>
span both columns. The flag image comes first because I couldn't figure out how to fix its position relative to the right edge of the infobox and keep the text vertically centered in the header. And, I realized that flag templates that render text along with the flag image all render it image left text right right. This format also renders correctly when editors use {{
flag}}
or {{
navy}}
.
From the discussion at (2) I have kept the change that created a standalone 'History' header so that there is more space available for |Ship country=
.
Also new with this version of the sandbox is a snippet of code in
Module:WPSHIPS utilities/sandbox that initially fixed the size of the flag image to the size specified by {{
shipboxflag}}
(100x35px) so no flag image would be wider than 100px nor taller than 35px. It is quite common with the current infobox for editors to set flag size to a variety of sizes to accommodate long text in |Ship country=
; see for example, FA
Vasa (ship) where flag width is set to 70px so that its height (40px) fits nicely with the header text.
Because the the css that specifies the header characteristics sets header height to 30 pixels, I reduced the flag image size to 100x30px. I see no reason why the addition of an image to the header should increase the vertical height of the header.
Opinions? Comments?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I have further reduced flag image size so that there is a thin gap between the flag and the edges of the header. Within the next days I intend to update the live {{
infobox ship career}}
template to this sandbox version.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The list of acceptable values used with |Hide header=
in {{
infobox ship career/sandbox}}
are now: Yes
and yes
to hide the header entirely and title
to hide the History title bar. |Hide header=title
better conveys the purpose of the parameter value than |Hide header=bar
did.
I need to figure out how to set |Hide header=title
for all but the first when there are multiple {{
infobox ship career}}
templates in a ship infobox.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 10:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
It is done. I have an AWB script that I will use to troll through articles containing {{
infobox ship career}}
and, where there are multiples of the template, in second and subsequent templates set |Hide header=title
where that parameter is not already set to something else.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
|Hide header=
was not set, the template does not display the country/flag header bar. I think that this is documented at
Usage guide §Infobox ship career. If you are seeing both the history and empty country/flag header bars in a single {{
infobox ship career}}
template after a purge or null edit, let me know.At the bottom of {{
infobox ship characteristics}}
are these parameters (not listed in the template skeleton in the documentation):
|Ship badge=
|Ship honors=
|Ship honours=
|Ship nickname=
|Ship motto=
Do these really belong there? They have been part of {{infobox ship characteristics}}
since its
inception in January 2007 and were added to {{
infobox ship career}}
about a
month later. That addition caused
this discussion.
Is it not true that these parameters attach more tightly to the ship's name than to the physical ship itself and so more properly belong in {{infobox ship career}}
? Should we deprecate and remove these parameters from {{infobox ship characteristics}}
?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
{{infobox ship characteristics}}
which describes the physical ship.
Tupsumato (
talk)
13:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)About a week ago I modified {{
infobox ship characteristics}}
so that it would add pages with the duplicate parameters to ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:WPSHIPS:Infobox deprecated parameters. At present there are about 170 articles listed.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 12:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Is there any recognition for contributing to subjects pertaining to ships in this WikiProject? I feel as though my 27 articles on World War II U.S. Navy vessels and Philippine Navy patrol craft have gone unnoticed, i'm not trying to sound rude or anything, honest. My works can be found on User:Luis Santos24/My Works. All i'm saying is that i simply think my large amount of articles have slipped through the cracks, that's all.
Cheers, -- The Haze Master ( talk) 01:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
{{
WikiProject Ships Barnstar}}
; that's the 'yes'. It's been awarded less than a handful of times; that's the 'no'.Just spotted this article on a relatively significant class of Israeli missile boats. It badly needs fixing up, with large chunks appearing to be a machine translation, the words left untranslated. Nigel Ish ( talk) 15:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Somewhere along the way, the Navy's DANFS website has been reorganized. A lot of ship articles have a reference note saying:
As you can see if you click the "here" in the line above, some of those links are now bad. I'm guessing it's a LOT of them. I've corrected the link for a couple of ships, such as this one:
I had to do a bit of searching and clicking to find the new link. I'm wondering if people here are aware of this change, and of the probably very large number of articles it affects. If there isn't one already, there should probably be some sort of tool or BOT that fixes this stuff. I'm not up to creating that myself. Lou Sander ( talk) 01:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
{{
DANFS}}
template instead of editing every article that uses it. Did that suggestion get passed on?Well, it looks like you can find the articles by running them through AWB transcluding Template:DANFS and then skipping all that "Doesn't contain: history.navy.mil/danfs" since all the url's that are dead used that old format. But after that, I had to copy and paste. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 17:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed that ibiblio.org has an archive of the photo galleries that all show up as dead links since earlier this year. It would be an easy bot substitution for some motivated person:
One wrinkle is that I have been going through some pages and linking the web archive for those: https://web.archive.org/web/20120921113514/http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-w/id3171.htm which might screw up a bot run. Would it be better to link the ibiblio mirror or web.archive.org ? -- Dual Freq ( talk) 12:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
She is listed as being part of the Reserve Fleet, but in the notes it states she is "undergoing nuclear deactivation". Does anyone know how far through this process she is? Far enough to de-list her from the reserve? (I can't check the NVR). I want to avoid what happened with the Enterprise (CVN-65)... she was listed as being in reserve even after she was irreversibly cut-up and ripped apart. Thanks. - theWOLFchild 09:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
We have an answer! Thanks to a fellow editor over at Project Military History, I found the Norfolk listed at the Ship-Submarine Recycling Program. it states there that she is not scheduled to begin her deactivation until next May, so it's safe to say we can keep her on the "Reserve" list until then. This is good, she was the only ship I was unsure of after updating the fleet the other day. Thanks everyone for your replies. - theWOLFchild 23:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)