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 45 | ← | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 |
I have noted lately that several Arleigh Burke-class destroyer articles have "Lists of Commanding Officers", in a basic table form, in the body the article. Currently 33* of the first 66 Burkes have this (*possibly more, with some added after the initial count), but spread across random pages, in no particular order (2 pages even have a second table to list Command Master Chiefs, marked †). I'm wondering if there is really a need for this? The CO of these ships is a Commander's billet, and as such, virtually none of these officer's has gained any kind of notability, certainly not enough for their own blps. These tables are basically full of red links or plain text. I had a quick look wp:ships talk archives and found about a half dozen discussions on this very topic. General consensus seems to be against inclusion of these tables. Some people quoted several policies & guidelines that disallowed having such tables. Some people were in favour of having notable officers mentioned in the article prose instead. If any ships were to have a notable CO, it would be an aircraft carrier, but only 2 of the 10 Nimitz-class aircraft carriers has these tables. A check of all 22 active Ticonderoga-class cruisers shows that none of those articles has such a table. So... should these articles have these tables? That is my question. Thanks (I have included below a list of the first 66 Burkes and noted which ones have tables ( ) and which do not ( ).)
Burke-class ship pages with CO lists
|
---|
|
Cheers - theWOLFchild
I'm happy to see that we have what appears to be a consensus. theWolfchild, are you willing to integrate your list of COs of the Enterprise into the main body of the article? 'Cause we need to treat each article equally. And, really, I've found that most of the COs of the big boys, battleships and fleet carriers, become admirals of some sort and thus qualify as notable under WP:Soldier. So anyone want to draft an amendment to WP:SHIPMOS?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 13:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Don't know if you guys had a chance to look at the 2nd list I added above with other ships, (and related articles), that have lists of CO's, and/or if anyone has any intention to do something about them. But that said, I thought I'd just mention, especially for those of you against such lists, that at least 2 items on the list are separate articles, and not just sections of a ship article. List of commanding officers of USS Nevada (BB-36) is just a plain ole' list, while at List of commanding officers of USS Oklahoma (BB-37), someone made a go of it and tried to make it look like a real article. But still, they each only have 5 officers with BLPs, just like the Enterprise (CV-6). I can't just delete these, they'll have to go thru AfD or some another process. I've done my part for now (pro-actively speaking), removing lists from almost 40 Burke-class pages, but if anyone wants any assistance with anything else, let me know. Cheers - theWOLFchild 04:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
What do y'all think?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 02:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)Ship captains are not inherently notable and those captains that are notable (meet the criteria laid out in WP:GNG or WP:Soldier) should be worked into the ship's history. Lists of ship's captains are forbidden.
Lists of ship's captains are forbidden" apply only to sections, lists or tables of a parent article, or will this apply to stand-alone articles as well? (eg: this vs this?) Thanks - theWOLFchild 04:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that a guideline can't possibly accommodate every possible, unforeseen scenario, but if something unusual comes up, it can be dealt with at the time, by the community on the article talk page. I don't agree with trying to simplify things, this isn't the Simple WP. As long as the notable COs are written into the prose, (and there shouldn't be a problem doing that) there is no need to list them as well. I think these two stand-alone lists are glaring problems, that might lead to more problems. One of them looks awful... just awful, and as pretty as the other one is, it doesn't change the fact that very few of the entries are actually notable. I think we should do the same as we did with the lists we've found so far; move the notables into the main article (if they aren't there already) and delete these pages. - theWOLFchild 08:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Back in the day, including a list of Captains was frowned upon. Most Captains aren't very notable and if they are, they should be mentioned inline with the ship's history. When I laid out USS Constitution (which has had over 75 CO's), only the CO's that most mattered were mentioned. However, Stephen Decatur was not mentioned despite his notability because he only commanded Constitution for 30 days while she was undergoing repairs. Lists of CO's are typically trivial content. Brad ( talk) 07:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Ocean also had a list of CO's, which has now been removed with it's few notable captains now being mentioned in the article body. However, there is also a " List of Affiliations" on the page. I don't recall coming across something like this before in other ship articles. Is this worthwhile content that at some point the community decided it wanted, or just another superfluous addition to be removed? Have a look and add your thoughts here. Thanks. - theWOLFchild 17:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Found another list on the page for this boat. Not one notable entry and I'll remove it. The reason I'm posting however, is I'd like to ask the community here; do we have a final stance on this? Are all lists to removed when found? Are new lists to be discouraged? Is the MOS being re-written to address this? This topic has been posted for awhile, so I'd like to get know the final word on this issue, before all this gets archived. Thanks - theWOLFchild 10:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Made sure all notable commanding officer's were noted in the article, and removed the CO list. Still wondering if WP:SHIPMOS is going to be modified and if we have a defined guideline regarding these lists. Thanks - theWOLFchild 19:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC) {pinging those who commented here; @ Sturmvogel 66, Trappist the monk, Tupsumato, Parsecboy, Euryalus, and Brad101:)
This is my most ambitious project in quite a while. Just wanted to let you guys know about it, give it a read, do some improvements/corrections and such if you please. Torpilorul ( talk) 20:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
It's my understanding that ship index pages are a specific type of disambiguation page and therefore the same formatting guidelines apply - essentially, one blue link per item and only as much information as is necessary to help the reader decide which link is the one they want (as documented at MOS:DAB). Is that correct? If not, are there ship-index-specific guidelines somewhere? Colonies Chris ( talk) 13:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines#Index_pages Brad ( talk) 01:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Anyone there who can provide the model of 88 mm gun used by the Romanian gunboat NMS Sublocotenent Ghiculescu and her sisters? Or if this armament is wrong (despite some sources confirming) it, can someone reveal her true armament then? Thanks. Torpilorul ( talk) 10:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
You guys see these boats? ( http://www.navypedia.org/ships/romania/ro_cf_v7.htm) I seek book confirmation that they existed. These two little vessels are probably my greatest unsolved puzzle, and Google Books ain't helping much. Torpilorul ( talk) 19:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, everyone. I work as Disaster Recovery Consultant to The Port of Beaumont, TX and can tell you without equivocation that Cape Texas is berthed here with two other RO-RO vessels in a state of readiness. My reference is that I look squarely at her each time I leave or enter the Port Administration building. -Steve Rice- 67.79.64.210 ( talk) 17:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)02.06.18 67.79.64.210 ( talk) 17:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I move discussion which may be of interest to participants of this WikiProject is currently taking place at Talk:Corvette (disambiguation)#Requested move 9 February 2018 . -- Netoholic @ 04:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I may be wrong but the current photo looks like the same one we took down three years ago per this discussion. Can anyone confirm this as legit or is it a retouched photo of the RMS Empress of Britain (1905)? I think it's the EoB but would like a 2nd opinion before I pull it. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I couldn't help but notice that 6 of the 10 largest pages on WP fall under the scope of this project (see Special:LongPages). Has there ever been a sensible proposal to split them into more reasonably sized sub-pages? 198.84.253.202 ( talk) 04:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Is this a Battleship like other language Wikipedia said ? Or Is this a Coastal defence ship like the English Wikipedia said ?
If this is a Battleship , is it a Pre-dreadnought ?
If this is a Coastal defence ship , is it a ship that came before Admiral Ushakov-class was built ?
Thank you. -- Comrade John ( talk) 10:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Can an admin move HMIS Godaveri to HMIS Godavari? Thanks in advance.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 14:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for HMS Erin; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 09:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I've got into a discussion about the above. Basically it's been pointed out to me under MOS:DAB only the ship name can be blue linked on a dab page. This is of course at variance with normal usage on ship dab pages and I don't feel in the best interests of the user. I accept that I haven't formulated my arguments well in the discussion. So my questions are, is there an established exception for ship pages? And if there isn't what should I do in future - comply and produce something I think is inferior or ignore and accept someone will undo the class links? The discussion is here User talk:Joeyconnick#HMS Eglinton dab page Lyndaship ( talk) 09:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion at WT:MILHIST#Russian ship Yantar. The article on the vessel has been moved, and all reference to her being a spy ship has been stripped from the article. Discussion at MILHIST please as to whether or not the article should be returned to its former state. Mjroots ( talk) 13:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I am looking for a one-line statement on notability that I can show to hesitant new users. Can someone add one to the project page please. I am happy with anything- I just want something solid, that I can use to help users test their proposal. At the moment I am using :
Coverage in at least two books means it passes WP:GNG.@ Mjroots:
Can an admin remove the circular redirect of HMS Heythrop (L85)) from the Hunt-class destroyer page? Lyndaship ( talk) 09:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
{{
Hunt class destroyer}}
so perhaps the incoming links issue is of no concern.Last night, I began work on List of battleships of the United States Navy and spent a couple hours on my overhaul of the list, which was reverted. In the notice of that reversion on the talk page, it was suggested that I post notices on pertinent WikiProjects to review my edit. Please follow this link to that talk page to discuss and review my work, its the second-most recent edit as of the writing of this notice. – Vami _IV✠ 19:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
There's a problem with this article, it conflates unmanned with autonomous. Remotely operated non-autonomous topics are not distinguished from the self-piloting vehicles. And unmanned should be clarified as "uncrewed", since it could contain passengers. -- 67.70.34.54 ( talk) 16:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Following on from the above, if anyone wants to go to town attempting to construct lists of the ships listed on the Tower Hill Memorial for both WWI and WWII, there is a website with index pages here and here. I will put a note on the talk page as well. Also, if anyone wants to follow up/check what I posted at Talk:Helles Memorial, that is another memorial with ships named. Other memorials, such as the ones at Chatham, Portsmouth and Plymouth, don't (AFAIK) list the casualties by ship. Carcharoth ( talk) 16:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
1. Midget submarines. When talking generally about a Navy's submarines, are midget submarines implicitly included too? I've seen this at Nazi Germany, in which the midgets are included in about the ~1500 submarines they had, but not at Imperial Japan, which had 200+ proper submarines plus ~500 midgets which however do not seem to be implicitly included.
2. In the source here it states "2-37 mm (twin)". So are there two guns in a twin mount or two twin guns? It's not clear to me. Torpilorul ( talk) 17:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I am trying to see if Wikipedia has an article on the SS Britannia that was lost during WWI on 19 October 1917. The disambiguation page SS Britannia doesn't seem to list it. Can anyone here help? It was the ship that Bobby Atherton was serving on when he died. Carcharoth ( talk) 14:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
While it is pleasing to see this interesting and comprehensive article reaching the front page today, it is a pity that advance notice did not appear here, particularly as it is nearly nine years since it passed FAC. There are a number of significant problems, but I believe the convention is not to make other than minor changes while an article is on the front page. The engine described in the third Construction para is completely wrong - she was built with a steam turbine and re-engined in 1929 (as per ref, as well as passing reference to turbine in DANFS) - and the IMO number is an invention and not in the source. It is not true that there are no secondary sources for the involvement of Cunard and it is surprising that there is no mention of her being a Design 1013 ship in the article itself, only in the category and hidden list. The referencing style for the Lloyd's Register entries seems peculiar as it doesn't actually mention the publisher. Also, several of the specific questions raised in the FAC Review seem never to have been addressed. I'll have a go at all these and a number of smaller matters in a day or two, when I have a bit more time.
But the question remains - is there a way of flagging up imminent ship-related front-pagers? Davidships ( talk) 11:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
hi all, the above ship is up for deletion, here is the afd - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irlam (1813 ship), the article does not have a talkpage so the afd has not appeared on your alert list. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
See this talk. - DePiep ( talk) 14:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I am attempting to update the Zumwalt-class destroyer and related articles, but I'm having trouble doing this without violating WP:SYNTH
The facts as of 2018 are these:
The implication is that the Zumwalts have no ammo for their AGSs and will never have ammo, and will therefore never fire their guns. But I have not found a reference that states this explicitly, other than some opinion pieces.
In addition, the following assertions appear to be valid:
The implication is that these ships cannot fulfil their primary mission and are not very good at any of their secondary missions. If this is true, then the ships are basically useless, and this is is probably more important to the articles than most of the details. But we cannot put these implications into the articles without references, because this would be WP:OR, specifically WP:SYNTH.
Please note: I am fairly clear on the history of how all of this happened (Battleships, Congress, United States naval gunfire support debate, ...). These have their own articles, and previous intentions, etc, do not change current situation. I'm not "against" the Zumwalts and I'm not trying to assign blame to anyone: among other things, that is not my job as a Wikipedia editor.
I am trying hard to maintain a NPOV, but it's really hard. So far, I'm just adding facts to articles, but the results are so striking that one editor asked if I had made a mistake. Do any of you ship guys have any suggestions? thanks. - Arch dude ( talk) 21:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
This article [10] (thanks, Nick, I got this from one of yours) states that the Zumwalts are "built around the AGS", which also seems obvious given the history. Is this a sufficient reference for this assertion? If not, does anyone have guidance on finding one? - Arch dude ( talk) 04:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Proposal: Should we have a TSS template? We have a number of articles with the TSS prefix (and they probably are correctly TSS and not SS). I welcome peoples thoughts. Djm-leighpark ( talk)
I have now created the template TSS template and associated doc. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 01:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Both "TS" and "TSS" have been used for turbine steamers. "TSS" has also been used for twin screw steamers. And most turbine-driven ships did not use either "TS" or "TSS"; they used "SS" which means a steamship; it has nothing to do with the number of screws. Kablammo ( talk) 03:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I've been looking at this article. It's source seems primarily to be the reminiscences on the Gallipoli web page. The list appears to be very incomplete and misleading - for instance I suspect Egmont was the Malta base ship and never went anywhere near Gallipoli, one hospital ship is mentioned but not any of the others. I don't have the references to try and clean it up. I did wonder if there is a list of RN ships that received the battle honour Gallipoli which would make a good starting point but I can't find one online. Currently if you put "ships at gallipoli" into google this page comes up top of the list and I do feel we are doing wikipedia a dis-service by offering this. Can anyone sort it out or should it be deleted or is some information better than no information? Lyndaship ( talk) 13:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm trying to update this article, as it has a lot of useful information and I have linked to it from the Zumwalt-class destroyers and related articles that I updated. I now think the article, as it stands is merely one huge WP:SYNTH, and technically must be deleted unless we can restructure it. Please comment on its talk page. Thanks. - Arch dude ( talk) 23:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Help please. I created this page from a link which gave me this title. However I have since discovered that the correct title is British Iron & Steel Corporation ie an ampersand rather than and. Many pages already linked into this incorrect title and I've linked more since. What's best to do? Rename the page and I will go in and change the linked pages to point to the new title or simply to create a redirect? We come across this company often as BISCO Lyndaship ( talk) 09:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
There seems to be a dispute going on about this article - from what I can tell it's possibly two ships with similar or identical names that are being confused with each other. Could someone here take a look? Thanks, ansh 666 20:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Class overview | |
---|---|
Name | Gerald R. Ford–class aircraft carrier |
Builders | Newport News Shipbuilding |
Operators | United States Navy |
Preceded by | Nimitz class |
Cost |
|
In service | 2017–present |
Planned | 10 |
On order | 2 |
Building | 2 |
Completed | 1 |
Active | 1 |
I would like to suggest adding the parameter "ordered=" to the template for infobox/ ships and subs. I've already added it manually, awhile ago, to these ship class pages; CVN-78, DDG-51, LCS-1 & LCS-2, and so far it appears to be a worthwhile addition to those articles. This would be minor addition, but that said, I'd like to see if there are any objections first. Thanks - theWOLFchild 02:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
|ordered=
in {{
Infobox ship}} (
talk) then. Any infobox section header suggestion? -
DePiep (
talk)
02:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
any infobox section header suggestion?" There would be no new section or header needed, the parameter "ordered" would go below "building" and above "planned" in the "Class overview" section. That's where it is now on the pages I noted above. - theWOLFchild 06:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
|Total ships ordered=
in keeping with similar parameter names: |Total ships building=
, |Total ships planned=
, |Total ships completed=
, etc. It seems to me that this collection of parameters might want to be re-ordered. At present, the rendering order is: building, planned, completed. Even if not adopted, shouldn't the order for those three be planned, building, completed? And if adopted, planned, ordered, building, completed?|Total ships ordered=
parameter. That phrasing of the parameter name |Total ships ordered=
is not consistent with the use of field "Ordered:" as currently used in the above referenced ship-class articles since those articles currently use the field "Ordered" to reflect the number currently on order, not the total number that have been ordered. As an example, take the existing field |Total ships building=
. If the tense of that field were changed to past tense, i.e. |Total ships built=
, I would expect a different value to appear in the infobox than the value used for the current name of |Total ships building=
which uses present tense. So, for the same reason, I think the parameter name of |Total ships ordered=
(which uses past tense) doesn't match the current use this field (even if we continue to use "Ordered:" as the infobox field display name). Just like the |Total ships building=
field, I think the parameter name for the ordering field should be something using present tense like |Total ships on order=
or |Total ships ordering=
(this is the phrase I called awkward). I am not actually at all particular about the actual infobox field display name — it could remain "Ordered:", or change to "On order:" or "Ordering:", I think any of those are fine. —
RP88 (
talk)
18:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Ah, ok... I got you now. And I can see where you might find, or think others might find, the wording problematic. It hadn't occurred to me before because it's been used in several articles and tables and it never seemed to cause an issue (even after I added it to those infoboxes, no one seemed to have a problem with it). The majority of places I listed use "Ordered", but some also use "On order" (maybe we should agree on one for all usage?) As for the parameter, when Trappist the monk made the comment about the parameter being entered as "Total ships ordered", I didn't think much of it, other than a technicality than really makes no difference. All the infobox parameters for "planned", "building", etc., have "Total ships" as part of the parameter, but that doesn't show up in the infobox. So to me, 'out of sight, out of mind', not really an issue.
I think that if we add "Total ships ordered", which will only show as "ordered", and realign the parameters to the life cycle of a ship, eg: 1) planned, 2) ordered 3) Building 4) completed 5) active, etc., etc., then the math will speak for itself, as it seems to have been doing for all these other lists and tables (or we could add an "overall total" somehow? and another thought, perhaps we could add "stage"... somewhere eg: "Planning stage", "building stage", it would help to differentiate just what ships are where. it's just an idea though, I'm not married to it). Really, I hoping that, first, we can agree that "ordered" (in some form) should be added as a parameter to the infoboxes for ships and subs, then second, the parameter order should be changed as noted above, and third... well, if we get that far, the other details should be an easy sort. Cheers - theWOLFchild 05:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
{{
Infobox ship class overview}}
using |Total ships on order=
and data from
Gerald R. Ford class.infobox ship class overview
. I think most of the confusion comes from the fact that editors of Wikipedia use at least two different schemes for naming the status of ships that are not yet active. Editors sometimes use a status derived from the name of the most recent milestone reached: Ordered, Keel laid, Launched, etc. These will be in past tense, since the milestones on which a status is based are necessarily in the past. Editors also sometimes use a status derived from the current phase of construction: On order, Under construction, Fitting out, etc. These will, obviously, be in present tense. There is typically a correspondence between milestones and the phase of construction (e.g. fitting out begins when a ship is launched, a ship is on order after it is ordered, etc.). I think it is OK for articles to use either scheme, but some articles use a mix, which I find mildly annoying and will sometimes fix if it is obvious that other editors have largely favored a particular scheme for that class of ship. Up to now the infobox has avoided the issue since it has just had "Building:" for ships under construction in any phase. TTM's sandbox version now uses "On order:" which I prefer since it matches the tense of "Building:". Is that OK with you? —
RP88 (
talk)
13:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
done.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 12:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
There some question I need to ask about this class of destroyer.
In there , the info box said:
That total number only include Royal navy's and their subclasses . But include other operators and their subclasses as well , the info box should be like this:
So , should I follow the old one , or follow the new one and make a edit ? If follow the old one , the operator in info box , template and article should make a change since what shown in article , info box and template , is more than 24 destroyers. -- Comrade John ( talk) 16:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I am surprised there is no category for unfinished ships. See Category:Cancelled projects and events - we have categories for unfinished books, nuclear reactors... but not ships. Sometimes those are notable (ex. ORP Huragan). Any objections to creating one, and how it should be called? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I am developing an article in a sandbox for the Ship Canterbury built in 1929 registry 161199. I understand her proper prefix to be TSS [1] ... however Template:SR ships has her redlinked as SS. Which would people suggest for the article name. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 20:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for input. I've chosen to create the TSS template and documentation friends and to name the article TSS Canterbury (1929) when I get it to main article space ... its still WIP at the moment. Thankyou all again for support and input. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 01:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks all for comments. I observe that Ship prefix and Twin-screw steamer specifically define 'TSS' as 'twin-screw steamer'. Ship prefix also defines 'SS' as 'single-screw steamship', however it actually links to Screw steamer which is defines simply as one or more screws. I wonder if TSS was specified by the builder or customer as a sort of 'GTi' or 'DeLuxe' badge or to distinguished from an older 'SS' prefix ship .. though I postulate in the early days my understanding is the twin screw could have been more unexpectedly maneurverable than a single screw and this could be significant for nearby vessels. The 1934 train ferries Twickenham, Shepperton and Hampton and also interesting. They seem generally use the 'SS' prefix if anything although Southern railway produced a postcard for the Shepperton Ferry prefixing it 'TSS'. ( there is no article for the Hampton and I would use 'SS' for that for consistency). Possibly there is a case for indicating on the Ship Prefix artcile that SS may stand for any Screw Steamship, not just a single ... though a reliable source for this might be best. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 09:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Paging dave souza, our resident expert on the railway steamers of western Scotland. Kablammo ( talk) 13:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
References
Somebody just broke Template:USS. For example, see USS Enterprise (CVN-65). Is there a template editor here that can take a look? This is big - All articles are affected right now. - theWOLFchild 19:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I've combined all the info from these two pages onto the HMS Lynx one as they are the same ship and should only have one article. If someone could check I've done it ok and if so delete or merge or whatever should happen to the Abu Bakar one. I would appreciate it if it could all be explained as there's at least one more BNS ship the same Lyndaship ( talk) 19:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I have created new templates to provide an existing option more easily:
They and their "parent" templates like {{ MS}} used individual code, now they use {{ Ship}} as all the others do ({{USS}} etc.). - DePiep ( talk) 18:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
|3=8, 14
with a separate template (BTW, they do have this extra twist: change prefix spelling between target article and label shown). Less then half a dozen of articles had to be edited to remove those odd options (all re M/S only;
Olau Line
[13]). All this, by intention, does not interfere with any guideline.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 45 | ← | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 |
I have noted lately that several Arleigh Burke-class destroyer articles have "Lists of Commanding Officers", in a basic table form, in the body the article. Currently 33* of the first 66 Burkes have this (*possibly more, with some added after the initial count), but spread across random pages, in no particular order (2 pages even have a second table to list Command Master Chiefs, marked †). I'm wondering if there is really a need for this? The CO of these ships is a Commander's billet, and as such, virtually none of these officer's has gained any kind of notability, certainly not enough for their own blps. These tables are basically full of red links or plain text. I had a quick look wp:ships talk archives and found about a half dozen discussions on this very topic. General consensus seems to be against inclusion of these tables. Some people quoted several policies & guidelines that disallowed having such tables. Some people were in favour of having notable officers mentioned in the article prose instead. If any ships were to have a notable CO, it would be an aircraft carrier, but only 2 of the 10 Nimitz-class aircraft carriers has these tables. A check of all 22 active Ticonderoga-class cruisers shows that none of those articles has such a table. So... should these articles have these tables? That is my question. Thanks (I have included below a list of the first 66 Burkes and noted which ones have tables ( ) and which do not ( ).)
Burke-class ship pages with CO lists
|
---|
|
Cheers - theWOLFchild
I'm happy to see that we have what appears to be a consensus. theWolfchild, are you willing to integrate your list of COs of the Enterprise into the main body of the article? 'Cause we need to treat each article equally. And, really, I've found that most of the COs of the big boys, battleships and fleet carriers, become admirals of some sort and thus qualify as notable under WP:Soldier. So anyone want to draft an amendment to WP:SHIPMOS?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 13:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Don't know if you guys had a chance to look at the 2nd list I added above with other ships, (and related articles), that have lists of CO's, and/or if anyone has any intention to do something about them. But that said, I thought I'd just mention, especially for those of you against such lists, that at least 2 items on the list are separate articles, and not just sections of a ship article. List of commanding officers of USS Nevada (BB-36) is just a plain ole' list, while at List of commanding officers of USS Oklahoma (BB-37), someone made a go of it and tried to make it look like a real article. But still, they each only have 5 officers with BLPs, just like the Enterprise (CV-6). I can't just delete these, they'll have to go thru AfD or some another process. I've done my part for now (pro-actively speaking), removing lists from almost 40 Burke-class pages, but if anyone wants any assistance with anything else, let me know. Cheers - theWOLFchild 04:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
What do y'all think?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 02:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)Ship captains are not inherently notable and those captains that are notable (meet the criteria laid out in WP:GNG or WP:Soldier) should be worked into the ship's history. Lists of ship's captains are forbidden.
Lists of ship's captains are forbidden" apply only to sections, lists or tables of a parent article, or will this apply to stand-alone articles as well? (eg: this vs this?) Thanks - theWOLFchild 04:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that a guideline can't possibly accommodate every possible, unforeseen scenario, but if something unusual comes up, it can be dealt with at the time, by the community on the article talk page. I don't agree with trying to simplify things, this isn't the Simple WP. As long as the notable COs are written into the prose, (and there shouldn't be a problem doing that) there is no need to list them as well. I think these two stand-alone lists are glaring problems, that might lead to more problems. One of them looks awful... just awful, and as pretty as the other one is, it doesn't change the fact that very few of the entries are actually notable. I think we should do the same as we did with the lists we've found so far; move the notables into the main article (if they aren't there already) and delete these pages. - theWOLFchild 08:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Back in the day, including a list of Captains was frowned upon. Most Captains aren't very notable and if they are, they should be mentioned inline with the ship's history. When I laid out USS Constitution (which has had over 75 CO's), only the CO's that most mattered were mentioned. However, Stephen Decatur was not mentioned despite his notability because he only commanded Constitution for 30 days while she was undergoing repairs. Lists of CO's are typically trivial content. Brad ( talk) 07:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Ocean also had a list of CO's, which has now been removed with it's few notable captains now being mentioned in the article body. However, there is also a " List of Affiliations" on the page. I don't recall coming across something like this before in other ship articles. Is this worthwhile content that at some point the community decided it wanted, or just another superfluous addition to be removed? Have a look and add your thoughts here. Thanks. - theWOLFchild 17:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Found another list on the page for this boat. Not one notable entry and I'll remove it. The reason I'm posting however, is I'd like to ask the community here; do we have a final stance on this? Are all lists to removed when found? Are new lists to be discouraged? Is the MOS being re-written to address this? This topic has been posted for awhile, so I'd like to get know the final word on this issue, before all this gets archived. Thanks - theWOLFchild 10:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Made sure all notable commanding officer's were noted in the article, and removed the CO list. Still wondering if WP:SHIPMOS is going to be modified and if we have a defined guideline regarding these lists. Thanks - theWOLFchild 19:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC) {pinging those who commented here; @ Sturmvogel 66, Trappist the monk, Tupsumato, Parsecboy, Euryalus, and Brad101:)
This is my most ambitious project in quite a while. Just wanted to let you guys know about it, give it a read, do some improvements/corrections and such if you please. Torpilorul ( talk) 20:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
It's my understanding that ship index pages are a specific type of disambiguation page and therefore the same formatting guidelines apply - essentially, one blue link per item and only as much information as is necessary to help the reader decide which link is the one they want (as documented at MOS:DAB). Is that correct? If not, are there ship-index-specific guidelines somewhere? Colonies Chris ( talk) 13:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines#Index_pages Brad ( talk) 01:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Anyone there who can provide the model of 88 mm gun used by the Romanian gunboat NMS Sublocotenent Ghiculescu and her sisters? Or if this armament is wrong (despite some sources confirming) it, can someone reveal her true armament then? Thanks. Torpilorul ( talk) 10:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
You guys see these boats? ( http://www.navypedia.org/ships/romania/ro_cf_v7.htm) I seek book confirmation that they existed. These two little vessels are probably my greatest unsolved puzzle, and Google Books ain't helping much. Torpilorul ( talk) 19:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, everyone. I work as Disaster Recovery Consultant to The Port of Beaumont, TX and can tell you without equivocation that Cape Texas is berthed here with two other RO-RO vessels in a state of readiness. My reference is that I look squarely at her each time I leave or enter the Port Administration building. -Steve Rice- 67.79.64.210 ( talk) 17:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)02.06.18 67.79.64.210 ( talk) 17:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I move discussion which may be of interest to participants of this WikiProject is currently taking place at Talk:Corvette (disambiguation)#Requested move 9 February 2018 . -- Netoholic @ 04:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I may be wrong but the current photo looks like the same one we took down three years ago per this discussion. Can anyone confirm this as legit or is it a retouched photo of the RMS Empress of Britain (1905)? I think it's the EoB but would like a 2nd opinion before I pull it. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I couldn't help but notice that 6 of the 10 largest pages on WP fall under the scope of this project (see Special:LongPages). Has there ever been a sensible proposal to split them into more reasonably sized sub-pages? 198.84.253.202 ( talk) 04:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Is this a Battleship like other language Wikipedia said ? Or Is this a Coastal defence ship like the English Wikipedia said ?
If this is a Battleship , is it a Pre-dreadnought ?
If this is a Coastal defence ship , is it a ship that came before Admiral Ushakov-class was built ?
Thank you. -- Comrade John ( talk) 10:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Can an admin move HMIS Godaveri to HMIS Godavari? Thanks in advance.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 14:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for HMS Erin; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 09:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I've got into a discussion about the above. Basically it's been pointed out to me under MOS:DAB only the ship name can be blue linked on a dab page. This is of course at variance with normal usage on ship dab pages and I don't feel in the best interests of the user. I accept that I haven't formulated my arguments well in the discussion. So my questions are, is there an established exception for ship pages? And if there isn't what should I do in future - comply and produce something I think is inferior or ignore and accept someone will undo the class links? The discussion is here User talk:Joeyconnick#HMS Eglinton dab page Lyndaship ( talk) 09:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion at WT:MILHIST#Russian ship Yantar. The article on the vessel has been moved, and all reference to her being a spy ship has been stripped from the article. Discussion at MILHIST please as to whether or not the article should be returned to its former state. Mjroots ( talk) 13:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I am looking for a one-line statement on notability that I can show to hesitant new users. Can someone add one to the project page please. I am happy with anything- I just want something solid, that I can use to help users test their proposal. At the moment I am using :
Coverage in at least two books means it passes WP:GNG.@ Mjroots:
Can an admin remove the circular redirect of HMS Heythrop (L85)) from the Hunt-class destroyer page? Lyndaship ( talk) 09:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
{{
Hunt class destroyer}}
so perhaps the incoming links issue is of no concern.Last night, I began work on List of battleships of the United States Navy and spent a couple hours on my overhaul of the list, which was reverted. In the notice of that reversion on the talk page, it was suggested that I post notices on pertinent WikiProjects to review my edit. Please follow this link to that talk page to discuss and review my work, its the second-most recent edit as of the writing of this notice. – Vami _IV✠ 19:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
There's a problem with this article, it conflates unmanned with autonomous. Remotely operated non-autonomous topics are not distinguished from the self-piloting vehicles. And unmanned should be clarified as "uncrewed", since it could contain passengers. -- 67.70.34.54 ( talk) 16:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Following on from the above, if anyone wants to go to town attempting to construct lists of the ships listed on the Tower Hill Memorial for both WWI and WWII, there is a website with index pages here and here. I will put a note on the talk page as well. Also, if anyone wants to follow up/check what I posted at Talk:Helles Memorial, that is another memorial with ships named. Other memorials, such as the ones at Chatham, Portsmouth and Plymouth, don't (AFAIK) list the casualties by ship. Carcharoth ( talk) 16:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
1. Midget submarines. When talking generally about a Navy's submarines, are midget submarines implicitly included too? I've seen this at Nazi Germany, in which the midgets are included in about the ~1500 submarines they had, but not at Imperial Japan, which had 200+ proper submarines plus ~500 midgets which however do not seem to be implicitly included.
2. In the source here it states "2-37 mm (twin)". So are there two guns in a twin mount or two twin guns? It's not clear to me. Torpilorul ( talk) 17:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I am trying to see if Wikipedia has an article on the SS Britannia that was lost during WWI on 19 October 1917. The disambiguation page SS Britannia doesn't seem to list it. Can anyone here help? It was the ship that Bobby Atherton was serving on when he died. Carcharoth ( talk) 14:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
While it is pleasing to see this interesting and comprehensive article reaching the front page today, it is a pity that advance notice did not appear here, particularly as it is nearly nine years since it passed FAC. There are a number of significant problems, but I believe the convention is not to make other than minor changes while an article is on the front page. The engine described in the third Construction para is completely wrong - she was built with a steam turbine and re-engined in 1929 (as per ref, as well as passing reference to turbine in DANFS) - and the IMO number is an invention and not in the source. It is not true that there are no secondary sources for the involvement of Cunard and it is surprising that there is no mention of her being a Design 1013 ship in the article itself, only in the category and hidden list. The referencing style for the Lloyd's Register entries seems peculiar as it doesn't actually mention the publisher. Also, several of the specific questions raised in the FAC Review seem never to have been addressed. I'll have a go at all these and a number of smaller matters in a day or two, when I have a bit more time.
But the question remains - is there a way of flagging up imminent ship-related front-pagers? Davidships ( talk) 11:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
hi all, the above ship is up for deletion, here is the afd - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irlam (1813 ship), the article does not have a talkpage so the afd has not appeared on your alert list. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
See this talk. - DePiep ( talk) 14:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I am attempting to update the Zumwalt-class destroyer and related articles, but I'm having trouble doing this without violating WP:SYNTH
The facts as of 2018 are these:
The implication is that the Zumwalts have no ammo for their AGSs and will never have ammo, and will therefore never fire their guns. But I have not found a reference that states this explicitly, other than some opinion pieces.
In addition, the following assertions appear to be valid:
The implication is that these ships cannot fulfil their primary mission and are not very good at any of their secondary missions. If this is true, then the ships are basically useless, and this is is probably more important to the articles than most of the details. But we cannot put these implications into the articles without references, because this would be WP:OR, specifically WP:SYNTH.
Please note: I am fairly clear on the history of how all of this happened (Battleships, Congress, United States naval gunfire support debate, ...). These have their own articles, and previous intentions, etc, do not change current situation. I'm not "against" the Zumwalts and I'm not trying to assign blame to anyone: among other things, that is not my job as a Wikipedia editor.
I am trying hard to maintain a NPOV, but it's really hard. So far, I'm just adding facts to articles, but the results are so striking that one editor asked if I had made a mistake. Do any of you ship guys have any suggestions? thanks. - Arch dude ( talk) 21:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
This article [10] (thanks, Nick, I got this from one of yours) states that the Zumwalts are "built around the AGS", which also seems obvious given the history. Is this a sufficient reference for this assertion? If not, does anyone have guidance on finding one? - Arch dude ( talk) 04:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Proposal: Should we have a TSS template? We have a number of articles with the TSS prefix (and they probably are correctly TSS and not SS). I welcome peoples thoughts. Djm-leighpark ( talk)
I have now created the template TSS template and associated doc. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 01:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Both "TS" and "TSS" have been used for turbine steamers. "TSS" has also been used for twin screw steamers. And most turbine-driven ships did not use either "TS" or "TSS"; they used "SS" which means a steamship; it has nothing to do with the number of screws. Kablammo ( talk) 03:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I've been looking at this article. It's source seems primarily to be the reminiscences on the Gallipoli web page. The list appears to be very incomplete and misleading - for instance I suspect Egmont was the Malta base ship and never went anywhere near Gallipoli, one hospital ship is mentioned but not any of the others. I don't have the references to try and clean it up. I did wonder if there is a list of RN ships that received the battle honour Gallipoli which would make a good starting point but I can't find one online. Currently if you put "ships at gallipoli" into google this page comes up top of the list and I do feel we are doing wikipedia a dis-service by offering this. Can anyone sort it out or should it be deleted or is some information better than no information? Lyndaship ( talk) 13:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm trying to update this article, as it has a lot of useful information and I have linked to it from the Zumwalt-class destroyers and related articles that I updated. I now think the article, as it stands is merely one huge WP:SYNTH, and technically must be deleted unless we can restructure it. Please comment on its talk page. Thanks. - Arch dude ( talk) 23:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Help please. I created this page from a link which gave me this title. However I have since discovered that the correct title is British Iron & Steel Corporation ie an ampersand rather than and. Many pages already linked into this incorrect title and I've linked more since. What's best to do? Rename the page and I will go in and change the linked pages to point to the new title or simply to create a redirect? We come across this company often as BISCO Lyndaship ( talk) 09:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
There seems to be a dispute going on about this article - from what I can tell it's possibly two ships with similar or identical names that are being confused with each other. Could someone here take a look? Thanks, ansh 666 20:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Class overview | |
---|---|
Name | Gerald R. Ford–class aircraft carrier |
Builders | Newport News Shipbuilding |
Operators | United States Navy |
Preceded by | Nimitz class |
Cost |
|
In service | 2017–present |
Planned | 10 |
On order | 2 |
Building | 2 |
Completed | 1 |
Active | 1 |
I would like to suggest adding the parameter "ordered=" to the template for infobox/ ships and subs. I've already added it manually, awhile ago, to these ship class pages; CVN-78, DDG-51, LCS-1 & LCS-2, and so far it appears to be a worthwhile addition to those articles. This would be minor addition, but that said, I'd like to see if there are any objections first. Thanks - theWOLFchild 02:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
|ordered=
in {{
Infobox ship}} (
talk) then. Any infobox section header suggestion? -
DePiep (
talk)
02:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
any infobox section header suggestion?" There would be no new section or header needed, the parameter "ordered" would go below "building" and above "planned" in the "Class overview" section. That's where it is now on the pages I noted above. - theWOLFchild 06:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
|Total ships ordered=
in keeping with similar parameter names: |Total ships building=
, |Total ships planned=
, |Total ships completed=
, etc. It seems to me that this collection of parameters might want to be re-ordered. At present, the rendering order is: building, planned, completed. Even if not adopted, shouldn't the order for those three be planned, building, completed? And if adopted, planned, ordered, building, completed?|Total ships ordered=
parameter. That phrasing of the parameter name |Total ships ordered=
is not consistent with the use of field "Ordered:" as currently used in the above referenced ship-class articles since those articles currently use the field "Ordered" to reflect the number currently on order, not the total number that have been ordered. As an example, take the existing field |Total ships building=
. If the tense of that field were changed to past tense, i.e. |Total ships built=
, I would expect a different value to appear in the infobox than the value used for the current name of |Total ships building=
which uses present tense. So, for the same reason, I think the parameter name of |Total ships ordered=
(which uses past tense) doesn't match the current use this field (even if we continue to use "Ordered:" as the infobox field display name). Just like the |Total ships building=
field, I think the parameter name for the ordering field should be something using present tense like |Total ships on order=
or |Total ships ordering=
(this is the phrase I called awkward). I am not actually at all particular about the actual infobox field display name — it could remain "Ordered:", or change to "On order:" or "Ordering:", I think any of those are fine. —
RP88 (
talk)
18:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Ah, ok... I got you now. And I can see where you might find, or think others might find, the wording problematic. It hadn't occurred to me before because it's been used in several articles and tables and it never seemed to cause an issue (even after I added it to those infoboxes, no one seemed to have a problem with it). The majority of places I listed use "Ordered", but some also use "On order" (maybe we should agree on one for all usage?) As for the parameter, when Trappist the monk made the comment about the parameter being entered as "Total ships ordered", I didn't think much of it, other than a technicality than really makes no difference. All the infobox parameters for "planned", "building", etc., have "Total ships" as part of the parameter, but that doesn't show up in the infobox. So to me, 'out of sight, out of mind', not really an issue.
I think that if we add "Total ships ordered", which will only show as "ordered", and realign the parameters to the life cycle of a ship, eg: 1) planned, 2) ordered 3) Building 4) completed 5) active, etc., etc., then the math will speak for itself, as it seems to have been doing for all these other lists and tables (or we could add an "overall total" somehow? and another thought, perhaps we could add "stage"... somewhere eg: "Planning stage", "building stage", it would help to differentiate just what ships are where. it's just an idea though, I'm not married to it). Really, I hoping that, first, we can agree that "ordered" (in some form) should be added as a parameter to the infoboxes for ships and subs, then second, the parameter order should be changed as noted above, and third... well, if we get that far, the other details should be an easy sort. Cheers - theWOLFchild 05:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
{{
Infobox ship class overview}}
using |Total ships on order=
and data from
Gerald R. Ford class.infobox ship class overview
. I think most of the confusion comes from the fact that editors of Wikipedia use at least two different schemes for naming the status of ships that are not yet active. Editors sometimes use a status derived from the name of the most recent milestone reached: Ordered, Keel laid, Launched, etc. These will be in past tense, since the milestones on which a status is based are necessarily in the past. Editors also sometimes use a status derived from the current phase of construction: On order, Under construction, Fitting out, etc. These will, obviously, be in present tense. There is typically a correspondence between milestones and the phase of construction (e.g. fitting out begins when a ship is launched, a ship is on order after it is ordered, etc.). I think it is OK for articles to use either scheme, but some articles use a mix, which I find mildly annoying and will sometimes fix if it is obvious that other editors have largely favored a particular scheme for that class of ship. Up to now the infobox has avoided the issue since it has just had "Building:" for ships under construction in any phase. TTM's sandbox version now uses "On order:" which I prefer since it matches the tense of "Building:". Is that OK with you? —
RP88 (
talk)
13:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
done.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 12:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
There some question I need to ask about this class of destroyer.
In there , the info box said:
That total number only include Royal navy's and their subclasses . But include other operators and their subclasses as well , the info box should be like this:
So , should I follow the old one , or follow the new one and make a edit ? If follow the old one , the operator in info box , template and article should make a change since what shown in article , info box and template , is more than 24 destroyers. -- Comrade John ( talk) 16:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I am surprised there is no category for unfinished ships. See Category:Cancelled projects and events - we have categories for unfinished books, nuclear reactors... but not ships. Sometimes those are notable (ex. ORP Huragan). Any objections to creating one, and how it should be called? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I am developing an article in a sandbox for the Ship Canterbury built in 1929 registry 161199. I understand her proper prefix to be TSS [1] ... however Template:SR ships has her redlinked as SS. Which would people suggest for the article name. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 20:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for input. I've chosen to create the TSS template and documentation friends and to name the article TSS Canterbury (1929) when I get it to main article space ... its still WIP at the moment. Thankyou all again for support and input. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 01:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks all for comments. I observe that Ship prefix and Twin-screw steamer specifically define 'TSS' as 'twin-screw steamer'. Ship prefix also defines 'SS' as 'single-screw steamship', however it actually links to Screw steamer which is defines simply as one or more screws. I wonder if TSS was specified by the builder or customer as a sort of 'GTi' or 'DeLuxe' badge or to distinguished from an older 'SS' prefix ship .. though I postulate in the early days my understanding is the twin screw could have been more unexpectedly maneurverable than a single screw and this could be significant for nearby vessels. The 1934 train ferries Twickenham, Shepperton and Hampton and also interesting. They seem generally use the 'SS' prefix if anything although Southern railway produced a postcard for the Shepperton Ferry prefixing it 'TSS'. ( there is no article for the Hampton and I would use 'SS' for that for consistency). Possibly there is a case for indicating on the Ship Prefix artcile that SS may stand for any Screw Steamship, not just a single ... though a reliable source for this might be best. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 09:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Paging dave souza, our resident expert on the railway steamers of western Scotland. Kablammo ( talk) 13:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
References
Somebody just broke Template:USS. For example, see USS Enterprise (CVN-65). Is there a template editor here that can take a look? This is big - All articles are affected right now. - theWOLFchild 19:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I've combined all the info from these two pages onto the HMS Lynx one as they are the same ship and should only have one article. If someone could check I've done it ok and if so delete or merge or whatever should happen to the Abu Bakar one. I would appreciate it if it could all be explained as there's at least one more BNS ship the same Lyndaship ( talk) 19:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I have created new templates to provide an existing option more easily:
They and their "parent" templates like {{ MS}} used individual code, now they use {{ Ship}} as all the others do ({{USS}} etc.). - DePiep ( talk) 18:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
|3=8, 14
with a separate template (BTW, they do have this extra twist: change prefix spelling between target article and label shown). Less then half a dozen of articles had to be edited to remove those odd options (all re M/S only;
Olau Line
[13]). All this, by intention, does not interfere with any guideline.