![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
A user ( Pogo935 ( talk · contribs)) has recently created a page for the WWII era Japanese Akizuki class destroyers in order to disambiguate it from a more modern Akizuki class used by the Japanese Self-Defense Force. This seems reasonable, and was important as there were links that meant the older class that were being sent to the newer one. I'm not sure if there is a precedent or naming guideline in that case. However, the category name he used for the old class he changed to "IJN Akizuki class destroyers". As far as I know, "IJN" or "HIJNS" or whatever are apocryphal and not to be used as tites (hence "Japanese destroyer Akizuki" rather than "IJN Akizuki"). Am I correct in thinking this? If so, how should the category be renamed? Is there any sort of precedent for this (two like-named classes)? - Nakamura2828 16:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
As noted before [1], when assessing articles, I like to also add in the banners of any other relevant WikiProjects. While reviewing the assessment instructions for {{ WikiProject France}}, I noticed that this project included a Dab or Disambig class for use on disambiguation pages. Intrigued, I tried plugging "class = dab" into our banner and was surprised to see that it worked (however it did not have an associated category). Since our project literally has thousands of disambiguation pages, in a fit of BOLDness, I went ahead and fully enabled this 'hidden' feature by creating Category:Disambig-Class Ships articles and linking it in to the {{ WikiProject Ships}} parser. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 01:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Melromero ( talk · contribs) has been moving Chilean ships from Chilean (ship type) (ship name) to CNS (ship name. I don't think this prefix is actually used by the Chilean Navy. I asked him about this, and he hasn't responded yet, but an anon mentioned that the Chilean equivalent of the Hull classification symbol and hull number precede the ship name. See here. What do you guys think about the naming of these articles? I think the CNS (ship name) is definitely incorrect and would need to see reliable sources showing otherwise. The Chilean Navy's web site doesn't use it at all. However, should we be using the format (Hull classification symbol)-(Hull number) (ship name)? TomTheHand 13:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I have created Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of ships. To add a ship to the list add to the talk page of the article {{ reqphoto|ships}}. If the ship is mainly found in one country add a second option |in=location. Traveler100 13:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
There are articles on USN ships that are substantially or entirely copies from DANFS eg, USS Manila Bay (CVE-61). Not a copyright issue since, I believe, these are public domain. They also provide a quick way of providing an article. BUT, to me, these read like mud - badly organised officialese. Is this because I'm a Brit and these are good examples of US English or are they bad on both sides of the Atlantic (and Pacific)? If the latter, then they deserve clean-up tags. Folks at 137 17:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed a bunch of articles edited by User:Malo today, which he changed from using {{ USN flag}} to {{ USN jack}}, a new template he apparently made today. I'm baffled - I thought we had a clear consensus, for months now at least, to use flags (ensigns) rather than jacks. Am I nuts, or did I miss a conversation? Maralia 03:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
In fact I wasn't aware that a consensus had been reached. I hadn't been very active until the past few days, and I didn't know. I appreciate TomTheHand leaving a message on my talk page and taking the time to find me the talk page archive with the consensus in it Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive05#Always_use_ensigns.3F. I'm not trying to be counter productive, however I don't agree with the consensus. Having now caught up on some reading, I agree with what J Clear said a year ago in regards to the jack being a better indicator because you can better see the number of stars on USN jacks, but then also because the jack not only indicates the nation, but more specifically the branch of service. Whereas the ensign (when displayed at about 48px or 60px on most articles as is common) for USN ships from 1818 is nearly indistinguishable from one from 1958. Granted this may not make a whole lot of difference for some, but it's bugging me. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 21:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with wanting to display the ensign because it is what is flow when a ship is at sea. However I do really want to see the jack as well, even if the jack is only used when a ship is in port. Perhaps we can place both on USN articles. Would anyone else like to see both? It wouldn't be too difficult to change the template to include each one and personally I don't think it would be too intrusive. To me this seems like a fair compromise, particularly since both apply to what is flown from a USN ship. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 01:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I have just recently failed Christopher Columbus (whaleback) according to the GA criteria. Just though I'd give this project a head's up. VanTucky Talk 22:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The article about the Vasa has been nominated for Good Article status. Input and insights or even reviews from members of this project would be very much appreciated.
Peter Isotalo 15:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Emoscopes recently changed the template for the Leander class cruiser (1931) (which is Template:Leander class cruiser 1931) to show that the Leander class is preceded by the York class cruiser rather than the Emerald class cruiser. He makes a convincing argument for how the Yorks influenced the design of the Leanders, but I feel it runs agains the listing of our cruiser classes as at List of cruiser classes of the Royal Navy, where we list our light cruisers together and our heavy cruisers together (the Leanders being light cruisers and the Yorks being heavy cruisers). I think trying to work this concept of design influences, etc, into a template is a bit confusing for the reader, in that in some places they will see that the Leanders were preceded by the Emeralds, and in others that they were preceded by the Yorks. I'm all for discussing in the article how the Leanders developed on from the designs of the Yorks, but in this case I think it's better to KISS and use the templates to simply list the chronological classes of light cruisers without hopping across boundaries to include other ship types. What do people think? And sorry to bore everyone who couldn't give a damn about the chronology of WWII British cruisers. pip pip, Benea 16:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for my lack of presence here as I seem to have kicked this off, but I have been busy with work. My rationale is that the preceded / followed by system should allow us to navigate through a chronology of a certain broad group type of ships; e.g. destroyers, frigates, battleships, cruisers etc. I don't think there is any use, and personally do not think it is very correct, in splitting up cruisers into various treaty categories - to me this just confuses the subject for readers. I think this is particularly pertinent in the Royal Navy, where there are only 2 classes of "heavy cruisers" (that weren't built under that designation, and are better referred to as "treaty cruisers") and where there is a direct evolution and chronology from them into "light cruisers" (York into Leander). Treaty categorisation aside, York is both the evolutionary and chronological predecessor to Leander. Emerald just happens to be the last 6-inch gunned cruiser that was built before Leander, and the only relation is that a later treaty grouped both types as light cruisers. I also think the list of cruisers page would be better served by having the light and heavy cruisers in under a common heading in chronological order, with explanatory notes where necessary. The Royal Navy, for example, fought World War II with WWI-era "light" and "heavy" cruisers, Washington treaty-era cruisers, London conference-era cruisers and post-treaty cruisers. There is a fairly direct line of evolution and chronology from WW1 through to the last British designs which I think is the simplest way to go about it, rather than the arbitrary "light" and "heavy" categories. Emoscopes Talk 18:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Maralia and I talked last night about a possible improvement to {{ DANFS}}. Maralia thinks it would be a good idea if the template accepted, as an optional parameter, a link to DANFS's page on the ship. I agree completely, but we weren't sure of how the end result should look. Maralia, did you have any ideas?
I had two trains of thought. First, should we perhaps revise the DANFS template to look like a normal web source citation? Without a web address, it could just link directly to the DANFS front page, like this:
With a web address, it could link right to the ship article, like this:
I just wonder if that format less clearly expresses the concept that "This article began as a copy of DANFS's entry on this ship". I feel the current format implies that better. My second thought, therefore, is that if an URL is supplied to the DANFS template, perhaps it could just add an additional sentence. You'd end up with something like this:
What do you guys think? TomTheHand 18:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
It's done! Simply using {{ DANFS}} gives the same result as before:
This article incorporates text from the
public domain
Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships.
Using {{DANFS|http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/i2/iowa-iii.htm}} produces this:
This article incorporates text from the
public domain
Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. The entry can be found
here.
If you create a new article based on DANFS, please provide a link to the DANFS entry in the template. If you edit an article that has a DANFS template on it, and it already links to the entry in its "External links" section, it would be awesome if you could move the link inside the template. TomTheHand 13:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This caught me by surprise ... was anyone else aware that we apparently have a dedicated {{ Greek Ship}} infobox ... ? -- Kralizec! ( talk) 20:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
First off, I would like to applaud Wwoods ( talk · contribs) for BOLDly archiving this talk page. Up until recently we used to have years of talk messages here, which made the page load hella-slow on the dial-up intar-web I use at home (yeah, that is one of the advantages of living way out in the country). However I would like to advocate a slightly less aggressive archive schedule as more than once I have found myself wanting to post an update or reply to a message from a week or two ago, only to discover that the thread had already been archived. As such, I would like to propose that we only archive threads that have been inactive for at least a month (so for example, on October 1st, we would then archive all threads that had not been replied to since August 31st or earlier). Thoughts? Opinions? -- Kralizec! ( talk) 17:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Should Warrior (1832) be at Warrior (ship)? Benea 23:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
(unindent)No problems with the move, as I said, that was what I was going to originally call it anyway, I just thought I wouldn't be doing it right if I did. Thanks everybody for the input too. Hope you enjoyed the article, it was like unraveling a mystery doing the research, really fun. IvoShandor 17:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
A new article, Comparison of armoured to unarmoured flight deck designs, could use the attention of one versed in WWII carriers. While the article is well-written, some of the facts may be incorrect and some of the conclusions may go too far. Kablammo 15:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The USS Mettawee (AOG-17) has been misnamed the USS Mattawee (AOG-17) in Wikipedia -- appears to be a typographical error. I've added a comment to the article's talk page, along with rationale for the typo claim. I know Wikipedia is DIY, and considered attempting to correct the article myself, but am not an experienced Wikipedian and balked at the thought of changing an article title, associated class article title and internal references. My thanks to the many Wikipedians who have made Wikipedia an excellent reference for historical and contemporary ships. -- Jonathan Weesner 74.74.67.49 10:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Template:Greek Ship has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 17:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Somebody please respond to this. If I do so myself, I will most certainly fall on my sword, which would be a sad occurrence seeing as it's my birthday, and my party's not till Saturday. Maralia 17:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
However, it is common practice to backdate the use of a prefix so that it applies to ships of that navy that historically would not have been referred to with that prefix, and Wikipedia follows this practice:
The user is back - this is what he has posted -
es, but we don't suggest listing Livy as "Herodotus", either, nor do we call him a Spaniard. If the use of "US Brig" is troubling, call 'em all "Niagara (XXX)", but to call a brig a ship in the title is neither modern nor SOP. As the convention makes clear, it's not necessary to write "the Victory". Why, then, should not we write "Niagara" and eschew the prefixes that seem to be at the heart of the conflict? There's a wide gap between avoiding archaisms or obsolete terms -- it would be foolish to list USS Constitution as a frigate, though she was then, because the term has taken on new meaning -- and using iinaccurate and misleading ones.
I started to respond but my blood pressure couldn't cope - can we please establish a consensual response? I'm really bothered that he seems to be advocating dropping the prefixes for every vessel that wasn't 'ship rigged' because technically they can't be Her Majesty's Ship xxx if xxx was a submarine, say. Despite the fact that WAS the name they were commissioned under, served under, were known by her contemporaries and are known in every reputable scholarly work that deals with the world's navies that I can think of. Benea 17:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Members of this project may wish to take note of a CfD that has been opened on Category:Disambiguation lists of ships. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 2#Category:Disambiguation lists of ships for more details. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 12:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Members of this project may also wish to take note of a CfM that has been opened on Category:Royal Canadian Navy ship names that proposes its merger into Category:Canadian Forces ship names. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 5#Category:Royal Canadian Navy ship names for more details. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 21:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
What is Tag & Assess 2007? It's a Wiki-wide call for volunteers. To explain ... a month or so back, we ran a script to list all the articles in categories related to military history. This gave us about 165,000 articles. Some of these are already tagged and assessed as military history; some are military history but not yet tagged and assessed; some are not military history articles at all. This huge project — working thorough 165,000 articles — is called Tag & Assess 2007. To make it manageable, the list has been broken down into 330 ranges each of 500 articles. This is where youcan help.
Just... adopt-a-range from the available worklists then keep track of your tally on participants' list. The tagging is easy, just follow the simple instructions. Afterwards, as our way of thanking you, you'll be presented with service awards and barnstars based on the number of articles you process. Remember... the ranges are broken down into sub-sections of ten articles, so you work through them at twenty or thirty articles a day if you wish. To make Tag & Assess 2007 a success, we need your help. Please sign up now. Thanks.-- ROGER DAVIES TALK 09:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Can any of the experts on this wikiproject help....Has there been more than one ship called "The London"? The article
Rapparee, Ilfracombe discusses the wreck of "The London" in 1796, & see Morris, Steven (2007-11-06).
"Prisoners or slaves? New row over wrecks bones". The Guardian. Retrieved 2007-11-06. {{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help), but the article it links to
The London says it sank in the Bay of Biscay in 1866. Any help or explanation appreciated.—
Rod
talk
12:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Ship names are rarely unique, and that's a particularly popular one. There have been no less than sixteen Royal Navy ships by the name of HMS London, for example; it's easy to imagine two merchant ships sharing the name within the span of 100 years. I suspect the person who wrote Rapparee, Ilfracombe just didn't check where his interwiki link went. That's an interesting article, and I'd be happy to help if you decide to write an article based on it. Maralia 14:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you guys are aware of this, and i may be out of line for bringing it up, but when I was surfing through the list of articles for what links to your project I found an a-class review that no one from here has commented on here. At first I thought it was for the armed service group, but on closer inspection it says ships at the top; so i guess thats your project. It seems abadoned, hence why i bring it up; it ought to be commented on or closed or something; it looks wierd just sitting there unused. -- Wendy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.132.227.61 ( talk) 10:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
This article has passed its Military History WikiProject A-class review. I did a quick check of all of our articles and this is currently the only A-class article in our project scope. Next stop Featured Article?- MBK004 20:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
In a recent CFD, it was noted that many ship articles are double-categorized in both a parent cat and its sub-category. Specifically, articles are put in both by-country and by-navy cats. For example, all articles in Category:Frigates and destroyer escorts of the United States Navy are also in Category:Frigates and destroyer escorts of the United States. All United States Navy frigates are frigates of the United States (obviously), so why can't you just make the by-navy cat a sub-category of the by-country cat, then put ships in the appropriate by-navy cat? I don't see any need to put them in both, it creates a lot of clutter. jwillbur 06:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, let me step back and answer more thoroughly. First, thank you for the categorization work you're doing. The work you've done to clean up the categorization mess on articles such as USS Litchfield County (LST-901)is awesome. Now, to explain the country/navy thing. There are a few opinions on the matter. On the one hand, there is a group of people who feel that ships should be categorized by country, because that's the easiest thing for laymen to browse. On the other hand, other people feel that ships should be categorized by navy, because it's more precise. There are also a number of people who feel that both categories should be used, to ensure absolute accuracy when the country or navy names have changed through history.
Merges have been proposed one way or another over the course of the past few years, and none are successful because the issue is so evenly split. If you'd like to try to change consensus on the issue, please go for it, but please don't just go ahead and make the changes. If hundreds of articles are categorized a particular way, there is a reason for it, and you need to discuss before making mass changes. TomTheHand 16:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, the most cluttery thing is the presence of navy or country categories on ship articles. If the ship article has a class category, and that class category has the appropriate country or navy categories, there's no need for them to be on the ship article. That's something we did at one time, but we abandoned it as confusing, unnecessary, and messy. Your work removing those is invaluable. Thanks. TomTheHand 16:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
There are currently two Featured Article Candidates that come under the purview of this project in conjunction with the Maritime Warfare Task Force of the Military History WikiProject.
They are currently rated as A-class and also are the only A-class articles under our purview.
They are:
Your participation and any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks, MBK004 22:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Two categories for US military ship classes are being considered for merging/renaming here. Assistance with determining at which title the categories should be located would be most appreciated. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 07:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
would you guys assess the class and importance of the newly created article Sacramento class fast combat support ships? I would apreciate it. TomStar81 ( Talk) 08:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Just to reiterate - I can see the logic in excluding class categories from era parent-categories because if you do that you end up listing a whole bunch of ship articles in that era cat which did not actually serve in that era. But this is not the case for class articles. The class article gives an overview of the history of the class, not of individual ships. And since it includes, or should include, a potted history of all the eras the class was active in, it's hardly likely to confuse the reader. So there are no real disadvantages to listing class articles in era cats, and the advantage is that it gives readers a thumbnail view of all the classes which were active in that era.
It seems that most class articles currently have only a couple of attached categories anyway, so the addition of a couple of extra era categories is not going to overwhelm them and may be seen as an advantage. Moreover, the addition of era cats to these articles again gives the reader a quick thumbnail view of all the eras the class was active in, so I think it's useful in that respect too. Gatoclass 10:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) I have not posted here because this issue (era cats on class articles) is, in my opinion, a drop in the bucket. I'm going to start some BOLD cleanup of categories tonight. I won't mess with the era issue, or country vs navy, but there's a shitpile of other categories that are entirely misplaced. Get your pitchforks ready. Maralia 22:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I've been giving the era-on-class-article issue further thought, and it's starting to make sense to me. I was kind of having the same issue as Kralizec: "I see no reason why class articles should have different categories from class categories, and I don't think era categories should go on class categories because it implies that the ships in the cat all served in that era." However, I've been thinking about a few things:
So... shall we change the categorization guidelines? Era cats continue to stay off class cats, but they go on class articles. Class articles should be listed at the head of era categories, above all articles, like Gatoclass has done it. TomTheHand 15:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Check out Image:Harnett County AGP-821.jpg. The pink water is ... very odd. I presume it is not a red tide or something similar, but I really have no idea what it is. Any thoughts? -- Kralizec! ( talk) 16:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
yes, beached with two other boats tied on (no offense) not likely ive seen it before somewere its a macherniary fuel or something ,dye , sediment (redclay, or sandrock) but not likly, could be napalm it is a fuel with chemical thickners, but i think it has something to do with macheneray fuel or, oil, grease, or something. ANOMALY-117 21:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC) and definatly not a photographic error because the guy took the pic from a helicopter with the sun to his right or directily behind him and at maybe 12 to 3 o'clock in the day. but your guess is still as good as mine. ANOMALY-117 21:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
hehhe.. pepto-bismal. any-way and do we have any information on flip-ships or is their only one of its kind? o and i have to do a 5-page paper on hitler does any-body know anything? yes i tried the page but, the @!!$%@^ parental controls won't let me in! ANOMALY-117 00:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
A.B. posted about this AFD on MILHIST a little while ago, and I think it's of interest to us. Quote:
Please weigh in. Thanks!
TomTheHand
14:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Can someone with a bit more experience in this field take a look at Trip pilots? At the moment it seems to be little more of a thinly veiled attack page, but perhaps something could be made of it? Benea 00:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The A-Class review for USS Illinois (BB-65) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! TomStar81 ( Talk) 06:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Currently there's a little bit of a categorization mess between the above names. I believe our category structure should use "amphibious warfare vessels", as I think it's a general term that I'm more comfortable putting on ships that support amphibious operations, but aren't actually directly involved in amphibious assaults. I'd like to perform some merges, but I wanted to make a quick post and make sure there isn't any opposition. If nobody objects, I'll put up some CFMs and put links here. If there are any other names that people might like, let's talk about it decide on one now, so that the merges don't wind up failing because everyone has a title they would rather use. TomTheHand 22:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll make a list of the merges here before I propose them, to help me stay organized. If anyone notices that I've missed some, please tell me.
That should probably do it. Again, any objections? Any alternate titles? TomTheHand 14:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, please weigh in here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 16#Amphibious assault ships -> Amphibious warfare vessels. Thanks! TomTheHand 15:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
For a long time, I've thought the Amphibious assault ship article is a mess. THe Tarawa class amphibious assault ship page, for example, links to Amphibious assault ship, but instead of an aricle on the type of ships the LHA/LHDs are (large-deck ampibs), you get a noarrow opening definition of the ships, and the the article wanders all over discussing every type of amphibious warfare vessel. Is there any way we can address this? Perhaps the general information could go to Amphibious warfare vessel, with the Amphibious assault ship page covering LHDs, LHAs, LPH, LSDs, and those that are more properly called ships. THese are just my random opening thoughts - I wlecome any othe ideas/comments. - BillCJ 16:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Do you think a move needs to be proposed at the article page, or just go ahead and do it? I'd probably be able to work up a basic stub on the big ships at the same time, somewhat like the LCAC page below. - -- BillCJ ( talk) 21:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
In the useful Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Ensigns, there's an ensign for the Luxembourg Merchant Navy. Luxembourg is landlocked. Is this ensign real? Folks at 137 17:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Bouncing off an idea from MBK004 ( talk · contribs), would there be any interest in treating featured topics for ship classes by updating the class page and ship pages to FA status? It could help expand our featured topic selection, which would be benificial to both the Military history Project and the Ships project. Comments? TomStar81 ( Talk) 07:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering what (if any) were the notability guidelines regarding merchant ships operating or sunk during the Second World War? I've noticed a few ships gaining article which really do not seem to be especially exceptional (like SS British Premier) and I was wondering if all merchant ships sunk in WW2 or whether there are more stringent rules than that. I don't have strong feelings on this one way or another, but clarification would be useful.-- Jackyd101 15:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I haven't checked for a while, but I believe that prefixes are pretty much optional. I personally only use them when I need to disambiguate from something else, say if you have a ship called "George Washington" you are obviously going to want to name the article "SS George Washington" to disambig.
I don't believe prefixes should be used where they can be avoided because (a) they are not the most common name by which ships are usually referred to, thus violationg basic Wiki policy, (b) they are unsightly, (c) they are misleading in that the articles themselves generally don't bother with the prefix, and (d) they make it harder to search for something, ie what do you do when you know the name of the ship but are unsure of the prefix? So leaving out the prefix makes searching easier, and also creates less work for people wanting to link to the page. As I said though, if you have two different items with the same name then using the prefix makes a lot more sense. -- Gatoclass ( talk) 18:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Non-military prefixes are often not consistently used in the real world and are not mutually exclusive. A MV (motor vessel) can also be a MT (motor tanker); MS (motor ship) and MV (motor vessel) are the same thing; a PS (paddle steamer) is likely also a SS (steamship), and different sources often use different prefixes for the same ship . . . long story short, non-military prefixes are kind of a crapshoot, so we often don't title by them unless a prefix is demonstrably well-known for that ship ( RMS Titanic) or, as you mentioned, where it's handy for disambiguation. -- Maralia ( talk) 18:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Yesterday, I made a new post to last week's discussion on putting era cats onto class articles. I had reconsidered the situation and am thinking that perhaps we should change the guideline. I know most folks did not have a strong opinion on this, but I'd nevertheless like to ask that anyone interested check it out here. -- TomTheHand ( talk) 20:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
A few months ago, I noticed that there was no article specifically about the USN LCAC. I've finally been able to knock one together at LCAC, with some good pics. My knowledge of the type is very limited, and I don't have the time right now to do anything deeper. If anyone would like to help expand the article, there are some ELs included that should help one get started. Also, the German de:Landing Craft Air Cushioned page is a good start for anyone who reads the language. Thanks for whatever you can do to help this often-overlooked type. - -- BillCJ ( talk) 20:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
User:Jackyd101 has recently been going around removing the Category:Royal Navy ships of the line and Category:Ships of the line of the United Kingdom from articles (eg HMS Albion (1763)) that also have a class category attached to them. As far as I am aware, it is normal for us to include the class category AND the type category in these cases - but I think particularly so when it comes to ships of the line as the concept of a class, although real, is nowhere near as defined as it is in the modern sense. I think it is more useful to the reader to have the type categories present on the articles as well as the class. Martocticvs ( talk) 18:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
At the risk of asking a question discussed many times, what are the guidelines regarding the us of feminine personal pronouns for ships in regualr text (not in quotatations)? I've found no mention in the Project guidelines. I've always understood that formal ENglish used netral pronouns for inanimate objects, including ships. - BillCJ ( talk) 18:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your personal opinion on common usage, Benea. However, I asked if there were MOS guidleines for formal English usage, ie what would be proper for an encyclopedia. THere are many traditions in common usage of English, both American and UKish, that we do not use for formal writing, which isthe basis for the Wiki MOS. As a user of Southern AMerican English, would you support using "y'all" and "ain't" in an article on the US states of Alabama and Georgia, if that was what the first editor used? I somehow think not. - BillCJ ( talk) 20:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no MOS mandate for pronoun usage in reference to ships. is the answer I expected, not not some long, drawn-out rambling about history and usage that I already know. I'll just chalk this up as another case where formal English rules apparently don't apply to Wikipedia because people have emotional attachments to common usage. Or, in the style in which I will now start writing in mainspace, "Y'all don't make no sense!" :) - BillCJ ( talk) 00:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I turned to my bookshelf to try to find out what people writing books about ships used. And I found mixed opinions. 'She' is probably more popular, but some authors use "it", and I found one switching about. Not to mention one author who seems quite happy to say "Its sister-ship". The books I looked at are at: User:The Land/Ship pronouns. The Land ( talk) 20:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd just like to agree with Benea. British ships, for example, are uniformly referred to as 'she' in my experience. This may be just a quirk of the English language, which doesn't usually have gender in grammar, but our cosmopolitan tongue is made up of nothing but quirks for the most part. I'd certainly say that 'she' should be used for all British ships. To take a hypothetical example, if someone writes an article on a ship of the Royal Navy I wouldn't see any justification for a later editor changing 'she' to 'it' in the piece. Nick mallory ( talk) 02:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
German ships are always he.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 15:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Does this article come under our scope? It is listed as a Featured Article on the project main-page, but about a week ago I looked at the article talk page and noticed that our banner was not there. Since it was listed on the main page I added the project banner there. Now I'm having doubts about if it belongs or not. Thoughts? MBK004 ( talk) 19:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Done I've removed the tag from the article and the reference on the project main page.-
MBK004 (
talk)
19:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
HEY IM BACK! SORRY HAD TO SLEEP AT SOME POINT hm.. so far great but the branstar should go behind the wheel.-- ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 13:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I recently edited the Tribal class destroyer (1936) page to replace many confusing links to vessels with the Template:Warship, however these were reverted shortly afterward and the editor pointed me toward the Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits while noting on my talk page that this template is too taxing for server processing. Does anyone have any thoughts about this? I would argue that the benefits of standardizing and simplifying links to articles on vessels, not to mention the kilobytes saved, would trump any minuscule increase in server effort....Thanks! Plasma east ( talk) 15:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Category:Seminole War ships is orphaned. Please can one of the ship experts find a home for it, or (if it's not needed, nominate it for renaming or deletion? Thanks! -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
So that the members of this project may better recognize the outstanding efforts of their fellow members, I would like to propose the creation of a barnstar for WikiProject Ships! Thoughts? Opinions? -- Kralizec! ( talk) 21:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Unless there are any objections, I propose the following in order to both keep us organized and moving forward:
However I would like to make a request. As the originator of this proposal and the organizer of our selection process, I would like to be the one to issue our first barnstar award. After that, all members of the project are free to use our new barnstar in order to recognize fellow Wikipedia contributors for their hard work and due diligence on WikiProject Ships! -- Kralizec! ( talk) 17:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Nominations complete - The nomination process is now closed. Fifteen images were submitted for consideration as the WikiProject Ships barnstar. Voting will begin shortly. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 00:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
For our first nomination, how about the tall ship from our project banner superimposed on the traditional barnstar? -- Kralizec! ( talk) 21:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
howa bout a salvage ship on a..? or an anchor? or the navy seal?-- ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 22:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC) but a bronze star with a clipper ship? idon't know about that.-- ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 22:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
i agree with MBK004 -- ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 00:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC) THE BARNSTAR isn't exactly seaworthy-- ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 00:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I asked Emoscopes back in August to draw something up, but he didn't respond and I forgot about it. If I can find my damn Photoshop key I'll take a crack at something. Maralia ( talk) 00:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
LOVE THE WIKIWINGS but we should use those in an air force project but the anchor is awsome but the barnstar baground looks good but we can do better Wwoods has good idea but this isn't the marines this is the navy so mabey an anchor on the wikigolb with two ships one coming out of the left and right side of the achor at the top. like the latest battle ship logo with bow coming out from the side. yea hard to explain. but anchor plus NAVY something plus wiki world? or maby the navy matto? but the anchor barnstar looks great but needs improvement or diffrent background. so i think we should go with the anchor and some thing else with it? but what?-- ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 03:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
oh! an anchor with the japanese imperial navy seal behind it?! ya know the crisanthamum. its on the front of the yamato battleship.
hm.. still i think the seal and the anchor would look good yea hahahah the post was confusing. all ships you say?... hm now you have my thinktank bubblin.-- ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 04:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The extent of my artistic ability is copying then pasting, but if an actual artist wanted to take Image:Barnstar Anchor.png and change the anchor from black to a similar look as the barnstar has, (ie, the lines, texture and depth etc), I think that would be better. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 04:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
HMM... A ROTATING barnstar is a good idea but it is to much. so i think one thing most of us agree on is that the wheel with something or by itself should be the barnstar so ...i think mabye five more barnstar picture ideas at the most. then we need to start voting because if we have to many choices or wait to long we will never get anything made. then once we agree on a barnstar we should hold this topic agian in say... oh..a year maybe to make some revisions or chose another image. this allows the barnstar we choose first won't be getting eddited every month. basicaly its an election/revision every year to keep this barnstar current and up to date. -- ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 20:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC) and then we could archive the previous years barnstar so that way we will rember how this award orginated plus it would so our progress through the year.-- ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 20:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC) and we should really consider this idea-- ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 20:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC) and when we vote should we make it to were only members may vote on the barnstar-- ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 20:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
instead of barnstar can we call it the seastar or something?-- ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 20:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Number 13 has the nautical wheel combined with the Editors Barnstar, which I think resembles the patina that some metals get when at sea for a while. I suppose it could be confused with the Editors Barnstar though. Also, I think #9 wasn't really a nomination, but a clip art suggestion to combine with other items. As for using the Wikiworld symbol, I kind of stay away from it because of the copyright issues. The rest are public domain or GFDL. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 21:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone else noticed that in #10 the wheel seems to change size as the contra-rotation occurs? The Land ( talk) 22:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:USS Anzio (CG-68) golden anchor.jpg has a golden anchor, in case anyone was looking for anchor clipart. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 04:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The barnstar and the wheel have just too many pointy bits, it looks messy. Might I suggest shrinking the barnstar so that it fits inside the circle on the wooden wheel.
Also, if there's going to be rotation, I think rotating both the wheel and the barnstar is too much. The wheel alone should turn, but ideally, not just in one direction. It should turn in one direction, gradually gathering speed, then slow down, stop, and start slowly turning in the other direction, gathering speed, slowing and then stopping. This sequence to be repeated to simulate a ship actually being steered. Gatoclass ( talk) 00:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
A question that came into mind when thinking of users who might possibly deserve this barnstar... does a user have to be a WP:SHIPS member in order to recieve "our" barnstar? Or can it be awarded to anyone who improves WP:SHIPS-related articles, even if s/he's not a member? -- Kjet ( talk) 08:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
A little over seven hours remain to place your votes! -- Kralizec! ( talk) 17:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Voting begins at 01:00:01 GMT on 25 November 2007 utilizing the following guidelines:
Depending on the amount of "last minute" voting that takes place, I will announce the first ever WikiProject Ships Barnstar prior to 03:00:00 on 2 December 2007. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 01:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Voting complete - calculating results. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 01:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
After reviewing the election guidelines, please add your vote below in the following format:
Comment. I am not at all satisfied with any of these candidates and I think the discussion was closed prematurely. Gatoclass ( talk) 03:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Tabulating voting results now ... -- Kralizec! ( talk) 01:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
An easy win for #13! Congratulations Dual Freq ( talk · contribs) for submitting the winning design! All of the members of this project should feel free to use our new barnstar to recognize the outstanding efforts of your fellow editors. Usage instructions are on the template page: {{ WikiProject Ships Barnstar}}. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 02:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! but the aqua marine is so ugly (no offense )why??????why??!?!?!?!???? ANOMALY-117 03:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I montion that we PLEASE hold this in a year and elect a new one? oh and a barnstar that is elelcted may only serve one year without some changes to color or design and the changes must be noticeable or a new design may be elected. does anyone second? ANOMALY-117 03:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
and yes i do understand your point and i can live with the selection but all i'm saying is that if we don't re-vote every year then can we at least bring this topic up agian on the day the oringanl proposel was brought up. every year so that way people can put in their input or design a new star and if nothing is posted or discussed of real importance than we will close the subjuct on december2 untill this time the following year. (i myself am haveing a little trouble fowlling myself). if that makes any sense. ANOMALY-117 03:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
so now what? ANOMALY-117 03:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
i understand what im trying to say that instead of my first idea we instead bring up a new section every year giving people the oppotunite to change or talk about it because some people and new members may not know that they can influence the change of the barnstar and im suggesting that every year we let them know that they can .. uh whats the word..influnece?.. the change of the barnstar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANOMALY-117 ( talk • contribs) 04:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Unrelated to the above... out of curiosity, who was the first person to recieve our new barnstar? As Kralizec! reserved himself the honour of awarding the first one, I'd be rather interested in knowing who got it.
And on the subject above: we voted. The whole point of voting is to find out which one the majority likes best - and the vast majority of those who bothered to vote obviously preferred the one we got. Changing that because two people don't like it seems exceedingly undemocratic. -- Kjet 23:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
After the discussion above, I've begun putting era categories onto class articles. I like the result. See Category:World War II aircraft carriers of the United States for an example. All the class articles are consolidated at the top and give a nice overview of what was in operation at the time.
I've been working my way along alphabetically, so I just finished Category:Aircraft carrier classes and hit Category:Amphibious assault ship classes. I noticed that Gatoclass has been having class articles sort by type first, and then class name. See Category:World War II amphibious warfare ships of the United States for an example. Note all of the "attack cargo ship"s grouped together, and all the "attack transport"s in a separate group.
I had been sorting by class name only, and I think I prefer doing it that way, so that it's one continuous alphabetical list instead of broken up by ship type. However, I don't have strong feelings about it; I just happen to prefer looking at the information that way. I wanted to bring it here and ask for everyone's two cents. I know most people won't feel strongly, but I don't think this is an issue that needs long, logical, passionate arguments, just a quick opinion off the top of your head.
"Too long, didn't read" version:
I appreciate your input. TomTheHand ( talk) 22:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thats like a six way cross-refrence!!!!!!!?-- ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 22:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed with Maralia, alpha by name is the simplest, and easiest to browse. -- Kjet ( talk) 22:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Escort aircraft carrier has been renamed as Escort carrier. In this case the category should be renamed too? I'm also not sure if this affects the names of our other aircraft carrier articles. Benea ( talk) 01:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Please check out this merge and weigh in. It's related to last week's amphibious warfare vessel merges, but I missed it that time around. Thanks! TomTheHand ( talk) 15:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello all,
I have been working on articles tagged as needing sections and these articles appear on the list:
Most of them (but not all, I added the rest) were tagged as being articles relating to the ship project. I would appreciate some help in cleaning them up but first I wanted to ask here if there ares suggestions about what sections would be best (and how they should be organized), sort of a guideline for when future articles are added? Thank you
Awotter (
talk)
00:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC) Done
Hello everyone! I hope that all members of WP:SHIPS from the U.S. had a happy Thanksgiving... and I hope that everyone else had a very nice Thursday :-) TomTheHand ( talk) 02:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't belong to this WP, so I thought I would say high, as I've tagged a lot of articles for y'all while doing WP MH's drive, and ask a question. Would Belle of Louisville and Great Steamboat Race fall under WP Ship's concerns?-- Bedford ( talk) 08:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
i need work not a huge task but i need something to do anbody have any ideas?-- ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 16:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
yea i did but im no good at spelling and right now im a slow typer with the broken arm and all. nor am i good at grammer but i do like to patrol for vandlism but i have to do it manualy page by page because my mom dosn't want me to download onto her computer so i need people to kinda tell me waht to do for right now. oh and i can argue like nobodys bisnes oh yea i can't spell but i can ram facts and vewis on stuff intill the scream uncle!-- ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 23:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC) oh and i can read like really fast... oh and is possible to get your own bot?-- ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 23:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC) oh and i like the yamato battleship alot -- ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 23:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
finding stuff online has never been a problem for me. its just the formating and other things that take work. but im very good at finding plain old raw information on just about anything. and messing with tags and writing code in the document is to frustrating for me. is their any way to get raw information onto pages without email or violating a law?
however if anybody knows were help is needed in a debate or watching something on this site then let me know ANOMALY-117 21:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Sources Has anyone thought of buying books and going to libraries?-- Toddy1 09:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
and i uh have or can find or know just about anything on everthing ecxept complex math and science (complex, relative to an average 14 year-old) and i know alot about mislianious stuff. pardon the spelling. ANOMALY-117 03:37, 2 December 2007 (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 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
A user ( Pogo935 ( talk · contribs)) has recently created a page for the WWII era Japanese Akizuki class destroyers in order to disambiguate it from a more modern Akizuki class used by the Japanese Self-Defense Force. This seems reasonable, and was important as there were links that meant the older class that were being sent to the newer one. I'm not sure if there is a precedent or naming guideline in that case. However, the category name he used for the old class he changed to "IJN Akizuki class destroyers". As far as I know, "IJN" or "HIJNS" or whatever are apocryphal and not to be used as tites (hence "Japanese destroyer Akizuki" rather than "IJN Akizuki"). Am I correct in thinking this? If so, how should the category be renamed? Is there any sort of precedent for this (two like-named classes)? - Nakamura2828 16:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
As noted before [1], when assessing articles, I like to also add in the banners of any other relevant WikiProjects. While reviewing the assessment instructions for {{ WikiProject France}}, I noticed that this project included a Dab or Disambig class for use on disambiguation pages. Intrigued, I tried plugging "class = dab" into our banner and was surprised to see that it worked (however it did not have an associated category). Since our project literally has thousands of disambiguation pages, in a fit of BOLDness, I went ahead and fully enabled this 'hidden' feature by creating Category:Disambig-Class Ships articles and linking it in to the {{ WikiProject Ships}} parser. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 01:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Melromero ( talk · contribs) has been moving Chilean ships from Chilean (ship type) (ship name) to CNS (ship name. I don't think this prefix is actually used by the Chilean Navy. I asked him about this, and he hasn't responded yet, but an anon mentioned that the Chilean equivalent of the Hull classification symbol and hull number precede the ship name. See here. What do you guys think about the naming of these articles? I think the CNS (ship name) is definitely incorrect and would need to see reliable sources showing otherwise. The Chilean Navy's web site doesn't use it at all. However, should we be using the format (Hull classification symbol)-(Hull number) (ship name)? TomTheHand 13:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I have created Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of ships. To add a ship to the list add to the talk page of the article {{ reqphoto|ships}}. If the ship is mainly found in one country add a second option |in=location. Traveler100 13:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
There are articles on USN ships that are substantially or entirely copies from DANFS eg, USS Manila Bay (CVE-61). Not a copyright issue since, I believe, these are public domain. They also provide a quick way of providing an article. BUT, to me, these read like mud - badly organised officialese. Is this because I'm a Brit and these are good examples of US English or are they bad on both sides of the Atlantic (and Pacific)? If the latter, then they deserve clean-up tags. Folks at 137 17:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed a bunch of articles edited by User:Malo today, which he changed from using {{ USN flag}} to {{ USN jack}}, a new template he apparently made today. I'm baffled - I thought we had a clear consensus, for months now at least, to use flags (ensigns) rather than jacks. Am I nuts, or did I miss a conversation? Maralia 03:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
In fact I wasn't aware that a consensus had been reached. I hadn't been very active until the past few days, and I didn't know. I appreciate TomTheHand leaving a message on my talk page and taking the time to find me the talk page archive with the consensus in it Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive05#Always_use_ensigns.3F. I'm not trying to be counter productive, however I don't agree with the consensus. Having now caught up on some reading, I agree with what J Clear said a year ago in regards to the jack being a better indicator because you can better see the number of stars on USN jacks, but then also because the jack not only indicates the nation, but more specifically the branch of service. Whereas the ensign (when displayed at about 48px or 60px on most articles as is common) for USN ships from 1818 is nearly indistinguishable from one from 1958. Granted this may not make a whole lot of difference for some, but it's bugging me. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 21:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with wanting to display the ensign because it is what is flow when a ship is at sea. However I do really want to see the jack as well, even if the jack is only used when a ship is in port. Perhaps we can place both on USN articles. Would anyone else like to see both? It wouldn't be too difficult to change the template to include each one and personally I don't think it would be too intrusive. To me this seems like a fair compromise, particularly since both apply to what is flown from a USN ship. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 01:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I have just recently failed Christopher Columbus (whaleback) according to the GA criteria. Just though I'd give this project a head's up. VanTucky Talk 22:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The article about the Vasa has been nominated for Good Article status. Input and insights or even reviews from members of this project would be very much appreciated.
Peter Isotalo 15:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Emoscopes recently changed the template for the Leander class cruiser (1931) (which is Template:Leander class cruiser 1931) to show that the Leander class is preceded by the York class cruiser rather than the Emerald class cruiser. He makes a convincing argument for how the Yorks influenced the design of the Leanders, but I feel it runs agains the listing of our cruiser classes as at List of cruiser classes of the Royal Navy, where we list our light cruisers together and our heavy cruisers together (the Leanders being light cruisers and the Yorks being heavy cruisers). I think trying to work this concept of design influences, etc, into a template is a bit confusing for the reader, in that in some places they will see that the Leanders were preceded by the Emeralds, and in others that they were preceded by the Yorks. I'm all for discussing in the article how the Leanders developed on from the designs of the Yorks, but in this case I think it's better to KISS and use the templates to simply list the chronological classes of light cruisers without hopping across boundaries to include other ship types. What do people think? And sorry to bore everyone who couldn't give a damn about the chronology of WWII British cruisers. pip pip, Benea 16:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for my lack of presence here as I seem to have kicked this off, but I have been busy with work. My rationale is that the preceded / followed by system should allow us to navigate through a chronology of a certain broad group type of ships; e.g. destroyers, frigates, battleships, cruisers etc. I don't think there is any use, and personally do not think it is very correct, in splitting up cruisers into various treaty categories - to me this just confuses the subject for readers. I think this is particularly pertinent in the Royal Navy, where there are only 2 classes of "heavy cruisers" (that weren't built under that designation, and are better referred to as "treaty cruisers") and where there is a direct evolution and chronology from them into "light cruisers" (York into Leander). Treaty categorisation aside, York is both the evolutionary and chronological predecessor to Leander. Emerald just happens to be the last 6-inch gunned cruiser that was built before Leander, and the only relation is that a later treaty grouped both types as light cruisers. I also think the list of cruisers page would be better served by having the light and heavy cruisers in under a common heading in chronological order, with explanatory notes where necessary. The Royal Navy, for example, fought World War II with WWI-era "light" and "heavy" cruisers, Washington treaty-era cruisers, London conference-era cruisers and post-treaty cruisers. There is a fairly direct line of evolution and chronology from WW1 through to the last British designs which I think is the simplest way to go about it, rather than the arbitrary "light" and "heavy" categories. Emoscopes Talk 18:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Maralia and I talked last night about a possible improvement to {{ DANFS}}. Maralia thinks it would be a good idea if the template accepted, as an optional parameter, a link to DANFS's page on the ship. I agree completely, but we weren't sure of how the end result should look. Maralia, did you have any ideas?
I had two trains of thought. First, should we perhaps revise the DANFS template to look like a normal web source citation? Without a web address, it could just link directly to the DANFS front page, like this:
With a web address, it could link right to the ship article, like this:
I just wonder if that format less clearly expresses the concept that "This article began as a copy of DANFS's entry on this ship". I feel the current format implies that better. My second thought, therefore, is that if an URL is supplied to the DANFS template, perhaps it could just add an additional sentence. You'd end up with something like this:
What do you guys think? TomTheHand 18:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
It's done! Simply using {{ DANFS}} gives the same result as before:
This article incorporates text from the
public domain
Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships.
Using {{DANFS|http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/i2/iowa-iii.htm}} produces this:
This article incorporates text from the
public domain
Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. The entry can be found
here.
If you create a new article based on DANFS, please provide a link to the DANFS entry in the template. If you edit an article that has a DANFS template on it, and it already links to the entry in its "External links" section, it would be awesome if you could move the link inside the template. TomTheHand 13:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This caught me by surprise ... was anyone else aware that we apparently have a dedicated {{ Greek Ship}} infobox ... ? -- Kralizec! ( talk) 20:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
First off, I would like to applaud Wwoods ( talk · contribs) for BOLDly archiving this talk page. Up until recently we used to have years of talk messages here, which made the page load hella-slow on the dial-up intar-web I use at home (yeah, that is one of the advantages of living way out in the country). However I would like to advocate a slightly less aggressive archive schedule as more than once I have found myself wanting to post an update or reply to a message from a week or two ago, only to discover that the thread had already been archived. As such, I would like to propose that we only archive threads that have been inactive for at least a month (so for example, on October 1st, we would then archive all threads that had not been replied to since August 31st or earlier). Thoughts? Opinions? -- Kralizec! ( talk) 17:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Should Warrior (1832) be at Warrior (ship)? Benea 23:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
(unindent)No problems with the move, as I said, that was what I was going to originally call it anyway, I just thought I wouldn't be doing it right if I did. Thanks everybody for the input too. Hope you enjoyed the article, it was like unraveling a mystery doing the research, really fun. IvoShandor 17:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
A new article, Comparison of armoured to unarmoured flight deck designs, could use the attention of one versed in WWII carriers. While the article is well-written, some of the facts may be incorrect and some of the conclusions may go too far. Kablammo 15:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The USS Mettawee (AOG-17) has been misnamed the USS Mattawee (AOG-17) in Wikipedia -- appears to be a typographical error. I've added a comment to the article's talk page, along with rationale for the typo claim. I know Wikipedia is DIY, and considered attempting to correct the article myself, but am not an experienced Wikipedian and balked at the thought of changing an article title, associated class article title and internal references. My thanks to the many Wikipedians who have made Wikipedia an excellent reference for historical and contemporary ships. -- Jonathan Weesner 74.74.67.49 10:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Template:Greek Ship has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 17:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Somebody please respond to this. If I do so myself, I will most certainly fall on my sword, which would be a sad occurrence seeing as it's my birthday, and my party's not till Saturday. Maralia 17:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
However, it is common practice to backdate the use of a prefix so that it applies to ships of that navy that historically would not have been referred to with that prefix, and Wikipedia follows this practice:
The user is back - this is what he has posted -
es, but we don't suggest listing Livy as "Herodotus", either, nor do we call him a Spaniard. If the use of "US Brig" is troubling, call 'em all "Niagara (XXX)", but to call a brig a ship in the title is neither modern nor SOP. As the convention makes clear, it's not necessary to write "the Victory". Why, then, should not we write "Niagara" and eschew the prefixes that seem to be at the heart of the conflict? There's a wide gap between avoiding archaisms or obsolete terms -- it would be foolish to list USS Constitution as a frigate, though she was then, because the term has taken on new meaning -- and using iinaccurate and misleading ones.
I started to respond but my blood pressure couldn't cope - can we please establish a consensual response? I'm really bothered that he seems to be advocating dropping the prefixes for every vessel that wasn't 'ship rigged' because technically they can't be Her Majesty's Ship xxx if xxx was a submarine, say. Despite the fact that WAS the name they were commissioned under, served under, were known by her contemporaries and are known in every reputable scholarly work that deals with the world's navies that I can think of. Benea 17:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Members of this project may wish to take note of a CfD that has been opened on Category:Disambiguation lists of ships. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 2#Category:Disambiguation lists of ships for more details. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 12:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Members of this project may also wish to take note of a CfM that has been opened on Category:Royal Canadian Navy ship names that proposes its merger into Category:Canadian Forces ship names. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 5#Category:Royal Canadian Navy ship names for more details. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 21:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
What is Tag & Assess 2007? It's a Wiki-wide call for volunteers. To explain ... a month or so back, we ran a script to list all the articles in categories related to military history. This gave us about 165,000 articles. Some of these are already tagged and assessed as military history; some are military history but not yet tagged and assessed; some are not military history articles at all. This huge project — working thorough 165,000 articles — is called Tag & Assess 2007. To make it manageable, the list has been broken down into 330 ranges each of 500 articles. This is where youcan help.
Just... adopt-a-range from the available worklists then keep track of your tally on participants' list. The tagging is easy, just follow the simple instructions. Afterwards, as our way of thanking you, you'll be presented with service awards and barnstars based on the number of articles you process. Remember... the ranges are broken down into sub-sections of ten articles, so you work through them at twenty or thirty articles a day if you wish. To make Tag & Assess 2007 a success, we need your help. Please sign up now. Thanks.-- ROGER DAVIES TALK 09:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Can any of the experts on this wikiproject help....Has there been more than one ship called "The London"? The article
Rapparee, Ilfracombe discusses the wreck of "The London" in 1796, & see Morris, Steven (2007-11-06).
"Prisoners or slaves? New row over wrecks bones". The Guardian. Retrieved 2007-11-06. {{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help), but the article it links to
The London says it sank in the Bay of Biscay in 1866. Any help or explanation appreciated.—
Rod
talk
12:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Ship names are rarely unique, and that's a particularly popular one. There have been no less than sixteen Royal Navy ships by the name of HMS London, for example; it's easy to imagine two merchant ships sharing the name within the span of 100 years. I suspect the person who wrote Rapparee, Ilfracombe just didn't check where his interwiki link went. That's an interesting article, and I'd be happy to help if you decide to write an article based on it. Maralia 14:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you guys are aware of this, and i may be out of line for bringing it up, but when I was surfing through the list of articles for what links to your project I found an a-class review that no one from here has commented on here. At first I thought it was for the armed service group, but on closer inspection it says ships at the top; so i guess thats your project. It seems abadoned, hence why i bring it up; it ought to be commented on or closed or something; it looks wierd just sitting there unused. -- Wendy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.132.227.61 ( talk) 10:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
This article has passed its Military History WikiProject A-class review. I did a quick check of all of our articles and this is currently the only A-class article in our project scope. Next stop Featured Article?- MBK004 20:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
In a recent CFD, it was noted that many ship articles are double-categorized in both a parent cat and its sub-category. Specifically, articles are put in both by-country and by-navy cats. For example, all articles in Category:Frigates and destroyer escorts of the United States Navy are also in Category:Frigates and destroyer escorts of the United States. All United States Navy frigates are frigates of the United States (obviously), so why can't you just make the by-navy cat a sub-category of the by-country cat, then put ships in the appropriate by-navy cat? I don't see any need to put them in both, it creates a lot of clutter. jwillbur 06:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, let me step back and answer more thoroughly. First, thank you for the categorization work you're doing. The work you've done to clean up the categorization mess on articles such as USS Litchfield County (LST-901)is awesome. Now, to explain the country/navy thing. There are a few opinions on the matter. On the one hand, there is a group of people who feel that ships should be categorized by country, because that's the easiest thing for laymen to browse. On the other hand, other people feel that ships should be categorized by navy, because it's more precise. There are also a number of people who feel that both categories should be used, to ensure absolute accuracy when the country or navy names have changed through history.
Merges have been proposed one way or another over the course of the past few years, and none are successful because the issue is so evenly split. If you'd like to try to change consensus on the issue, please go for it, but please don't just go ahead and make the changes. If hundreds of articles are categorized a particular way, there is a reason for it, and you need to discuss before making mass changes. TomTheHand 16:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, the most cluttery thing is the presence of navy or country categories on ship articles. If the ship article has a class category, and that class category has the appropriate country or navy categories, there's no need for them to be on the ship article. That's something we did at one time, but we abandoned it as confusing, unnecessary, and messy. Your work removing those is invaluable. Thanks. TomTheHand 16:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
There are currently two Featured Article Candidates that come under the purview of this project in conjunction with the Maritime Warfare Task Force of the Military History WikiProject.
They are currently rated as A-class and also are the only A-class articles under our purview.
They are:
Your participation and any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks, MBK004 22:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Two categories for US military ship classes are being considered for merging/renaming here. Assistance with determining at which title the categories should be located would be most appreciated. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 07:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
would you guys assess the class and importance of the newly created article Sacramento class fast combat support ships? I would apreciate it. TomStar81 ( Talk) 08:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Just to reiterate - I can see the logic in excluding class categories from era parent-categories because if you do that you end up listing a whole bunch of ship articles in that era cat which did not actually serve in that era. But this is not the case for class articles. The class article gives an overview of the history of the class, not of individual ships. And since it includes, or should include, a potted history of all the eras the class was active in, it's hardly likely to confuse the reader. So there are no real disadvantages to listing class articles in era cats, and the advantage is that it gives readers a thumbnail view of all the classes which were active in that era.
It seems that most class articles currently have only a couple of attached categories anyway, so the addition of a couple of extra era categories is not going to overwhelm them and may be seen as an advantage. Moreover, the addition of era cats to these articles again gives the reader a quick thumbnail view of all the eras the class was active in, so I think it's useful in that respect too. Gatoclass 10:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) I have not posted here because this issue (era cats on class articles) is, in my opinion, a drop in the bucket. I'm going to start some BOLD cleanup of categories tonight. I won't mess with the era issue, or country vs navy, but there's a shitpile of other categories that are entirely misplaced. Get your pitchforks ready. Maralia 22:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I've been giving the era-on-class-article issue further thought, and it's starting to make sense to me. I was kind of having the same issue as Kralizec: "I see no reason why class articles should have different categories from class categories, and I don't think era categories should go on class categories because it implies that the ships in the cat all served in that era." However, I've been thinking about a few things:
So... shall we change the categorization guidelines? Era cats continue to stay off class cats, but they go on class articles. Class articles should be listed at the head of era categories, above all articles, like Gatoclass has done it. TomTheHand 15:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Check out Image:Harnett County AGP-821.jpg. The pink water is ... very odd. I presume it is not a red tide or something similar, but I really have no idea what it is. Any thoughts? -- Kralizec! ( talk) 16:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
yes, beached with two other boats tied on (no offense) not likely ive seen it before somewere its a macherniary fuel or something ,dye , sediment (redclay, or sandrock) but not likly, could be napalm it is a fuel with chemical thickners, but i think it has something to do with macheneray fuel or, oil, grease, or something. ANOMALY-117 21:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC) and definatly not a photographic error because the guy took the pic from a helicopter with the sun to his right or directily behind him and at maybe 12 to 3 o'clock in the day. but your guess is still as good as mine. ANOMALY-117 21:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
hehhe.. pepto-bismal. any-way and do we have any information on flip-ships or is their only one of its kind? o and i have to do a 5-page paper on hitler does any-body know anything? yes i tried the page but, the @!!$%@^ parental controls won't let me in! ANOMALY-117 00:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
A.B. posted about this AFD on MILHIST a little while ago, and I think it's of interest to us. Quote:
Please weigh in. Thanks!
TomTheHand
14:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Can someone with a bit more experience in this field take a look at Trip pilots? At the moment it seems to be little more of a thinly veiled attack page, but perhaps something could be made of it? Benea 00:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The A-Class review for USS Illinois (BB-65) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! TomStar81 ( Talk) 06:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Currently there's a little bit of a categorization mess between the above names. I believe our category structure should use "amphibious warfare vessels", as I think it's a general term that I'm more comfortable putting on ships that support amphibious operations, but aren't actually directly involved in amphibious assaults. I'd like to perform some merges, but I wanted to make a quick post and make sure there isn't any opposition. If nobody objects, I'll put up some CFMs and put links here. If there are any other names that people might like, let's talk about it decide on one now, so that the merges don't wind up failing because everyone has a title they would rather use. TomTheHand 22:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll make a list of the merges here before I propose them, to help me stay organized. If anyone notices that I've missed some, please tell me.
That should probably do it. Again, any objections? Any alternate titles? TomTheHand 14:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, please weigh in here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 16#Amphibious assault ships -> Amphibious warfare vessels. Thanks! TomTheHand 15:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
For a long time, I've thought the Amphibious assault ship article is a mess. THe Tarawa class amphibious assault ship page, for example, links to Amphibious assault ship, but instead of an aricle on the type of ships the LHA/LHDs are (large-deck ampibs), you get a noarrow opening definition of the ships, and the the article wanders all over discussing every type of amphibious warfare vessel. Is there any way we can address this? Perhaps the general information could go to Amphibious warfare vessel, with the Amphibious assault ship page covering LHDs, LHAs, LPH, LSDs, and those that are more properly called ships. THese are just my random opening thoughts - I wlecome any othe ideas/comments. - BillCJ 16:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Do you think a move needs to be proposed at the article page, or just go ahead and do it? I'd probably be able to work up a basic stub on the big ships at the same time, somewhat like the LCAC page below. - -- BillCJ ( talk) 21:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
In the useful Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Ensigns, there's an ensign for the Luxembourg Merchant Navy. Luxembourg is landlocked. Is this ensign real? Folks at 137 17:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Bouncing off an idea from MBK004 ( talk · contribs), would there be any interest in treating featured topics for ship classes by updating the class page and ship pages to FA status? It could help expand our featured topic selection, which would be benificial to both the Military history Project and the Ships project. Comments? TomStar81 ( Talk) 07:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering what (if any) were the notability guidelines regarding merchant ships operating or sunk during the Second World War? I've noticed a few ships gaining article which really do not seem to be especially exceptional (like SS British Premier) and I was wondering if all merchant ships sunk in WW2 or whether there are more stringent rules than that. I don't have strong feelings on this one way or another, but clarification would be useful.-- Jackyd101 15:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I haven't checked for a while, but I believe that prefixes are pretty much optional. I personally only use them when I need to disambiguate from something else, say if you have a ship called "George Washington" you are obviously going to want to name the article "SS George Washington" to disambig.
I don't believe prefixes should be used where they can be avoided because (a) they are not the most common name by which ships are usually referred to, thus violationg basic Wiki policy, (b) they are unsightly, (c) they are misleading in that the articles themselves generally don't bother with the prefix, and (d) they make it harder to search for something, ie what do you do when you know the name of the ship but are unsure of the prefix? So leaving out the prefix makes searching easier, and also creates less work for people wanting to link to the page. As I said though, if you have two different items with the same name then using the prefix makes a lot more sense. -- Gatoclass ( talk) 18:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Non-military prefixes are often not consistently used in the real world and are not mutually exclusive. A MV (motor vessel) can also be a MT (motor tanker); MS (motor ship) and MV (motor vessel) are the same thing; a PS (paddle steamer) is likely also a SS (steamship), and different sources often use different prefixes for the same ship . . . long story short, non-military prefixes are kind of a crapshoot, so we often don't title by them unless a prefix is demonstrably well-known for that ship ( RMS Titanic) or, as you mentioned, where it's handy for disambiguation. -- Maralia ( talk) 18:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Yesterday, I made a new post to last week's discussion on putting era cats onto class articles. I had reconsidered the situation and am thinking that perhaps we should change the guideline. I know most folks did not have a strong opinion on this, but I'd nevertheless like to ask that anyone interested check it out here. -- TomTheHand ( talk) 20:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
A few months ago, I noticed that there was no article specifically about the USN LCAC. I've finally been able to knock one together at LCAC, with some good pics. My knowledge of the type is very limited, and I don't have the time right now to do anything deeper. If anyone would like to help expand the article, there are some ELs included that should help one get started. Also, the German de:Landing Craft Air Cushioned page is a good start for anyone who reads the language. Thanks for whatever you can do to help this often-overlooked type. - -- BillCJ ( talk) 20:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
User:Jackyd101 has recently been going around removing the Category:Royal Navy ships of the line and Category:Ships of the line of the United Kingdom from articles (eg HMS Albion (1763)) that also have a class category attached to them. As far as I am aware, it is normal for us to include the class category AND the type category in these cases - but I think particularly so when it comes to ships of the line as the concept of a class, although real, is nowhere near as defined as it is in the modern sense. I think it is more useful to the reader to have the type categories present on the articles as well as the class. Martocticvs ( talk) 18:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
At the risk of asking a question discussed many times, what are the guidelines regarding the us of feminine personal pronouns for ships in regualr text (not in quotatations)? I've found no mention in the Project guidelines. I've always understood that formal ENglish used netral pronouns for inanimate objects, including ships. - BillCJ ( talk) 18:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your personal opinion on common usage, Benea. However, I asked if there were MOS guidleines for formal English usage, ie what would be proper for an encyclopedia. THere are many traditions in common usage of English, both American and UKish, that we do not use for formal writing, which isthe basis for the Wiki MOS. As a user of Southern AMerican English, would you support using "y'all" and "ain't" in an article on the US states of Alabama and Georgia, if that was what the first editor used? I somehow think not. - BillCJ ( talk) 20:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no MOS mandate for pronoun usage in reference to ships. is the answer I expected, not not some long, drawn-out rambling about history and usage that I already know. I'll just chalk this up as another case where formal English rules apparently don't apply to Wikipedia because people have emotional attachments to common usage. Or, in the style in which I will now start writing in mainspace, "Y'all don't make no sense!" :) - BillCJ ( talk) 00:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I turned to my bookshelf to try to find out what people writing books about ships used. And I found mixed opinions. 'She' is probably more popular, but some authors use "it", and I found one switching about. Not to mention one author who seems quite happy to say "Its sister-ship". The books I looked at are at: User:The Land/Ship pronouns. The Land ( talk) 20:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd just like to agree with Benea. British ships, for example, are uniformly referred to as 'she' in my experience. This may be just a quirk of the English language, which doesn't usually have gender in grammar, but our cosmopolitan tongue is made up of nothing but quirks for the most part. I'd certainly say that 'she' should be used for all British ships. To take a hypothetical example, if someone writes an article on a ship of the Royal Navy I wouldn't see any justification for a later editor changing 'she' to 'it' in the piece. Nick mallory ( talk) 02:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
German ships are always he.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 15:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Does this article come under our scope? It is listed as a Featured Article on the project main-page, but about a week ago I looked at the article talk page and noticed that our banner was not there. Since it was listed on the main page I added the project banner there. Now I'm having doubts about if it belongs or not. Thoughts? MBK004 ( talk) 19:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Done I've removed the tag from the article and the reference on the project main page.-
MBK004 (
talk)
19:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
HEY IM BACK! SORRY HAD TO SLEEP AT SOME POINT hm.. so far great but the branstar should go behind the wheel.-- ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 13:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I recently edited the Tribal class destroyer (1936) page to replace many confusing links to vessels with the Template:Warship, however these were reverted shortly afterward and the editor pointed me toward the Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits while noting on my talk page that this template is too taxing for server processing. Does anyone have any thoughts about this? I would argue that the benefits of standardizing and simplifying links to articles on vessels, not to mention the kilobytes saved, would trump any minuscule increase in server effort....Thanks! Plasma east ( talk) 15:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Category:Seminole War ships is orphaned. Please can one of the ship experts find a home for it, or (if it's not needed, nominate it for renaming or deletion? Thanks! -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
So that the members of this project may better recognize the outstanding efforts of their fellow members, I would like to propose the creation of a barnstar for WikiProject Ships! Thoughts? Opinions? -- Kralizec! ( talk) 21:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Unless there are any objections, I propose the following in order to both keep us organized and moving forward:
However I would like to make a request. As the originator of this proposal and the organizer of our selection process, I would like to be the one to issue our first barnstar award. After that, all members of the project are free to use our new barnstar in order to recognize fellow Wikipedia contributors for their hard work and due diligence on WikiProject Ships! -- Kralizec! ( talk) 17:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Nominations complete - The nomination process is now closed. Fifteen images were submitted for consideration as the WikiProject Ships barnstar. Voting will begin shortly. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 00:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
For our first nomination, how about the tall ship from our project banner superimposed on the traditional barnstar? -- Kralizec! ( talk) 21:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
howa bout a salvage ship on a..? or an anchor? or the navy seal?-- ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 22:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC) but a bronze star with a clipper ship? idon't know about that.-- ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 22:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
i agree with MBK004 -- ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 00:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC) THE BARNSTAR isn't exactly seaworthy-- ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 00:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I asked Emoscopes back in August to draw something up, but he didn't respond and I forgot about it. If I can find my damn Photoshop key I'll take a crack at something. Maralia ( talk) 00:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
LOVE THE WIKIWINGS but we should use those in an air force project but the anchor is awsome but the barnstar baground looks good but we can do better Wwoods has good idea but this isn't the marines this is the navy so mabey an anchor on the wikigolb with two ships one coming out of the left and right side of the achor at the top. like the latest battle ship logo with bow coming out from the side. yea hard to explain. but anchor plus NAVY something plus wiki world? or maby the navy matto? but the anchor barnstar looks great but needs improvement or diffrent background. so i think we should go with the anchor and some thing else with it? but what?-- ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 03:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
oh! an anchor with the japanese imperial navy seal behind it?! ya know the crisanthamum. its on the front of the yamato battleship.
hm.. still i think the seal and the anchor would look good yea hahahah the post was confusing. all ships you say?... hm now you have my thinktank bubblin.-- ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 04:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The extent of my artistic ability is copying then pasting, but if an actual artist wanted to take Image:Barnstar Anchor.png and change the anchor from black to a similar look as the barnstar has, (ie, the lines, texture and depth etc), I think that would be better. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 04:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
HMM... A ROTATING barnstar is a good idea but it is to much. so i think one thing most of us agree on is that the wheel with something or by itself should be the barnstar so ...i think mabye five more barnstar picture ideas at the most. then we need to start voting because if we have to many choices or wait to long we will never get anything made. then once we agree on a barnstar we should hold this topic agian in say... oh..a year maybe to make some revisions or chose another image. this allows the barnstar we choose first won't be getting eddited every month. basicaly its an election/revision every year to keep this barnstar current and up to date. -- ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 20:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC) and then we could archive the previous years barnstar so that way we will rember how this award orginated plus it would so our progress through the year.-- ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 20:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC) and we should really consider this idea-- ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 20:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC) and when we vote should we make it to were only members may vote on the barnstar-- ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 20:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
instead of barnstar can we call it the seastar or something?-- ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 20:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Number 13 has the nautical wheel combined with the Editors Barnstar, which I think resembles the patina that some metals get when at sea for a while. I suppose it could be confused with the Editors Barnstar though. Also, I think #9 wasn't really a nomination, but a clip art suggestion to combine with other items. As for using the Wikiworld symbol, I kind of stay away from it because of the copyright issues. The rest are public domain or GFDL. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 21:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone else noticed that in #10 the wheel seems to change size as the contra-rotation occurs? The Land ( talk) 22:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:USS Anzio (CG-68) golden anchor.jpg has a golden anchor, in case anyone was looking for anchor clipart. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 04:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The barnstar and the wheel have just too many pointy bits, it looks messy. Might I suggest shrinking the barnstar so that it fits inside the circle on the wooden wheel.
Also, if there's going to be rotation, I think rotating both the wheel and the barnstar is too much. The wheel alone should turn, but ideally, not just in one direction. It should turn in one direction, gradually gathering speed, then slow down, stop, and start slowly turning in the other direction, gathering speed, slowing and then stopping. This sequence to be repeated to simulate a ship actually being steered. Gatoclass ( talk) 00:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
A question that came into mind when thinking of users who might possibly deserve this barnstar... does a user have to be a WP:SHIPS member in order to recieve "our" barnstar? Or can it be awarded to anyone who improves WP:SHIPS-related articles, even if s/he's not a member? -- Kjet ( talk) 08:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
A little over seven hours remain to place your votes! -- Kralizec! ( talk) 17:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Voting begins at 01:00:01 GMT on 25 November 2007 utilizing the following guidelines:
Depending on the amount of "last minute" voting that takes place, I will announce the first ever WikiProject Ships Barnstar prior to 03:00:00 on 2 December 2007. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 01:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Voting complete - calculating results. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 01:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
After reviewing the election guidelines, please add your vote below in the following format:
Comment. I am not at all satisfied with any of these candidates and I think the discussion was closed prematurely. Gatoclass ( talk) 03:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Tabulating voting results now ... -- Kralizec! ( talk) 01:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
An easy win for #13! Congratulations Dual Freq ( talk · contribs) for submitting the winning design! All of the members of this project should feel free to use our new barnstar to recognize the outstanding efforts of your fellow editors. Usage instructions are on the template page: {{ WikiProject Ships Barnstar}}. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 02:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! but the aqua marine is so ugly (no offense )why??????why??!?!?!?!???? ANOMALY-117 03:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I montion that we PLEASE hold this in a year and elect a new one? oh and a barnstar that is elelcted may only serve one year without some changes to color or design and the changes must be noticeable or a new design may be elected. does anyone second? ANOMALY-117 03:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
and yes i do understand your point and i can live with the selection but all i'm saying is that if we don't re-vote every year then can we at least bring this topic up agian on the day the oringanl proposel was brought up. every year so that way people can put in their input or design a new star and if nothing is posted or discussed of real importance than we will close the subjuct on december2 untill this time the following year. (i myself am haveing a little trouble fowlling myself). if that makes any sense. ANOMALY-117 03:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
so now what? ANOMALY-117 03:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
i understand what im trying to say that instead of my first idea we instead bring up a new section every year giving people the oppotunite to change or talk about it because some people and new members may not know that they can influence the change of the barnstar and im suggesting that every year we let them know that they can .. uh whats the word..influnece?.. the change of the barnstar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANOMALY-117 ( talk • contribs) 04:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Unrelated to the above... out of curiosity, who was the first person to recieve our new barnstar? As Kralizec! reserved himself the honour of awarding the first one, I'd be rather interested in knowing who got it.
And on the subject above: we voted. The whole point of voting is to find out which one the majority likes best - and the vast majority of those who bothered to vote obviously preferred the one we got. Changing that because two people don't like it seems exceedingly undemocratic. -- Kjet 23:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
After the discussion above, I've begun putting era categories onto class articles. I like the result. See Category:World War II aircraft carriers of the United States for an example. All the class articles are consolidated at the top and give a nice overview of what was in operation at the time.
I've been working my way along alphabetically, so I just finished Category:Aircraft carrier classes and hit Category:Amphibious assault ship classes. I noticed that Gatoclass has been having class articles sort by type first, and then class name. See Category:World War II amphibious warfare ships of the United States for an example. Note all of the "attack cargo ship"s grouped together, and all the "attack transport"s in a separate group.
I had been sorting by class name only, and I think I prefer doing it that way, so that it's one continuous alphabetical list instead of broken up by ship type. However, I don't have strong feelings about it; I just happen to prefer looking at the information that way. I wanted to bring it here and ask for everyone's two cents. I know most people won't feel strongly, but I don't think this is an issue that needs long, logical, passionate arguments, just a quick opinion off the top of your head.
"Too long, didn't read" version:
I appreciate your input. TomTheHand ( talk) 22:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thats like a six way cross-refrence!!!!!!!?-- ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 22:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed with Maralia, alpha by name is the simplest, and easiest to browse. -- Kjet ( talk) 22:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Escort aircraft carrier has been renamed as Escort carrier. In this case the category should be renamed too? I'm also not sure if this affects the names of our other aircraft carrier articles. Benea ( talk) 01:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Please check out this merge and weigh in. It's related to last week's amphibious warfare vessel merges, but I missed it that time around. Thanks! TomTheHand ( talk) 15:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello all,
I have been working on articles tagged as needing sections and these articles appear on the list:
Most of them (but not all, I added the rest) were tagged as being articles relating to the ship project. I would appreciate some help in cleaning them up but first I wanted to ask here if there ares suggestions about what sections would be best (and how they should be organized), sort of a guideline for when future articles are added? Thank you
Awotter (
talk)
00:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC) Done
Hello everyone! I hope that all members of WP:SHIPS from the U.S. had a happy Thanksgiving... and I hope that everyone else had a very nice Thursday :-) TomTheHand ( talk) 02:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't belong to this WP, so I thought I would say high, as I've tagged a lot of articles for y'all while doing WP MH's drive, and ask a question. Would Belle of Louisville and Great Steamboat Race fall under WP Ship's concerns?-- Bedford ( talk) 08:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
i need work not a huge task but i need something to do anbody have any ideas?-- ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 16:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
yea i did but im no good at spelling and right now im a slow typer with the broken arm and all. nor am i good at grammer but i do like to patrol for vandlism but i have to do it manualy page by page because my mom dosn't want me to download onto her computer so i need people to kinda tell me waht to do for right now. oh and i can argue like nobodys bisnes oh yea i can't spell but i can ram facts and vewis on stuff intill the scream uncle!-- ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 23:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC) oh and i can read like really fast... oh and is possible to get your own bot?-- ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 23:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC) oh and i like the yamato battleship alot -- ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 23:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
finding stuff online has never been a problem for me. its just the formating and other things that take work. but im very good at finding plain old raw information on just about anything. and messing with tags and writing code in the document is to frustrating for me. is their any way to get raw information onto pages without email or violating a law?
however if anybody knows were help is needed in a debate or watching something on this site then let me know ANOMALY-117 21:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Sources Has anyone thought of buying books and going to libraries?-- Toddy1 09:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
and i uh have or can find or know just about anything on everthing ecxept complex math and science (complex, relative to an average 14 year-old) and i know alot about mislianious stuff. pardon the spelling. ANOMALY-117 03:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)