![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
I hi seen the term "standard ton" or similar used in a couple of articles I've edited recently (like this one and this one). I couldn't find an explanation for this term in ton, so I was wondering what it means. Does anybody know? Thunderbird2 13:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I see. So I was misreading it really. Taking USS Wesson as an example, does it just mean 1,240 tons (unladen) then? If so, is "light displacement" a more widely accepted term for this measure? Also, do you know whether these are short tons or long ones, or some other variety? Thunderbird2 13:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Crumbs - sounds like a right pandora's box!. I was thinking of maybe re-wording them to make the text less ambiguous, but I think I'll leave that to an expert. Many thanks for your help and explanations :-) Thunderbird2 14:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Part of the problem seems to be that some ships (like warships) are measured by their displacement (actual weight in tons) while cargo ships seem to be measured by "tonnage" (amount of stuff they can carry). But then sometimes you find displacement measurements for cargo ships too. And then which measurements are used for ships that, say, are converted from cargo vessels to Naval auxiliaries? It all gets very messy. I'm still not certain about which kind of "tons" I am looking at sometimes. Gatoclass 16:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC):\
Just to summarize: U.S. naval ships use long tons (2,240 lb), not short tons (2,000 lb) or metric tons (1,000 kg) (except for the very newest ships, which do use metric tons). Metric tons, or tonnes, abbreviated "t", are often used today by European navies, and are not the same thing as "short tons," which are the 2,000-lb tons used in the U.S. civilian world. Standard displacement is displacement ready for sea but minus fuel and reserve feed water. It's intended to provide even ground between powers which don't require long range (Italy) and powers which do (the U.S.). It isn't the same as light displacement, which is defined by the USN here as "The ship is complete and ready for service in every respect, including permanent ballast (solid and liquid), and liquids in machinery at operating levels but is without officers, men, their effects, ammunition, or any items of consumable or variable load." "Liquids in machinery" refer to lubricants, not fuel; light displacement does not include fuel. TomTheHand 16:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Who started this?! (Thanks Tom) Perhaps this info should be in the displacement article with a few comparative figures: is the difference enough to affect the info already published in wiki? Which version of "ton" did the naval treaties use? Do UK ships use "long tons". I have a London edtion of a couple of Whitworth's books - which version would be in there? Folks at 137 17:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
considering that most scifi space movies consider spaceships to be navy (like starwars or halo) should we consider fiction spacecraft and real space shuttles in our articles posted by this page? and maybe we could come up with a better userbox for this project? like a moving one. or better yet an ad plus we need a newsletter or something because theres like only ten people who have a steady posting here or am i just not noticing? and if im right were are all our members? or are we it? and if we are i find that very weird considering this is the internet. oh and my watchlist has been blocked for some reson by my parentel controls (oh they're pain in the @#$%&$) any ideas i think it has something to do with a serirously vandlizied page but i can't seem to find it. ANOMALY-117 18:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC) oh i have like 50 pages watched so its hard to remeber them all so mabye a Vandlism sweep? ANOMALY-117 18:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC) oh and the results comments: um quit harping one my first idea i get the message ok! im saying that if we don't at least tell people that the barnstar is changeable then no one will no. so i suggest we bring up the subject of the chance to change it once a year and it dosen't have to be changed. sorry if i sound a little frustrated. ANOMALY-117 18:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
i fixed the prob no worries :> the idea was mainly to notify newbs. yes but the amount must be more than 3,ooo it took me two three hours to finish my chalenge (for more on the challenge go to user talk willbeback) even then the amount of projects are huge and the members are never the same usually from project to project. but if their are only 3ooo then some must be inactive or the users..uh dead..or something. so maybe a task force shold go through and do a sort of roll call and put anybody who is inactive of ten months unless expressed by a wikileave notification. which means we have to check logs and lots of them. so maybe a modifide vandlism program? ANOMALY-117 20:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC) it is important that we keep a sort of poupulation count to know when we are short handed and have to work over time or recruit edtiors. ANOMALY-117 20:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC) oh and i suck at programing the userboxes on my page are ethier avalibale copies or me cuting and pasting codes togeather. oh and a lot of guess work —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANOMALY-117 ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
telling people about wiki editing sort of like a free advertising for wikipedia. to inform new users of the fact that they have the infulence to help change the barnstar. i don't really know what reson we would need to keep tabs on people on active or not but something in my gut tells me that it would be good to have. sockpuppet identifycation maybe i really don't know but i think we need it. ANOMALY-117 21:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of ship infoboxes, can someone point me to a tutorial that shows you how to create such infoboxes? I'd like to experiment a bit. Gatoclass 06:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I could use some help dealing with a user adding unsourced OR and possibly POV content to the USS Holland (SS-1) and General Dynamics pages, per this diff and this one. This isn't the first time such info has been added to these pages, but the user is being aggresive about reverting today, claiming to be adding "facts". I know absolutely nothing of the history involved here, so I'm only judging these additions on Wiki sourcing policy, the users protests to the contrary. - BillCJ 01:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
HMM... ill see what i can do about it! (finally a case)! 209.244.187.181 01:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)sorry im not logged in ANOMALY-117 209.244.187.181 02:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC) ok um but if he makes any more edits let him do it ill check his info with a submarine book i have. sorry if my previous comment sounded a like i was a little over-board. Anomaly-117 209.244.187.181 02:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
whoa! dude slow down man let me take a look at it. is it obvious vandlism or just unverfibale info? if it might not be vandlelism don't block him just revert and let me see the work to check is information to see if it's fact or crap. ANOMALY-117 02:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
i will i will but my arm is broken and i don't have a ton of time so im just moornig here and watch learning how stuff works and voiceing my opinion when i have something to say and yes i understand what this website is about but my abilty to do stuff is constricted conssibraly with the way my mom's computer is set up and its really old and slow. i'm acutally suprised at what is getting in to this site. and really right now all i have to do is fight vandlism until i learn a little more on how to tag stuff and program it and other things correctly ANOMALY-117 02:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC) however i a-sure you as soon as i learn what i can and my arm gets out of this cast i will gladly set sail and start doing more for this website. promise ANOMALY-117 02:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thank you! :> if you could leave it on my talk page it would help me alot because i may not be able to check this page or my talk page utill tommorow because i might not be on for much longer but i'll see what i can do! i should be out of it in three to four weeks. then i get a brace. this is the second time its been broken this year with almost a month between each brake the first time it was both bones. i tried to turn 90 degreas while running full speed and i sliped but landed on my hand while turning so it kinda just sheard. the second was one bone and a football acident but it only happend because i was being a little rough and my arm wasn't totally better. actually a broken bone dosn't really hurt it's just disgusting and it throbs like alot! but it's not as bad as it sounds it really dosen't hurt that much. but you still can't help but to cry. :> -- ANOMALY-117 03:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
yea im fast with two hands plus i can type about twice this no problem. as long as im intrested in it of course! ANOMALY-117 03:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
This same IP / user basically wrote the entire Crescent Shipyard and Arthur Leopold Busch (who they claim as a great grandparent) articles. Somebody should probably take a look at those and check for POV, sources etc. The IPs that were blocked could be proxys for Prince William County, VA county government / library or school based on the whois information. I'm not sure how many users may be affected by blocking them. (update, only one of the three were blocked) -- Dual Freq 03:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the FAC for USS Illinois (BB-65); all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! TomStar81 ( Talk) 07:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I have gone through List of United States Navy ships, A and from there followed all the articles to look for conformity. I placed many project templates on talk pages, made various corrections to disambig pages, marked for infobox needed etc. Placed a few other wiki related tags as well. Overall, I would say a large majority of the articles are in nice condition. Don't count on me doing the B list anytime soon :) -- Brad ( talk) 22:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Category:United States Navy ammunition ships is orphaned. Can anyone here find appropriate parent categories for it, or alternatively (if it doesn't fit the structures) nominate it at CfD? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
i think miltary wwll oilers should go along with them as well as milatary tugs in a sub page called miltary service ships. what do you think?-- ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 14:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
um i havn't checked but since during the civil-war condfedrates were a seprate country do their ships on wiki have the confedrate flags? and if not why not and how would i change them?-- ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 18:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Could someone tell me what the article mae for the Buque de Proyección Estratégica class amphibious ship page should be? A new user moved it to Juan Carlos I (ship), but I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be the correct name per the conventions. Since I'm new to the project, the conventions are still confusing for me, so any help and intervention on this would be appreciated. Thanks. - BillCJ ( talk) 02:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Did we ever reach a decision on putting links to HullNumber.com on the articles for every USN ship? I remember there was some discussion about it, and we generally didn't think it was a good idea, and then Usnht ( talk · contribs) swung by and explained that it's a free service to sailors. I think we shuffled our feet guiltily and then didn't say anything else on the matter one way or another. TomTheHand ( talk) 14:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Shoulld this article be kept? Your inputs would be appreciated. -- A. B. (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
delete its junk untill somebody does something better to it or you could put it into my sand box its under my name but i have no idea where the link is. but if you iyou give it to me itll be awhile before it is returned like say a couple of years. ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 22:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Patent nonsense or gibberish, yes i know i did look at patent nonsense. but the document is poorly wrriten and gives little insite to the ship so ether merge with the bio (if there is one) of owners or delete for reason as JUNK. because it dosn't pretain to the ship itself it only mentions the ship like onece. ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 22:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC) other than that there is no reason so if we don't use the above reason then we have to keep it. ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 22:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
how-ever you had to basicaly start-over did you not? if so then you pretty-much deleted it and made a new article on the boat. so in the end the information didn't pretain to the topic at all. oh and i knew about the patent nonsense thing when i wrote the comment as i say in the first sentence. ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 22:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC) sorry if i come off a little harsh or mean. im just board and i like to argue. but other then that you did a great job on the article so now we don't have to delete it. ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 22:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
no seriosly i read the thing before i made that comment had i not i would have made my self look stupid. so i read it then i made the comment hoping i could a point. of course it was a huge streach but it was all i had. ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 22:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
um.....................ok i guess i'll agree to that summury. :| ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 23:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of our disagreements here, I would like to thank A. B. for bringing the issue to our attention, and Woody for beating the article into shape with his WP:MOS-stick. One of the reasons I spend so much of my Wikipedia time at WikiProject Ships is because the members of this project do such excellent, speedy work! -- Kralizec! ( talk) 02:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed that this article is a speedy delete candidate due to it being a ship that was never completed. What are people's opinions on that? Martocticvs ( talk) 00:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Here is the DANFS article in question. The 1863 ship is listed at the bottom and does not have its own article. I've created a dab page at USS Ontario and I think the line there is sufficient to cover the 1863 ship. It is mentioned similarly at USS New York. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 01:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
List |
Category |
Working independently of each other, Martocticvs ( talk · contribs) and I added additional functionality to the {{ WikiProject Ships}} banner yesterday. The two new assessment classes are List and Cat. The project's assessment instructions have been updated to include both new classes. As of right now, our project banner makes full use off all classes included in the standardized {{ cat class}} header. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 15:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Just an FYI. Deleted without notification, rationale being empty category, yet I just added the {{ Ship infobox request}} to a few articles. The CfD discussion is here, and the deletion review discussion is here. Apparently we were not the only WikiProject affected. What happened? - MBK 004 22:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if someone happens to know the approximate cost of the following WWII ship types:
Thanks, Gatoclass ( talk) 08:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of misnamed articles, it seems to me that High endurance cutter is another one. This article appears to be mainly about Hamilton class cutters, although it briefly mentions another class, but it fails to mention the Owasco class at all, which were quite different vessels but which were also known as high endurance cutters.
I was about to say I think it should probably be renamed "Hamilton class cutter" and the info about the Hero class (which is scarcely more than a sentence) removed, but I notice that "Hamilton class cutter" already redirects to this page. So I'm thinking that now we have the Owascos as well, it's time to move the content of this article back to the "Hamilton class cutter" redirect page, does that seem appropriate? Gatoclass 13:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I found another source for C type freighters: "The "C" boats were designed before the outbreak of the war and are regarded by the commission as among the world's finest in their class. The three types will average about 10,000 deadweight tons. The cost was estimated at $2,200,000 to $3,000,000 each." (Two Ships A Day Building Program For U.S. Planned. The Robesonian, Lumberton, North Carolina, Wednesday, August 27, 1941, Page 18.) Another source says "The "American Press," fourth of five C-l typo cargo vessels to be constructed here under a $10,635,000 Federal maritime commission contract..." and "...Work on the fifth C-l type vessel to be constructed at the local plant has already started and with the launching tomorrow. Western (Western Pipe and Steel company) will be able to start work on the first of four C-3 type vessels to be constructed under an $11,960,000 contract. Western has a contract for two other C-3 type vessels for $5,930,000." (Launching Set For Tomorrow. Times, The, San Mateo, California, Monday, March 10, 1941, Page 14) -- Dual Freq 03:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
This is the best I can do for now on the Bogue class, an article talking about USS Breton (CVE-23) built at Seattle-Tacoma Shipbuilding says the following: "Requiring only three weeks from keel to launching, the USS Breton, new type escort carrier, is ready for active service in the fleet." (though this conflicts with the wiki-article. Wartime secrecy / censorship issues?) ... "Such a ship costs eight to nine million dollars" ... "Construction of the carrier took about 3,000,000 man-hours—equivalent to four or five of the well known Liberty ships." (New Carrier Is Ready for Fleet Action. Syracuse Herald Journal, Syracuse, New York, Monday, April 05, 1943, Page 20) -- Dual Freq 06:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Just a note regarding the costs of vessels built by the US Maritime Commission, especially those built for use by the US Navy: I feel the only relevant figures would be those of final cost. Often times figures reported are contract costs but fail to take into account the many adjustments made long after the signing of the original contracts. For instance, prevailing law mandated clauses in all MarCom vessel contracts allowing MarCom to recover excess profits from the builders after the completion of the contract. Furthermore, after the war, the Republicans regained control of Congress and took their own turn hacking away at builder's profits. The Casablanca class carriers contracted between Kaiser Company, Inc. and the US Maritime Commission were originally contracted at a cost of $10 million per vessel for a quantity of fifty vessels. However, the final cost report for these fifty vessels show the total cost paid for all fifty was $300 million - or just $6 million per vessel. A considerable difference between contract cost and actual outlay. The $200 million total difference can only in part be explained by the two rounds of charge-backs for excess profits - roughly $150 million worth. But $50 million of the $200 million dollar difference was due to the poor quality of workmanship produced by the Kaiser organization which the Navy refused to reimburse the Maritime Commission for and in turn MarCom then refused to pay Kaiser. I think for the Bogues, built by a more reputable builder Sea-Tac, there won't likely be found such a great disparity between contracted cost and final cost - at least not for lack of quality purposes. However, even these vessels were subject to the efforts made to recoup excess profits after they were built and contract completed. There are a host of excellent graphs and tables within the book Ships For Victory, a history of the US maritime Commission during WWII. I'm certain one or more of these can more specifically help you zero in on actual final costs for different ship types.
One last point: C-3s, as an example, were built to so many different configurations and each version or variety would have a different cost thanks to anticipated man hour fluctuations due to the differing designs. Even the emergency ships, EC-1, VC-2 etc, were built to numerous different designs suited for certain specialties - hospital ships, ammunition ships, troop ships, etc - that it would seem both impossible and misleading to lump all ships of a common hull type to a single dollar figure representing its cost. five ( talk) 09:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, since there have been no objections I've changed the names of the articles as proposed above.
It would be very helpful if the ship infobox and ship class infobox were changed to include the cost of ships. However suchg data would only be useful if people stated (1) exclusions, and (2) sources - presumably these could be handled by making them items on the template.-- Toddy1 09:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Class isn't part of a ship's career, so it doesn't go in the career section.
But it is a part of a ship's career. When a Bogue class escort carrier becomes an Attacker class escort carrier, what is the logical place to list the change other than in the separate "Career" structures for the two navies?
I think hiding the class characteristic halfway down the article is a bad idea. IMO the previous ship infobox had it right, putting it at the top. Even assuming you were right that class belongs more under characteristics than career, which I'm not persuaded is the case, there are exceptions to most rules and I think class ought to be one of them. Gatoclass 18:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to see if we could get a little discussion going about how to categorize small warships. There's a lot of overlap in the terminology here. On the one hand, I don't think we should have separate categories for every name a navy could possibly give a ship. On the other hand, I don't want us making groupings that are really original research.
Some stuff I have issues with are modern (20th century+) frigates, destroyer escorts, torpedo boats, corvettes, sloops, Fast Attack Craft (FACs), patrol boats, and gunboats. And maybe others. Like the littoral combat ship. Many of these terms had very distinct meanings in the Age of Sail, but today it's all very blurry. Some of it's just image; a boat might be called a fast attack craft by a navy that wants to sound aggressive, but the same vessel in the hands of a more defensive navy might be a patrol boat.
Off the bat, I would say that (modern) frigates and destroyer escorts are synonymous. They're the British and American names (respectively) for essentially the same type of ship: an ocean-going ASW craft that's cheaper than a destroyer. "Frigate" is the term that prevailed, and all USN DEs were renamed FFs in the United States Navy 1975 ship reclassification.
However, the others are more murky, as far as I'm concerned. I'm tempted to lump them all into a "small warships" category. TomTheHand ( talk) 20:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, unless anyone has any immediate objections, in a few hours (or tomorrow) I'm going to go propose a merge of Category:Patrol vessel classes and Category:Fast attack craft classes into Category:Small combatant classes. I'll leave corvettes out of this. If anyone has any better name suggestions, please give them now; I'm iffy on "Small warship classes" because some of the contents are really boats, not ships. TomTheHand ( talk) 20:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear Wikimedians,
This is a (belated) announcement that requests are now being taken for illustrations to be created for the Philip Greenspun illustration project (PGIP).
The aim of the project is to create and improve illustrations on Wikimedia projects. You can help by identifying which important articles or concepts are missing illustrations (diagrams) that could make them a lot easier to understand. Requests should be made on this page: Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project/Requests
If there's a topic area you know a lot about or are involved with as a Wikiproject, why not conduct a review to see which illustrations are missing and needed for that topic? Existing content can be checked by using Mayflower to search Wikimedia Commons, or use the Free Image Search Tool to quickly check for images of a given topic in other-language projects.
The community suggestions will be used to shape the final list, which will be finalised to 50 specific requests for Round 1, due to start in January. People will be able to make suggestions for the duration of the project, not just in the lead-up to Round 1.
thanks, pfctdayelise ( talk) 12:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC) (Project coordinator)
With the Infobox Ship Class template, the class type field replicates on two spots, the title and an item in the list on the infobox. Because of this, it looks wrong in the title when you capitalize it, yet it looks wrong if it's lowercase in the list. Is there anything you can do about it? American Patriot 1776 ( talk) 22:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
An IP, 68.45.128.161 ( talk · contribs), is making minor edits to many U.S. fleet submarines, including expanding abbreviated names and adding other very specific details, without citing any sources. I'm not super-comfortable with this; for the most part, the articles are based directly on DANFS and are therefore well-sourced. This new information isn't from DANFS, and it sometimes contradicts it. We all know that DANFS can be wrong, and we've sent them corrections in the past, but we've done so after doing a good bit of research using other reliable sources. I've left two messages on the IP's talk page requesting that sources be cited. There have been no edits after the second message.
So here's where I need help: first, if the edits start up again, what do we do? I certainly don't want to scare off someone with an interest in ships, but we need sources. Second, what do we do with the edits that have already been made, especially the ones that contradict DANFS? TomTheHand ( talk) 18:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
depending on what and how many i will gladly check his words so don't touch m and let me know what the list is and the number of edits ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 01:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I was going through Category:Unassessed-Class Ships articles and stumbled on this article that has been tagged for our project. the question is, does it really belong within our mandate? Officially it was commissioned as a "ship", but an airship. So, thoughts? -- Kjet ( talk · contribs) 22:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been wondering the same thing; I've been treating US Navy blimps as aircraft, and formatting articles according to WikiProject Aircraft's guidelines. This, however is a commissioned ship, so a little different from largely anonymous blimps. I wonder if the best solution for these would be to default to WikiProject Aircraft for the bulk of the layout, but incorporate the "career" section of WikiProject Ship's layout? I'm happy to take care of it if others here agree. -- Rlandmann ( talk) 23:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem there, of course, would be that if the WP:Aircraft formatting were to be introduced to the articles, we'd end up with a lot of duplication, with (for example) the length of the aircraft listed in the infobox:ship and the Specifications (aircraft) section... -- Rlandmann ( talk) 10:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I think I've found and tagged all the airships that the USN ever put into service according to what we've decided upon in the discussion above:
mm. if we take those as "ships of the air" what about prarie schooners? but if it is part of the navy or is classifed as a ship we should have some say in it especially in the stats like weight builder ..etc.. ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 01:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
MilHist's infobox conversion page indicates plans to convert usage of old templates {{ Infobox Military Submarine}} and {{ Submarine}} to "{{ Infobox Ship}} and {{ Service record}}". Before I go griping about {{ Infobox Ship}} being deprecated, I have to admit I didn't even know about the service record template. I wonder if {{ Infobox Ship Example}} will match up nicely with {{ Service record}} for display. Can anyone play around with them and magically answer this whilst I sleep? Maralia ( talk) 05:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to give everyone the heads-up: it appears that the folks over at WP:MOSNUM are planning on removing the longstanding "link all dates so that they'll autoformat" guideline; if you have an opinion, they might want to hear from you over there, but if not, be prepared for the possibility of editors and bots sweeping through ship articles and de-linking the dates. We may want to have a discussion about consistent date formatting. Although MM-DD-YYYY is common in U.S. writing, the U.S. Navy seems to use DD-MM-YYYY, so I think we might be using an awful lot of that format. TomTheHand ( talk) 22:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Eagle 101 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) noted on the Administrators' noticeboard that an automated scan for "potential crap" articles (aka those with no wikilinks and at least one external link) turned up over 6000 candidates. The following articles on the list appear to fall under the purview of our project and desperately need assistance:
The entire list can be viewed at User:Eagle 101/potential crap 3. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 20:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
anything with a real and reliable source should kept and if we have never encournterd the source give it the benifit of the dout and you should sort the list by subject into other lits then send each list to an aporpriate project then those projects will sort through there lists and send what ever they keep to the stub project. unless of course im wrong, they can't all be ships? ANOMALY-117 04:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC) in the event that im wrong we should sort them in manner of my statement above then send them to the stub project for stubing ANOMALY-117 04:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC) pardon the spelling and grammer ANOMALY-117 04:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I should also add that Hannah Elizabeth (ship) also falls within the scope of this project. I have tried to clean it up a bit, however it could still use some work. Also International Naval Research Organization might be considered within our scope as well. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 23:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Today I saw that Bellhalla ( talk · contribs) was removing Category:World War II submarines of Japan from articles that already have Category:Japanese submarines lost during World War II, because the former is the parent category of the latter. It makes sense, but I'm not a big fan of it, because I think it's useful to be able to look at a single category and see all WWII subs of Japan rather than having to flip through two separate categories to see lost subs and subs that survived the war. I think we should duplicate the articles across both cats. I wanted to bring it up here, because it's an issue we haven't addressed in the past. What does everyone think? TomTheHand ( talk) 19:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I've altered {{
Shipindex}} so that articles without the "name" parameter are sorted to the top of
Category:Ship disambiguation. There are a lot of them; anyone want to help get them properly sorted? It's easy — just add "|name=<Shipname>" to {{shipindex}}.
—wwoods (
talk) 19:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Particularly in these three articles:
Some of the articles have DANFS entries which have then been added to (more like hurled with reckless abandon) with a huge block of text from a source that I haven't been able to locate. The idea was to clean up these articles with wiki links etc but I hardly see why an effort should be made to do this if references cannot be determined and the material should be removed. I've left notes on the talk pages for the exact problems. Any thoughts? -- Brad ( talk) 23:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok all is well now. Thanks for the help; I finished Cascade this morning. -- Brad ( talk) 17:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
In {{ Infobox Ship Career}} I can't seem to figure out where to put a second decommissioning. It has a place for a first commissioning, then a spot for the decommissioning, and even a spot for recommission, but where do I put the date for the second decommissioning after a ship is recommissioned? I was working on USS Keosanqua (AT-38), but had no where to put all 4 dates. Maybe I missed it in the docs. Any suggestions? -- Dual Freq ( talk) 23:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
ok here's an idea lets replace our fleet of infoboxes. so basically we need to build newer and more capable boxes and "decomision" our old ones ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 01:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC) If I may make a suggestion: If you have multiple fields for decommisioning and recommisiong perhaps you could add a tab like "|reason=" or "|conflict=" or something along those lines so that these fields can be sub devided along conflict lines for warships. Just something to think about. I also like the idea of hide tab. TomStar81 ( Talk) 06:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
hi folks,
I have been in touch with the chap behind Shipbucket, Mr Martin Conrads to get his permission for the drawings to be used as illustrations for our articles.
I will update all on the status and what sort of attribution is required by him.
http://s90.photobucket.com/albums/k279/shipbucket/
Koxinga CDF ( talk) 03:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Koxinga CDF ( talk) 03:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Please see a notice about standardizing this template, at Template talk:Warship#Standardization. Maralia ( talk) 15:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
And I left some comments a few days ago at Template_talk:DANFS_talk and Template_talk:DANFS#Link_parameter_added. Thanks -- Brad ( talk) 22:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The article about the Vasa has now been nominated for FA status. Input and insights from members of this project would be very much appreciated. henrik• talk 13:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
This is something that's been bothering me for a while. The spacing between one line of text and the next in ship infoboxes is very wide. I don't think it's very aesthetic, and it makes the infoboxes very long -often longer than the accompanying article! Is there something that can be done about this?
On a more specific note, I've also noticed that the text spacing in ship class infobox image captions is far wider than in ship infoboxes themselves, and it looks wrong to me. Case in point: Owasco class cutter - look how much wider the image caption spacing is there as opposed to a ship in the class, say USCGC Sebago (WHEC-42). Also, does the text in the image captions have to be centre aligned? Wouldn't it make more sense to have it left-aligned? Gatoclass ( talk) 00:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I posted about the merge of the FAC and patrol vessel categories, but I think it got buried and nobody made their way over there. Please check it out: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_December_14#Category:Small_combatant_classes. There seem to be a few people in support of "small combat vessels", with opposition to "small combatant classes" because people are under the impression that it can refer to something other than... FACs and patrol boats. Please head over there and chip in. I'm worried that it's going to be renamed to "small combat vessels" instead of "small combat vessel classes", which would be horrendous. TomTheHand ( talk) 17:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been trying to categorize all USS YMS-xxx ship articles and was placing them all in Category:YMS-1 class auxiliary motor minesweepers based on what most of them say in either DANFS (if available) or the Navsource pages. Almost all of them seem to be listed in those sources as YMS-1 class. However, looking at Sanderling at DANFS and the Navsource index page, it seems there were possibly three classes. Before I go back to re-cat some I've already gone through I thought I’d seek some opinions.
According to the Navsource index, the differences between the three "classes" apparently were the number of stacks, 1, 2, or none. My first thought would be to sort them as Category:YMS-1 class auxiliary motor minesweepers, Category:YMS-135 class auxiliary motor minesweepers, and Category:YMS-446 class auxiliary motor minesweepers. But, are the classes that different that they need separate categories?
Also, there is currently one class article ( YMS-1 class auxiliary motor minesweeper) and a 'type' article ( Auxiliary Motor Minesweepers (YMS)) that seem to overlap. What about merging with a redirect for all three classes?
Thanks in advance. — Bellhalla ( talk) 19:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) I cleaned up a bunch of redirects, and proposed renaming the category Category:YMS-1 class auxiliary motor minesweepers to Category:YMS-1 class minesweepers. The rename proposal is here. Maralia ( talk) 15:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I have just proposed renaming Category:Hipper class cruisers to Category:Admiral Hipper class cruisers in accordance with the class article's name. See the proposal here.
Also, in case anyone missed it above, I proposed renaming Category:YMS-1 class auxiliary motor minesweepers to Category:YMS-1 class minesweepers. That proposal is here. Maralia ( talk) 20:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Erudy ( talk · contribs) has moved SMS Friedrich der Große (1911) to SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1911), replacing the "ß" with "ss". Is this in accordance with WP:Ships naming conventions, or should the move and associated edits be reverted? There are quite a few other German ships that have non-standard characters; if a precedent to use only standard English characters is set, they'll all have to be changed. Any thoughts? Parsecboy ( talk) 15:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Looking at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships), a relevant question could also be which spelling is correct under the current German spelling rules. If I'm reading ß#Usage in German correctly, the spelling under correct rules would be "grosse". Following the Wikipedia naming convention of using the modern form for each name, SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1911) would be the correct form to use as it is consistent with modern german spelling. But do notice that this interpretation is entirely dependant on my take on whether the "o" in grosse is a short of long vowel... and it's been ages since I've studied German. -- Kjet ( talk · contribs) 16:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
USS Burleson (IX-67) (via WP:PROD on 20 December 2007) Redirected→ USS Burleson (APA-67)
There is a fictional ship article for
DDG-182 Mirai, does it fall under WP:SHIPS? Also, does it strike anyone as odd that no single ship of the
Kongō class or
Atago class has its own article, but a fictional ship similar to the two classes has one? If articles were to be created, what is the naming convention for JDS ship articles? Would
JDS Kongō (DDG-173) or
Japanese destroyer Kongō (DDG-173) be used? Looking at other post WWII Japanese ship class articles reveals that there are very few individual ship articles, which makes
DDG-182 Mirai fictional article stand out even further. Anybody up for creating some ship stubs for Japan? --
Dual Freq (
talk) 15:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Disregard the part about no ship stubs as I made some stub ship articles using the naming convention JDS Kongō (DDG-173). They could use more information, but I can't read Japanese, so someone else may have to do that. If someone wants to tag the pretend Mirai ship go ahead, but if I tagged it, I would use an AFD or merge tag, not a WP:ships tag. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 22:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
There are a couple of cats in category Category:United States Coast Guard ships that don't look right to me. They are Category:USCG high endurance cutters and Category:USCG medium endurance cutters. Since they are already subcats of the Coast Guard cat, why do they need the "USCG" tacked on? Shouldn't these cats just be Category:High endurance cutters and Category:Medium endurance cutters? Gatoclass 10:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I had to do a double take on that comment about "Famous class cutters", LOL.
Unless there are any objections, I will create the two suggested cats a little later today, and nominate the other two for merging. Gatoclass 06:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I just rewrote USS Illinois (BB-65) to improve her shot at passing FAC, but I need new eyes to correct the sp&g errors and ensure that I didn;t leave anything out. Thanks in advance. TomStar81 ( Talk) 13:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
For those on this project who are active in Cruise Ship (commercial) articles, should we maintain links to site containing reviews of the cruise ships - and if so, which site? I noticed that User:Hu12 was removing a large number of links to Cruise Critic reviews that had been added by User:Splamo due to the site's use of Adsense, and he flagged the site at WT:WPSPAM (with a discussion at WP:AN). I asked him a bit about it on his talk page, where he asked that "these links from this site [cruisecritic.com] may no longer be welcome on the [WP:SHIPS] project" - so I'm bringing it up here.
So the question ... is it even appropriate to use a link to cruise ship reviews? I'm aware that the ship star rating from these reviews are utilized by multiple travel agencies (the local travel agency that I use, and a quick check I did over the weekend showed that Cruise Critic star ratings are also used by web travel sites such as Orbitz, Travelocity, and Expedia) - so the reviews from Cruise Critic do appear to be a common standardized rating method for the industry. But, do these reviews provide enough value to include on Wikipedia, given the raised concern about the sites use of Adsense? Should WP:SHIPS have a position on the use of these links? --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 16:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
List of future Spanish Navy ships (via WP:PROD on 25 December 2007)
Has anyone ever heard or seen a legitimate explanation from a reliable source as to why the USN does not use forward ski jumps on it's LHAs and LHDs? They vessels are larger than just about any other aircraft-capable ship in service save supercarriers, and yet much smaller carrier-type ships have jumps. Is it soley related to how the USN spots aircraft on flight decks (using every space available), or are there other reasons? I'm really looking for some citeable material, not just informed specualtion, but that would be OK too, as it's always fun to hear other opinions. But I'd really like to put some cited explanations in some articles I've been working on, such as those on the LHA and LHD, as this questions has come up on some of the ship talk pages. (Stating this clearly to hopefully avoid the obnoxious Talk pages are not forums response that some like give to experianced editors as if they were newbies!) - BillCJ ( talk) 05:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
DF, I saw that you added [[:Image:YAV-8B Harrier testing a ski jump.jpg|this image of "A YAV-8B Harrier II tests a ski jump at Naval Air Station Patuxent River". So it seems the USN/USMC have used ski-jumps in testing, so there more than likely have a good reason for not needing them on LHAs and LHDs. Would be interesting to find official word on this. - BillCJ ( talk) 03:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
i belive the placement of bigger acraft on the front is a cause but other factors must be included like the magnetic launches (cvn-79 or was it 80?) oh and there rebooting the united states of america class (cvn?)81-85?) but the placement of aircraft and weight plus maybe it's uneconmic to put in considdering we have enough space to take off. um when the uss. kitty hawk is decomishend can we make a special page for decomishend ships under maybe the title of The Kitty Hawk decomisend (page) or project. oh.. why didn't anybody tell me about the SUPER YAMATO CLASS??? that's awsome to bad it was cancelled ugh i hate todays warfare of missle each other form a billion miles away what hapend to dog fights and good old batlleship mono Vs mono engagements. ugh.........-- ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 01:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I just applied {{ DEFAULTSORT}} to HMS Trincomalee as normal... only it seems to have messed up two of the categories and I cannot understand why, as they are unchanged from their original forms... Martocticvs ( talk) 17:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I have updated {{ sclass}} (and its documentation) to allow for disambiguation of the ship type (a problem with "minesweeper"). I tested the changes before implementing them, so I hope there won't be any issues with the changes. — Bellhalla ( talk) 19:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Which articles on these somewhat-neglected but rather important topics do we need? I suggest that at the very least we should merge stability conditions (watercraft) and ship stability, probably at the latter name. We could also merge in metacentric height: one the one hand, metacentric height currently covers a lot of matters to do with stability which are not strictly to do with the metacentric height; on the other the mathematical mechanics might do a bit better in its own article separated from the engineering. Regards, The Land ( talk) 17:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
These articles should be limited to discussions on the marine use of these terms and avoid any reference to aircraft or other vehicles as this will just confuse the issue. These could be covered with a "See also" section.
I would admit that this is just the beginning and has probably missed important items and may have dealt with others in too little detail. My intention is to point out that the present articles are incomplete and not well structured but have a lot of excellent information that should not be lost. I would like to help resolve these issues however I can. Jmvolc ( talk) 13:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
We have no article at all which deals with the roll of a ship, except possibly flight dynamics. Can someone think of a name for one? Could it be added to the wanted articles list? The Land ( talk) 18:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Have a look at Ship motions, is that what you are looking for? Jmvolc ( talk) 14:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm having a problem getting the importance of using Reliable sources over government propoganda across to an editor who ought to know better, and would rather not fight this battle on my own. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force#Indian Navy for the full explanation. Thanks. - BillCJ ( talk) 19:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)\
I've nominated Shibumi2 to become an administrator here. He has been working hard for a year, getting Wikipedia articles on Japanese Navy ships to conform to WP:SHIPS standards. Please join me in supporting his nomination. Thank you! Neutral Good ( talk) 20:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
hi all, just a update on the status. Things were slow because of the holidays season so here goes.
The following were some of the questions and conditions:
1) Drawings needs to be from the correct versions of the ships and the responsibility to separate them from our varius alternative universe/neverwhere versions rest on your side. No alterations are allowed.
2) It has to be clearly explained that these are only artist impressions, not detailed line-drawings. All the pics are in 1 pixel/two feet scale and that effects on some sort of differences to the actual ships, and eq. many weapon barrels and missiles are overexaggerated by size.
3) The artist of the picture needs to be clearly mentioned.
4)If we agree to this, we expect to have some sort of exclusive role for the illustrations, and sort of gentlemen agreement that you wont acquire similar pics from elsewhere. If you spot someone keen to drawn this way, you will of course direct him to contact us.
Any concerns if Creative Commons could work here?
Koxinga CDF ( talk) 03:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Koxinga CDF ( talk) 09:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have an idea what the stripe or bump is that runs nearly the length of hull above the waterline on Kirov class battlecruisers? See also commons:Category:Kirov class battlecruiser for more images that show same stripe. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 19:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
http://www.enemyforces.com/navy/1144.htm Krylov Institute: http://www.ksri.ru/eng1
Koxinga CDF ( talk) 06:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
An unregistered user added a load of additional length fields to this part of the template earlier - firstly one of them is not correctly implemented, so it is showing up all the time, whether filled or not, and I don't know how to fix that. Secondly, I don't think that it is necessary to have lots of dedicated fields for different length measurements. These infoboxes are meant to keep things simple, and as with the armament field it is quite easy to put (keel) or (gundeck) or (overall) or whatever else you happen to be measuring after the measurement in question. With these extra fields I think it is now unnecessarily bloated. Martocticvs ( talk) 11:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
and stuff. As per our Dab guidelines, HMS Amethyst (U16/F116) ought to be moved I think. My preference would be to HMS Amethyst (F116) over the redirect, since that was the pennant number she carried when she got caught up in the Amethyst Incident. But that's a job for an administrator and since I am unaccountably not one, could someone help? Ta muchly, Benea ( talk) 12:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, how many different "Infobox Ship"-type templates are there now out there? 3, 4, 5, 6, more? Not to mention all the infoboxes in free HTML coding. I was trying to create a couple of ship articles here and decided to copy a infobox from an existing article. I became a little suspicious when I ran into one that I hadn't seen before, so off I went to see WikiProject Ships recommendations....*sigh* sadly I found that it seemed like it hasn't even been possible to standardize here, on the project page. The templates section even lists one that one is "discouraged" to use. Please, could we try to fix this thing during 2008? One template for all - or is that too optimistic?. -- MoRsE ( talk) 13:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I just found Template:Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force ship classes, and it seems a bit off from the format of most current navboxes. There are no built-in edit links at the top, and the whole template isn't boxed in. I know nothing about navbox formatting and codework. Can someone see if they can bring this up to spec? Thanks. - BillCJ ( talk) 00:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Gneisenau class battlecruiser to Scharnhorst class battleship
Please discuss at Talk:Gneisenau_class_battlecruiser#Requested_move. The Land (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been trying to look at articles in "Korean War xxx ships of the United States" cats and have a question about whether two three (oops!) ships belong in the
Category:Korean War aircraft carriers of the United States. According to their articles/DANFS,
USS Cape Esperance (CVE-88),
USS Windham Bay (CVE-92), and
USS Tripoli (CVE-64) ferried aircraft to Japan in support of the Korean War, but never participated in a combat role. I'm leaning towards including them as Korean War aircraft carriers, but wanted to see what others thought. —
Bellhalla (
talk) 06:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I could use some help keeping an eye on King Sejong the Great class destroyer. It's had a lot of IP traffic of late, many adding what appears to be POV commentary, with no sources - of course. I don't know engough about destroyers in general or this class in particular to recognize outright errors. Thanks! - BillCJ ( talk) 03:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
As a side note, it was a member of Category:Ahn Yong-Bok class destroyers, which was a previous proposed name. I've created Category:King Sejong the Great class destroyer to replace it. Maybe someone with the admin bit could make the old incorrect name go away. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 00:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Click here for details. TomStar81 ( Talk) 02:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello WP:Ships, I need help from your project with the MS Nindawayma article. I'm not a ship expert, but rather a locak historian. Could someone please review all the recent edits made by an anonymous user for factuality. Thanks. Flibirigit ( talk) 22:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there a consensus on what types of articles should populate this category? Is it just civilian tankers, i.e. SS Fort Lee, or Navy tankers, like USS Agawam (AOG-6) or USS Armadillo (IX-111). And what about oilers like, for example, USS Brazos (AO-4) that are already in the category? — Bellhalla ( talk) 00:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so as you know, our new ship infobox is made up of four templates: {{ Infobox Ship Begin}}, {{ Infobox Ship Image}}, {{ Infobox Ship Career}}, and {{ Infobox Ship Characteristics}}. It's little confusing, so I created {{ Infobox Ship Example}} as a central location for documenting it. I made it a template so that people would transclude it wherever documentation was needed; I had noticed that the old infobox had out-of-date documentation scattered everywhere.
I did this before /doc subpages became popular, or at least before I heard about them. However, /doc pages are a much better way of managing template documentation. Looking at it now, I kind of think we should do something about Infobox Ship Example. That's not the name of the infobox, it's the infobox's documentation template. However, it looks like that's its name, and I've got to assume that people look at it and wonder why the hell we call it that.
Does anyone else agree that we should address this? Perhaps make Infobox Ship Example a /doc subpage? If so, a subpage of what? TomTheHand ( talk) 21:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, any objections to moving {{ Infobox Ship Example}} to {{ Infobox Ship Begin/doc}}, and then protecting them all? TomTheHand ( talk) 16:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Right, after quite a bit of work, I have moved Example to Begin/doc, then moved all the documentation of the separate pages to /doc pages and then protected all of the main template pages. The templates affected are {{ Infobox Ship Begin}}, {{ Infobox Ship Characteristics}}, {{ Infobox Ship Career}}, {{ Infobox Ship Image}}. I have also created the talk pages for the templates to add {{ permprot}} to them although you could create redirects to Template talk:Infobox Ship Begin/doc. What do people think, and did I miss any of the templates? Woody ( talk) 19:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I just nominated the newly-created Category:Turkish Navy ship classes for deletion here because it does not fit into our categorization scheme. Please weigh in. Thanks! TomTheHand ( talk) 21:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Some of you may have dealt with the user who keeps adding POV info to the USS Holland and Electric Boat articles. If I'm not mistaken, the user has been blocked/banned for these actions. He is now active on the General Dynamics page, as per this diff. If reverted him twice, but am reluctant to revert more, even tho I don't see this as a content dispute. Now, I've been reverted by my stalker, a not-very-bright troll (banned user:Wikzilla) who thinks that by reverting me, and harrassing editors who come to my aid, he will be reinstated. (When the troll reads this, he will get mad, and strike out at me and someone else.) any help would be appreciated. - BillCJ ( talk) 00:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted additions to Kitty Hawk class aircraft carrier which removed USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67). I've requested that the editor stop and discuss before making unilateral changes of this nature. I think a discussion is now required, as to if the ship should be considered a member of the class or not. - MBK 004 02:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm having problems with Natchez (boat). There is supposed to be just one Natchez I, but I see two prior to Natchez II. Both are at http://www.riverboatdaves.com/docs/nat.html . Any ideas to remedy this would be welcomed.-- Bedford 03:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Bane22 ( talk · contribs) has added links from a number of carrier and amphibious assault ship pages to their pages on uscarriers.net. Those are the only edits he's made, which makes me suspect that it's his own web site. It seems to violate the first guideline of WP:LINK's "Links normally to be avoided": it "does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." I was planning to remove the links and ask him not to add more, but I wanted to see if anyone had any objections first. TomTheHand ( talk) 14:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Polish Navy 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. — Bellhalla ( talk) 12:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I have opened an RfC to try to resolve this issue, which is proving very difficult. Please take a look at: Talk:Scharnhorst_class_battlecruiser#Request_for_Comment:_Battleships_or_Battlecruisers.3F. The Land ( talk) 14:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as how the USS Constitution and the USS Bonhomme Richard (1765) are two very important ships in the story of the US Navy, I'm somewhat disappointed these articles aren't higher up on the scale than B-class. The ships project seems to have a liking towards battleships, with 8 of 15 FA being centered around the subject. Nothing wrong with battleships, but it would seem they're the only important ship the Navy ever sailed.
I'm bringing up the subject of trying to improve these articles yet not having much of an idea what needs to be done in order to bring them up the scale. I did just replace the infobox on the Bonhomme Richard, so that's one step in the right direction. -- Brad ( talk) 04:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I've replaced all instances of {{ Infobox Ferry}} and nominated it for deletion at WP:TfD. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 00:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Can someone with appropriate sources check as to whether HMS Vanguard (1678) was really wrecked in 1703? I'm using Brian Lavery's Ship of the Line vol 1 currently, where she is listed as being rebuilt in 1710 - no hint of being caught up in the storm. Martocticvs ( talk) 19:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The OHP frigates use templates within the infobox template for statistics that are common, ie. {{ OHP frigate displacement}}, {{ OHP frigate length}}, {{ OHP frigate beam}}, {{ OHP frigate draft}}, {{ OHP frigate propulsion}}, {{ OHP frigate speed}}, {{ OHP frigate range}}. Take a look at the infobox for USS Oliver Hazard Perry (FFG-7) to get an idea what I'm talking about. I've only seen this done in a couple of classes of ships and I was wondering if it was encouraged / supported by WP:Ships. The main problem I see with it is watchlisting and vandalism. There may be quite a few people who have the OHP frigates in their watchlist, but I'm guessing only one or two people are watching the templates. Another problem might be if individual ships have varying stats, like different propulsion, sensors, armament etc. I was thinking of re-doing the CF Adams class in a similar fashion, but I thought I'd check here before creating all those templates. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 01:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Oddly, I picked a class of ships that I actually created the templates on. I'm sure I copied someone else back in 2006. I'd still like to know if this is sanctioned by WP:Ships. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 01:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
As you may know, in October {{ DANFS}} was modified to add an optional parameter: an external link to a DANFS entry. In December, Brad101 ( talk · contribs) suggested that {{ NVR}} be similarly updated, and that the templates should really take up to two parameters, so that they could link simultaneously to the Navy's copy of DANFS and Hazegray.org's, or link to two names that the ship served under. I made both of those changes today. TomTheHand ( talk) 16:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The List of Liberty ships by hull number articles were nominated for deletion on 8 January. Any thoughts can be expressed at the entry at AfD. — Bellhalla ( talk) 14:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Is anyone particularly attached to the behemoth that is Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/footers? It's unbearably large and consequently (at least for me) stops actually displaying the templates less than halfway down the page. I'm sure it served a purpose before the templates were standardized for formatting and categorized in Category:Naval navigational boxes, but at this point it's terribly unwieldy and incomplete. I think it has outlived its usefulness now that footer templates are (largely) properly standardized and categorized. I'd like to go through it section by section, confirming that each template is standardized/categorized, then purging sections as I go, ultimately resulting in deleting the page. We can easily cover footers from a guidelines standpoint by updating Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Tools#Ship class footers to describe standard formatting and include a link to the category. Thoughts? Maralia ( talk) 15:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Just curious if this has been considered. Would it be reasonable to merge the class template in with the existing ship infobox? I think this could be done by still using {{ Infobox Ship Begin}} and {{ Infobox Ship Characteristics}}, but where the regular ship articles use Infobox Ship image and Infobox Ship Career, the class one would instead use something like "Infobox Ship Class ID" (or some similar name). The reason I suggest this is that the Characteristics box can easily perform double-duty in both areas, and making this change would improve consistancy in infobox style and usage. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 21:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I chopped out First commissioned date, Final decommissioned date, First in service date, and Final out of service date, and replaced them with a single field called "In service range" which displays as "In service:". I think that was a really good idea; this is much cleaner. I'm looking hard at the "Total ships..." fields, trying to determine how they're best used and if they need any adjustments. I'm thinking of changing "Total ships in class" to "Total ships completed" or something... or at least adding a "Total ships completed" field. TomTheHand ( talk) 15:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess I'm satisfied with the box now. I'm not sure what to name it, though, since Infobox Ship Class and Infobox Class are taken. Infobox Class Overview? TomTheHand ( talk) 21:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
These two articles, Italian cruiser Giuseppe Garibaldi (1961) and Italian cruiser Giuseppe Garibaldi (1936) are intriguing me at the moment. They are the same ship, which was reconstructed as a missile cruiser in the late 50s/early 60s. Ordinarily we would deal with the two incarnations in the same article, and it seems that this logic would apply to this case (same name, navy, role, etc). I guess the rearmament of the Iowas into guided missile platforms rather than big gun ships might be an appropriate comparison. In those cases we have the ship's history in one article, with a section dealing with the refits. Should the same be done here, or not? I don't have desperately strong opinions (a vague preference for a merge) so thoughts and feelings on a postcard please. ttfn, Benea ( talk) 18:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The article Aces of the Deep needs to be renamed to List of U-boat aces, however, given that the redirect already exists, I can't do it myself and still retain the article history. The current name is wretchedly melodramatic, not to mention a likely copyvio of the computer simulator of the same name from 1994. Also, the article name as it stands implies that the top scoring aces from all countries, from all time periods, not just Germany during World War II, are included. The proposed name fits in line with present "List of..." standards. Thanks for your help. Parsecboy ( talk) 23:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed the infobox doesn't have a field for ship type, but only for "type and class". Unless I'm missing something, this becomes a problem IMO when you have an article on a ship that has a type but no class, like say, a schooner, or a sloop etc. Also, I couldn't see a "cost" field in the sailing ship sub-infobox, so if you want to include the cost field you (presumably) have to use the entire infobox (haven't checked the other sub-infoboxes). Can these little problems be fixed? Gatoclass ( talk) 13:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
On my talk page, Gatoclass suggested that rather than the current practice of putting dates of commissioning and decommissioning in separate fields (and possibly repeating those fields for ships with complex careers), we specify ranges in the Commissioned field. Quoting him:
I can see where he's coming from. It certainly is cleaner. Can anyone think of why we shouldn't do it that way? The biggest concern I can think of is when we have incomplete information on a ship. For example, say we have a date commissioned and a date struck, but no decommission date. The ship might have decommissioned and been struck on the same day, but maybe not. With our current setup, we specify those two dates in separate fields and avoid implying anything that might be untrue. Another concern is a ship that sank. Do we close the range on the date the ship sank? Is that the way navies look at it?
Should we perhaps specify ranges as above when we have complete information, but when our information is incomplete we do it the old way? TomTheHand ( talk) 16:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Check it out: USS Illinois (BB-65). TomStar81 ( Talk) 08:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone got a copy of Colledge to hand? If so, could they look over HMS Blanche please. Thanks. Woody ( talk) 15:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
An editor keeps removing sourced information about the manufacturers of this ship's components, claiming that it's advertising and not relevant. It seems to me that it's perfectly relevant in an article about a particular ship to give the details of its construction, and would appreciate any comments (either pro or con) at Talk:No. 1 (yacht). Thanks, Jfire ( talk) 17:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Currently on infoboxes we have a standard graphic reading No Photo Available. This is all well and good for ships from the mid-19th century onwards, when photos started to become more common, but for anything that ended its life before that time its either very unlikely, or simply impossible that a photo would exist, let alone be available - but paintings often are. So 'No Image Available' would seem to make more sense here. Martocticvs ( talk) 17:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I created the image about a year ago as a result of the 4th wall issues of its predecessor (Insert Image Here). See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Archive_4#Insert_image_here and Image talk:IIH.png. Personally, I use those image pages to find articles with no images and then replace it with an image. I don't see any reason to remove or change it in existing articles, unless no image or photo can be reasonably located. In cases, where it is not applicable, simply don't use it. Maybe a todo list item could be find images for the articles listed at Image:IIH.png and Image:No Photo Available.svg, but it seems like a bit of a waste to run through and change or remove them only to replace it with a category or talk page template. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 02:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
As a result of the discussion above, we've developed a new template, {{ Infobox Ship Class Overview}}, which can be used with the multi-template ship infobox to support classes. I've updated the documentation at {{ Infobox Ship Begin/doc}}. TomTheHand ( talk) 21:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. You may be familiar with the Philip Greenspun Illustration Project. $20,000 has been donated to pay for the creation of high quality diagrams for Wikipedia and its sister projects.
Requests are currently being taken at m:Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests and input from members of this project would be very welcome. If you can think of any diagrams (not photos or maps) that would be useful then I encourage you to suggest them at this page. If there is any free content material that would assist in drawing the diagram then it would be great if you could list that, too.
If there are any related (or unrelated) WikiProjects you think might have some suggestions then please pass this request over. Thanks. -- Cherry blossom tree 16:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm dangling dangerously close to 3RR on USS Forrestal (CV-59). An IP is removing mention of an operation with a corresponding article, claiming that they were onboard at the time and the event did not happen. I've asked them to provide a proper citation to prove their assertions, but I don't want to revert again. Can someone help? - MBK 004 22:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I found this little toy today: {{ newinfobox}} and I think it could be a deadly weapon in my hands since I'm still doing audits and checking conditions of articles. We of course have our own {{ Ship infobox request}} but its more suited for an article that has no infobox at all. I guess the question is whether I should affix one or the other to articles needing the new super improved infobox? I would expect the list to grow very long, very quickly. -- Brad ( talk) 20:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I was looking at wikipedia guidelines on article length today, and they were concerned about long articles taking too long to serve. The guidelines are clearly obsolete. Articles with lots of templates (e.g. Bristol East (UK Parliament constituency) take much longer to load than long articles with only a few (e.g. Battleship). This is because of all the template calls to the server. If there is someone out there who thinks it a good idea to change perfectly good table infoboxes to template ones, please could he/she go think again.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 16:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
that would have to be a really long article like say a nine hundred pages maybe. to overload the server bank that wiki would need to run this website with all of the trafic their is. um so this list is a list of infobox requests? well if we made a standerd templte and just one template that asks for a name, weight, commision, decomision, Etc... then genrates an infobox for the page which you would cut copy paste. kinda like cition machine .com but it would have to be a program that is only downloadable by members of the ship project and we would need (obviously) a really good programer. just you know mull it over and let me know what ya think. i might be able to find a programer but... it would be better if someone elese knew someone else to do this. i thank ye -- ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 20:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
um..yea i should do that. however my point was that if we compiled a database of flags and images with a series of questions that asks for the input of the ships name year of commison and decommision and weight, beam, length,draught, and armment,(leave blank if none),and you select flag and picture, ETC... make it into a program that asks for said input it would then make a ship info box/template thing. What this templete/box thing looks like might need to be voted on.
basicly the program asks for input we give said input it gives a ship info box thing that agreed in layout. tada massproduced ship template things. saving tons of time because you wont have to write the code you just cut copy paste the code of the info box that has been made for it to the article. insta-shipbox. the template thing is a minor note the point is the program. ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 21:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
yea but id rather cut copy paste once instead of twelve to fifteen times then cheaking it and then filling in the feilds and then search for the flag code and search for the picture code. its time consuming for me i don't know about other people but writing and/or fliping between pages and copying and cuting and pasting is annoying and can be frustrating. im just sayin but it's cool eathier way i think this could be faster though.-- ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 21:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
In regards to: Category:Ship articles without infoboxes I have been picking away at US Navy ships listed there and have managed to remove many of them. In some cases the box had already been laid down but the editor didn't remove the tag from the talk page. As a bonus, I've been able to find a few non-conforming ship articles and fix those too. -- Brad ( talk) 22:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Fishy.. USS Carlinville (PC-1120) Not in DANFS; not in a word search at NHC; not on the NVR; not on a word search at WP except to turn up the same article. Text of article looks like a DANFS entry yet there are some statements that are not DANFS style. Anyone else concur this is fudge? -- Brad ( talk) 20:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Given all the above comments, the text of the article is too much of a rip of the navsource article [11] and if someone associated with Navsource wrote the article then WP can't use it word for word as we do with DANFS. Even the navsource article states there is no DANFS article. So, the ship did exist and had an interesting career but the article as is needs to to stubbed down to the minimum to avoid a copyright issue. I appreciate the help with the searches. -- Brad ( talk) 22:27, 30 January 2008 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
I hi seen the term "standard ton" or similar used in a couple of articles I've edited recently (like this one and this one). I couldn't find an explanation for this term in ton, so I was wondering what it means. Does anybody know? Thunderbird2 13:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I see. So I was misreading it really. Taking USS Wesson as an example, does it just mean 1,240 tons (unladen) then? If so, is "light displacement" a more widely accepted term for this measure? Also, do you know whether these are short tons or long ones, or some other variety? Thunderbird2 13:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Crumbs - sounds like a right pandora's box!. I was thinking of maybe re-wording them to make the text less ambiguous, but I think I'll leave that to an expert. Many thanks for your help and explanations :-) Thunderbird2 14:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Part of the problem seems to be that some ships (like warships) are measured by their displacement (actual weight in tons) while cargo ships seem to be measured by "tonnage" (amount of stuff they can carry). But then sometimes you find displacement measurements for cargo ships too. And then which measurements are used for ships that, say, are converted from cargo vessels to Naval auxiliaries? It all gets very messy. I'm still not certain about which kind of "tons" I am looking at sometimes. Gatoclass 16:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC):\
Just to summarize: U.S. naval ships use long tons (2,240 lb), not short tons (2,000 lb) or metric tons (1,000 kg) (except for the very newest ships, which do use metric tons). Metric tons, or tonnes, abbreviated "t", are often used today by European navies, and are not the same thing as "short tons," which are the 2,000-lb tons used in the U.S. civilian world. Standard displacement is displacement ready for sea but minus fuel and reserve feed water. It's intended to provide even ground between powers which don't require long range (Italy) and powers which do (the U.S.). It isn't the same as light displacement, which is defined by the USN here as "The ship is complete and ready for service in every respect, including permanent ballast (solid and liquid), and liquids in machinery at operating levels but is without officers, men, their effects, ammunition, or any items of consumable or variable load." "Liquids in machinery" refer to lubricants, not fuel; light displacement does not include fuel. TomTheHand 16:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Who started this?! (Thanks Tom) Perhaps this info should be in the displacement article with a few comparative figures: is the difference enough to affect the info already published in wiki? Which version of "ton" did the naval treaties use? Do UK ships use "long tons". I have a London edtion of a couple of Whitworth's books - which version would be in there? Folks at 137 17:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
considering that most scifi space movies consider spaceships to be navy (like starwars or halo) should we consider fiction spacecraft and real space shuttles in our articles posted by this page? and maybe we could come up with a better userbox for this project? like a moving one. or better yet an ad plus we need a newsletter or something because theres like only ten people who have a steady posting here or am i just not noticing? and if im right were are all our members? or are we it? and if we are i find that very weird considering this is the internet. oh and my watchlist has been blocked for some reson by my parentel controls (oh they're pain in the @#$%&$) any ideas i think it has something to do with a serirously vandlizied page but i can't seem to find it. ANOMALY-117 18:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC) oh i have like 50 pages watched so its hard to remeber them all so mabye a Vandlism sweep? ANOMALY-117 18:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC) oh and the results comments: um quit harping one my first idea i get the message ok! im saying that if we don't at least tell people that the barnstar is changeable then no one will no. so i suggest we bring up the subject of the chance to change it once a year and it dosen't have to be changed. sorry if i sound a little frustrated. ANOMALY-117 18:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
i fixed the prob no worries :> the idea was mainly to notify newbs. yes but the amount must be more than 3,ooo it took me two three hours to finish my chalenge (for more on the challenge go to user talk willbeback) even then the amount of projects are huge and the members are never the same usually from project to project. but if their are only 3ooo then some must be inactive or the users..uh dead..or something. so maybe a task force shold go through and do a sort of roll call and put anybody who is inactive of ten months unless expressed by a wikileave notification. which means we have to check logs and lots of them. so maybe a modifide vandlism program? ANOMALY-117 20:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC) it is important that we keep a sort of poupulation count to know when we are short handed and have to work over time or recruit edtiors. ANOMALY-117 20:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC) oh and i suck at programing the userboxes on my page are ethier avalibale copies or me cuting and pasting codes togeather. oh and a lot of guess work —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANOMALY-117 ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
telling people about wiki editing sort of like a free advertising for wikipedia. to inform new users of the fact that they have the infulence to help change the barnstar. i don't really know what reson we would need to keep tabs on people on active or not but something in my gut tells me that it would be good to have. sockpuppet identifycation maybe i really don't know but i think we need it. ANOMALY-117 21:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of ship infoboxes, can someone point me to a tutorial that shows you how to create such infoboxes? I'd like to experiment a bit. Gatoclass 06:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I could use some help dealing with a user adding unsourced OR and possibly POV content to the USS Holland (SS-1) and General Dynamics pages, per this diff and this one. This isn't the first time such info has been added to these pages, but the user is being aggresive about reverting today, claiming to be adding "facts". I know absolutely nothing of the history involved here, so I'm only judging these additions on Wiki sourcing policy, the users protests to the contrary. - BillCJ 01:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
HMM... ill see what i can do about it! (finally a case)! 209.244.187.181 01:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)sorry im not logged in ANOMALY-117 209.244.187.181 02:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC) ok um but if he makes any more edits let him do it ill check his info with a submarine book i have. sorry if my previous comment sounded a like i was a little over-board. Anomaly-117 209.244.187.181 02:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
whoa! dude slow down man let me take a look at it. is it obvious vandlism or just unverfibale info? if it might not be vandlelism don't block him just revert and let me see the work to check is information to see if it's fact or crap. ANOMALY-117 02:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
i will i will but my arm is broken and i don't have a ton of time so im just moornig here and watch learning how stuff works and voiceing my opinion when i have something to say and yes i understand what this website is about but my abilty to do stuff is constricted conssibraly with the way my mom's computer is set up and its really old and slow. i'm acutally suprised at what is getting in to this site. and really right now all i have to do is fight vandlism until i learn a little more on how to tag stuff and program it and other things correctly ANOMALY-117 02:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC) however i a-sure you as soon as i learn what i can and my arm gets out of this cast i will gladly set sail and start doing more for this website. promise ANOMALY-117 02:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thank you! :> if you could leave it on my talk page it would help me alot because i may not be able to check this page or my talk page utill tommorow because i might not be on for much longer but i'll see what i can do! i should be out of it in three to four weeks. then i get a brace. this is the second time its been broken this year with almost a month between each brake the first time it was both bones. i tried to turn 90 degreas while running full speed and i sliped but landed on my hand while turning so it kinda just sheard. the second was one bone and a football acident but it only happend because i was being a little rough and my arm wasn't totally better. actually a broken bone dosn't really hurt it's just disgusting and it throbs like alot! but it's not as bad as it sounds it really dosen't hurt that much. but you still can't help but to cry. :> -- ANOMALY-117 03:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
yea im fast with two hands plus i can type about twice this no problem. as long as im intrested in it of course! ANOMALY-117 03:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
This same IP / user basically wrote the entire Crescent Shipyard and Arthur Leopold Busch (who they claim as a great grandparent) articles. Somebody should probably take a look at those and check for POV, sources etc. The IPs that were blocked could be proxys for Prince William County, VA county government / library or school based on the whois information. I'm not sure how many users may be affected by blocking them. (update, only one of the three were blocked) -- Dual Freq 03:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the FAC for USS Illinois (BB-65); all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! TomStar81 ( Talk) 07:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I have gone through List of United States Navy ships, A and from there followed all the articles to look for conformity. I placed many project templates on talk pages, made various corrections to disambig pages, marked for infobox needed etc. Placed a few other wiki related tags as well. Overall, I would say a large majority of the articles are in nice condition. Don't count on me doing the B list anytime soon :) -- Brad ( talk) 22:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Category:United States Navy ammunition ships is orphaned. Can anyone here find appropriate parent categories for it, or alternatively (if it doesn't fit the structures) nominate it at CfD? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
i think miltary wwll oilers should go along with them as well as milatary tugs in a sub page called miltary service ships. what do you think?-- ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 14:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
um i havn't checked but since during the civil-war condfedrates were a seprate country do their ships on wiki have the confedrate flags? and if not why not and how would i change them?-- ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 18:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Could someone tell me what the article mae for the Buque de Proyección Estratégica class amphibious ship page should be? A new user moved it to Juan Carlos I (ship), but I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be the correct name per the conventions. Since I'm new to the project, the conventions are still confusing for me, so any help and intervention on this would be appreciated. Thanks. - BillCJ ( talk) 02:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Did we ever reach a decision on putting links to HullNumber.com on the articles for every USN ship? I remember there was some discussion about it, and we generally didn't think it was a good idea, and then Usnht ( talk · contribs) swung by and explained that it's a free service to sailors. I think we shuffled our feet guiltily and then didn't say anything else on the matter one way or another. TomTheHand ( talk) 14:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Shoulld this article be kept? Your inputs would be appreciated. -- A. B. (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
delete its junk untill somebody does something better to it or you could put it into my sand box its under my name but i have no idea where the link is. but if you iyou give it to me itll be awhile before it is returned like say a couple of years. ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 22:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Patent nonsense or gibberish, yes i know i did look at patent nonsense. but the document is poorly wrriten and gives little insite to the ship so ether merge with the bio (if there is one) of owners or delete for reason as JUNK. because it dosn't pretain to the ship itself it only mentions the ship like onece. ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 22:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC) other than that there is no reason so if we don't use the above reason then we have to keep it. ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 22:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
how-ever you had to basicaly start-over did you not? if so then you pretty-much deleted it and made a new article on the boat. so in the end the information didn't pretain to the topic at all. oh and i knew about the patent nonsense thing when i wrote the comment as i say in the first sentence. ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 22:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC) sorry if i come off a little harsh or mean. im just board and i like to argue. but other then that you did a great job on the article so now we don't have to delete it. ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 22:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
no seriosly i read the thing before i made that comment had i not i would have made my self look stupid. so i read it then i made the comment hoping i could a point. of course it was a huge streach but it was all i had. ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 22:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
um.....................ok i guess i'll agree to that summury. :| ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 23:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of our disagreements here, I would like to thank A. B. for bringing the issue to our attention, and Woody for beating the article into shape with his WP:MOS-stick. One of the reasons I spend so much of my Wikipedia time at WikiProject Ships is because the members of this project do such excellent, speedy work! -- Kralizec! ( talk) 02:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed that this article is a speedy delete candidate due to it being a ship that was never completed. What are people's opinions on that? Martocticvs ( talk) 00:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Here is the DANFS article in question. The 1863 ship is listed at the bottom and does not have its own article. I've created a dab page at USS Ontario and I think the line there is sufficient to cover the 1863 ship. It is mentioned similarly at USS New York. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 01:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
List |
Category |
Working independently of each other, Martocticvs ( talk · contribs) and I added additional functionality to the {{ WikiProject Ships}} banner yesterday. The two new assessment classes are List and Cat. The project's assessment instructions have been updated to include both new classes. As of right now, our project banner makes full use off all classes included in the standardized {{ cat class}} header. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 15:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Just an FYI. Deleted without notification, rationale being empty category, yet I just added the {{ Ship infobox request}} to a few articles. The CfD discussion is here, and the deletion review discussion is here. Apparently we were not the only WikiProject affected. What happened? - MBK 004 22:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if someone happens to know the approximate cost of the following WWII ship types:
Thanks, Gatoclass ( talk) 08:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of misnamed articles, it seems to me that High endurance cutter is another one. This article appears to be mainly about Hamilton class cutters, although it briefly mentions another class, but it fails to mention the Owasco class at all, which were quite different vessels but which were also known as high endurance cutters.
I was about to say I think it should probably be renamed "Hamilton class cutter" and the info about the Hero class (which is scarcely more than a sentence) removed, but I notice that "Hamilton class cutter" already redirects to this page. So I'm thinking that now we have the Owascos as well, it's time to move the content of this article back to the "Hamilton class cutter" redirect page, does that seem appropriate? Gatoclass 13:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I found another source for C type freighters: "The "C" boats were designed before the outbreak of the war and are regarded by the commission as among the world's finest in their class. The three types will average about 10,000 deadweight tons. The cost was estimated at $2,200,000 to $3,000,000 each." (Two Ships A Day Building Program For U.S. Planned. The Robesonian, Lumberton, North Carolina, Wednesday, August 27, 1941, Page 18.) Another source says "The "American Press," fourth of five C-l typo cargo vessels to be constructed here under a $10,635,000 Federal maritime commission contract..." and "...Work on the fifth C-l type vessel to be constructed at the local plant has already started and with the launching tomorrow. Western (Western Pipe and Steel company) will be able to start work on the first of four C-3 type vessels to be constructed under an $11,960,000 contract. Western has a contract for two other C-3 type vessels for $5,930,000." (Launching Set For Tomorrow. Times, The, San Mateo, California, Monday, March 10, 1941, Page 14) -- Dual Freq 03:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
This is the best I can do for now on the Bogue class, an article talking about USS Breton (CVE-23) built at Seattle-Tacoma Shipbuilding says the following: "Requiring only three weeks from keel to launching, the USS Breton, new type escort carrier, is ready for active service in the fleet." (though this conflicts with the wiki-article. Wartime secrecy / censorship issues?) ... "Such a ship costs eight to nine million dollars" ... "Construction of the carrier took about 3,000,000 man-hours—equivalent to four or five of the well known Liberty ships." (New Carrier Is Ready for Fleet Action. Syracuse Herald Journal, Syracuse, New York, Monday, April 05, 1943, Page 20) -- Dual Freq 06:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Just a note regarding the costs of vessels built by the US Maritime Commission, especially those built for use by the US Navy: I feel the only relevant figures would be those of final cost. Often times figures reported are contract costs but fail to take into account the many adjustments made long after the signing of the original contracts. For instance, prevailing law mandated clauses in all MarCom vessel contracts allowing MarCom to recover excess profits from the builders after the completion of the contract. Furthermore, after the war, the Republicans regained control of Congress and took their own turn hacking away at builder's profits. The Casablanca class carriers contracted between Kaiser Company, Inc. and the US Maritime Commission were originally contracted at a cost of $10 million per vessel for a quantity of fifty vessels. However, the final cost report for these fifty vessels show the total cost paid for all fifty was $300 million - or just $6 million per vessel. A considerable difference between contract cost and actual outlay. The $200 million total difference can only in part be explained by the two rounds of charge-backs for excess profits - roughly $150 million worth. But $50 million of the $200 million dollar difference was due to the poor quality of workmanship produced by the Kaiser organization which the Navy refused to reimburse the Maritime Commission for and in turn MarCom then refused to pay Kaiser. I think for the Bogues, built by a more reputable builder Sea-Tac, there won't likely be found such a great disparity between contracted cost and final cost - at least not for lack of quality purposes. However, even these vessels were subject to the efforts made to recoup excess profits after they were built and contract completed. There are a host of excellent graphs and tables within the book Ships For Victory, a history of the US maritime Commission during WWII. I'm certain one or more of these can more specifically help you zero in on actual final costs for different ship types.
One last point: C-3s, as an example, were built to so many different configurations and each version or variety would have a different cost thanks to anticipated man hour fluctuations due to the differing designs. Even the emergency ships, EC-1, VC-2 etc, were built to numerous different designs suited for certain specialties - hospital ships, ammunition ships, troop ships, etc - that it would seem both impossible and misleading to lump all ships of a common hull type to a single dollar figure representing its cost. five ( talk) 09:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, since there have been no objections I've changed the names of the articles as proposed above.
It would be very helpful if the ship infobox and ship class infobox were changed to include the cost of ships. However suchg data would only be useful if people stated (1) exclusions, and (2) sources - presumably these could be handled by making them items on the template.-- Toddy1 09:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Class isn't part of a ship's career, so it doesn't go in the career section.
But it is a part of a ship's career. When a Bogue class escort carrier becomes an Attacker class escort carrier, what is the logical place to list the change other than in the separate "Career" structures for the two navies?
I think hiding the class characteristic halfway down the article is a bad idea. IMO the previous ship infobox had it right, putting it at the top. Even assuming you were right that class belongs more under characteristics than career, which I'm not persuaded is the case, there are exceptions to most rules and I think class ought to be one of them. Gatoclass 18:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to see if we could get a little discussion going about how to categorize small warships. There's a lot of overlap in the terminology here. On the one hand, I don't think we should have separate categories for every name a navy could possibly give a ship. On the other hand, I don't want us making groupings that are really original research.
Some stuff I have issues with are modern (20th century+) frigates, destroyer escorts, torpedo boats, corvettes, sloops, Fast Attack Craft (FACs), patrol boats, and gunboats. And maybe others. Like the littoral combat ship. Many of these terms had very distinct meanings in the Age of Sail, but today it's all very blurry. Some of it's just image; a boat might be called a fast attack craft by a navy that wants to sound aggressive, but the same vessel in the hands of a more defensive navy might be a patrol boat.
Off the bat, I would say that (modern) frigates and destroyer escorts are synonymous. They're the British and American names (respectively) for essentially the same type of ship: an ocean-going ASW craft that's cheaper than a destroyer. "Frigate" is the term that prevailed, and all USN DEs were renamed FFs in the United States Navy 1975 ship reclassification.
However, the others are more murky, as far as I'm concerned. I'm tempted to lump them all into a "small warships" category. TomTheHand ( talk) 20:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, unless anyone has any immediate objections, in a few hours (or tomorrow) I'm going to go propose a merge of Category:Patrol vessel classes and Category:Fast attack craft classes into Category:Small combatant classes. I'll leave corvettes out of this. If anyone has any better name suggestions, please give them now; I'm iffy on "Small warship classes" because some of the contents are really boats, not ships. TomTheHand ( talk) 20:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear Wikimedians,
This is a (belated) announcement that requests are now being taken for illustrations to be created for the Philip Greenspun illustration project (PGIP).
The aim of the project is to create and improve illustrations on Wikimedia projects. You can help by identifying which important articles or concepts are missing illustrations (diagrams) that could make them a lot easier to understand. Requests should be made on this page: Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project/Requests
If there's a topic area you know a lot about or are involved with as a Wikiproject, why not conduct a review to see which illustrations are missing and needed for that topic? Existing content can be checked by using Mayflower to search Wikimedia Commons, or use the Free Image Search Tool to quickly check for images of a given topic in other-language projects.
The community suggestions will be used to shape the final list, which will be finalised to 50 specific requests for Round 1, due to start in January. People will be able to make suggestions for the duration of the project, not just in the lead-up to Round 1.
thanks, pfctdayelise ( talk) 12:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC) (Project coordinator)
With the Infobox Ship Class template, the class type field replicates on two spots, the title and an item in the list on the infobox. Because of this, it looks wrong in the title when you capitalize it, yet it looks wrong if it's lowercase in the list. Is there anything you can do about it? American Patriot 1776 ( talk) 22:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
An IP, 68.45.128.161 ( talk · contribs), is making minor edits to many U.S. fleet submarines, including expanding abbreviated names and adding other very specific details, without citing any sources. I'm not super-comfortable with this; for the most part, the articles are based directly on DANFS and are therefore well-sourced. This new information isn't from DANFS, and it sometimes contradicts it. We all know that DANFS can be wrong, and we've sent them corrections in the past, but we've done so after doing a good bit of research using other reliable sources. I've left two messages on the IP's talk page requesting that sources be cited. There have been no edits after the second message.
So here's where I need help: first, if the edits start up again, what do we do? I certainly don't want to scare off someone with an interest in ships, but we need sources. Second, what do we do with the edits that have already been made, especially the ones that contradict DANFS? TomTheHand ( talk) 18:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
depending on what and how many i will gladly check his words so don't touch m and let me know what the list is and the number of edits ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 01:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I was going through Category:Unassessed-Class Ships articles and stumbled on this article that has been tagged for our project. the question is, does it really belong within our mandate? Officially it was commissioned as a "ship", but an airship. So, thoughts? -- Kjet ( talk · contribs) 22:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been wondering the same thing; I've been treating US Navy blimps as aircraft, and formatting articles according to WikiProject Aircraft's guidelines. This, however is a commissioned ship, so a little different from largely anonymous blimps. I wonder if the best solution for these would be to default to WikiProject Aircraft for the bulk of the layout, but incorporate the "career" section of WikiProject Ship's layout? I'm happy to take care of it if others here agree. -- Rlandmann ( talk) 23:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem there, of course, would be that if the WP:Aircraft formatting were to be introduced to the articles, we'd end up with a lot of duplication, with (for example) the length of the aircraft listed in the infobox:ship and the Specifications (aircraft) section... -- Rlandmann ( talk) 10:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I think I've found and tagged all the airships that the USN ever put into service according to what we've decided upon in the discussion above:
mm. if we take those as "ships of the air" what about prarie schooners? but if it is part of the navy or is classifed as a ship we should have some say in it especially in the stats like weight builder ..etc.. ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 01:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
MilHist's infobox conversion page indicates plans to convert usage of old templates {{ Infobox Military Submarine}} and {{ Submarine}} to "{{ Infobox Ship}} and {{ Service record}}". Before I go griping about {{ Infobox Ship}} being deprecated, I have to admit I didn't even know about the service record template. I wonder if {{ Infobox Ship Example}} will match up nicely with {{ Service record}} for display. Can anyone play around with them and magically answer this whilst I sleep? Maralia ( talk) 05:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to give everyone the heads-up: it appears that the folks over at WP:MOSNUM are planning on removing the longstanding "link all dates so that they'll autoformat" guideline; if you have an opinion, they might want to hear from you over there, but if not, be prepared for the possibility of editors and bots sweeping through ship articles and de-linking the dates. We may want to have a discussion about consistent date formatting. Although MM-DD-YYYY is common in U.S. writing, the U.S. Navy seems to use DD-MM-YYYY, so I think we might be using an awful lot of that format. TomTheHand ( talk) 22:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Eagle 101 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) noted on the Administrators' noticeboard that an automated scan for "potential crap" articles (aka those with no wikilinks and at least one external link) turned up over 6000 candidates. The following articles on the list appear to fall under the purview of our project and desperately need assistance:
The entire list can be viewed at User:Eagle 101/potential crap 3. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 20:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
anything with a real and reliable source should kept and if we have never encournterd the source give it the benifit of the dout and you should sort the list by subject into other lits then send each list to an aporpriate project then those projects will sort through there lists and send what ever they keep to the stub project. unless of course im wrong, they can't all be ships? ANOMALY-117 04:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC) in the event that im wrong we should sort them in manner of my statement above then send them to the stub project for stubing ANOMALY-117 04:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC) pardon the spelling and grammer ANOMALY-117 04:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I should also add that Hannah Elizabeth (ship) also falls within the scope of this project. I have tried to clean it up a bit, however it could still use some work. Also International Naval Research Organization might be considered within our scope as well. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 23:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Today I saw that Bellhalla ( talk · contribs) was removing Category:World War II submarines of Japan from articles that already have Category:Japanese submarines lost during World War II, because the former is the parent category of the latter. It makes sense, but I'm not a big fan of it, because I think it's useful to be able to look at a single category and see all WWII subs of Japan rather than having to flip through two separate categories to see lost subs and subs that survived the war. I think we should duplicate the articles across both cats. I wanted to bring it up here, because it's an issue we haven't addressed in the past. What does everyone think? TomTheHand ( talk) 19:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I've altered {{
Shipindex}} so that articles without the "name" parameter are sorted to the top of
Category:Ship disambiguation. There are a lot of them; anyone want to help get them properly sorted? It's easy — just add "|name=<Shipname>" to {{shipindex}}.
—wwoods (
talk) 19:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Particularly in these three articles:
Some of the articles have DANFS entries which have then been added to (more like hurled with reckless abandon) with a huge block of text from a source that I haven't been able to locate. The idea was to clean up these articles with wiki links etc but I hardly see why an effort should be made to do this if references cannot be determined and the material should be removed. I've left notes on the talk pages for the exact problems. Any thoughts? -- Brad ( talk) 23:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok all is well now. Thanks for the help; I finished Cascade this morning. -- Brad ( talk) 17:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
In {{ Infobox Ship Career}} I can't seem to figure out where to put a second decommissioning. It has a place for a first commissioning, then a spot for the decommissioning, and even a spot for recommission, but where do I put the date for the second decommissioning after a ship is recommissioned? I was working on USS Keosanqua (AT-38), but had no where to put all 4 dates. Maybe I missed it in the docs. Any suggestions? -- Dual Freq ( talk) 23:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
ok here's an idea lets replace our fleet of infoboxes. so basically we need to build newer and more capable boxes and "decomision" our old ones ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 01:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC) If I may make a suggestion: If you have multiple fields for decommisioning and recommisiong perhaps you could add a tab like "|reason=" or "|conflict=" or something along those lines so that these fields can be sub devided along conflict lines for warships. Just something to think about. I also like the idea of hide tab. TomStar81 ( Talk) 06:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
hi folks,
I have been in touch with the chap behind Shipbucket, Mr Martin Conrads to get his permission for the drawings to be used as illustrations for our articles.
I will update all on the status and what sort of attribution is required by him.
http://s90.photobucket.com/albums/k279/shipbucket/
Koxinga CDF ( talk) 03:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Koxinga CDF ( talk) 03:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Please see a notice about standardizing this template, at Template talk:Warship#Standardization. Maralia ( talk) 15:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
And I left some comments a few days ago at Template_talk:DANFS_talk and Template_talk:DANFS#Link_parameter_added. Thanks -- Brad ( talk) 22:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The article about the Vasa has now been nominated for FA status. Input and insights from members of this project would be very much appreciated. henrik• talk 13:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
This is something that's been bothering me for a while. The spacing between one line of text and the next in ship infoboxes is very wide. I don't think it's very aesthetic, and it makes the infoboxes very long -often longer than the accompanying article! Is there something that can be done about this?
On a more specific note, I've also noticed that the text spacing in ship class infobox image captions is far wider than in ship infoboxes themselves, and it looks wrong to me. Case in point: Owasco class cutter - look how much wider the image caption spacing is there as opposed to a ship in the class, say USCGC Sebago (WHEC-42). Also, does the text in the image captions have to be centre aligned? Wouldn't it make more sense to have it left-aligned? Gatoclass ( talk) 00:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I posted about the merge of the FAC and patrol vessel categories, but I think it got buried and nobody made their way over there. Please check it out: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_December_14#Category:Small_combatant_classes. There seem to be a few people in support of "small combat vessels", with opposition to "small combatant classes" because people are under the impression that it can refer to something other than... FACs and patrol boats. Please head over there and chip in. I'm worried that it's going to be renamed to "small combat vessels" instead of "small combat vessel classes", which would be horrendous. TomTheHand ( talk) 17:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been trying to categorize all USS YMS-xxx ship articles and was placing them all in Category:YMS-1 class auxiliary motor minesweepers based on what most of them say in either DANFS (if available) or the Navsource pages. Almost all of them seem to be listed in those sources as YMS-1 class. However, looking at Sanderling at DANFS and the Navsource index page, it seems there were possibly three classes. Before I go back to re-cat some I've already gone through I thought I’d seek some opinions.
According to the Navsource index, the differences between the three "classes" apparently were the number of stacks, 1, 2, or none. My first thought would be to sort them as Category:YMS-1 class auxiliary motor minesweepers, Category:YMS-135 class auxiliary motor minesweepers, and Category:YMS-446 class auxiliary motor minesweepers. But, are the classes that different that they need separate categories?
Also, there is currently one class article ( YMS-1 class auxiliary motor minesweeper) and a 'type' article ( Auxiliary Motor Minesweepers (YMS)) that seem to overlap. What about merging with a redirect for all three classes?
Thanks in advance. — Bellhalla ( talk) 19:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) I cleaned up a bunch of redirects, and proposed renaming the category Category:YMS-1 class auxiliary motor minesweepers to Category:YMS-1 class minesweepers. The rename proposal is here. Maralia ( talk) 15:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I have just proposed renaming Category:Hipper class cruisers to Category:Admiral Hipper class cruisers in accordance with the class article's name. See the proposal here.
Also, in case anyone missed it above, I proposed renaming Category:YMS-1 class auxiliary motor minesweepers to Category:YMS-1 class minesweepers. That proposal is here. Maralia ( talk) 20:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Erudy ( talk · contribs) has moved SMS Friedrich der Große (1911) to SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1911), replacing the "ß" with "ss". Is this in accordance with WP:Ships naming conventions, or should the move and associated edits be reverted? There are quite a few other German ships that have non-standard characters; if a precedent to use only standard English characters is set, they'll all have to be changed. Any thoughts? Parsecboy ( talk) 15:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Looking at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships), a relevant question could also be which spelling is correct under the current German spelling rules. If I'm reading ß#Usage in German correctly, the spelling under correct rules would be "grosse". Following the Wikipedia naming convention of using the modern form for each name, SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1911) would be the correct form to use as it is consistent with modern german spelling. But do notice that this interpretation is entirely dependant on my take on whether the "o" in grosse is a short of long vowel... and it's been ages since I've studied German. -- Kjet ( talk · contribs) 16:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
USS Burleson (IX-67) (via WP:PROD on 20 December 2007) Redirected→ USS Burleson (APA-67)
There is a fictional ship article for
DDG-182 Mirai, does it fall under WP:SHIPS? Also, does it strike anyone as odd that no single ship of the
Kongō class or
Atago class has its own article, but a fictional ship similar to the two classes has one? If articles were to be created, what is the naming convention for JDS ship articles? Would
JDS Kongō (DDG-173) or
Japanese destroyer Kongō (DDG-173) be used? Looking at other post WWII Japanese ship class articles reveals that there are very few individual ship articles, which makes
DDG-182 Mirai fictional article stand out even further. Anybody up for creating some ship stubs for Japan? --
Dual Freq (
talk) 15:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Disregard the part about no ship stubs as I made some stub ship articles using the naming convention JDS Kongō (DDG-173). They could use more information, but I can't read Japanese, so someone else may have to do that. If someone wants to tag the pretend Mirai ship go ahead, but if I tagged it, I would use an AFD or merge tag, not a WP:ships tag. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 22:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
There are a couple of cats in category Category:United States Coast Guard ships that don't look right to me. They are Category:USCG high endurance cutters and Category:USCG medium endurance cutters. Since they are already subcats of the Coast Guard cat, why do they need the "USCG" tacked on? Shouldn't these cats just be Category:High endurance cutters and Category:Medium endurance cutters? Gatoclass 10:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I had to do a double take on that comment about "Famous class cutters", LOL.
Unless there are any objections, I will create the two suggested cats a little later today, and nominate the other two for merging. Gatoclass 06:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I just rewrote USS Illinois (BB-65) to improve her shot at passing FAC, but I need new eyes to correct the sp&g errors and ensure that I didn;t leave anything out. Thanks in advance. TomStar81 ( Talk) 13:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
For those on this project who are active in Cruise Ship (commercial) articles, should we maintain links to site containing reviews of the cruise ships - and if so, which site? I noticed that User:Hu12 was removing a large number of links to Cruise Critic reviews that had been added by User:Splamo due to the site's use of Adsense, and he flagged the site at WT:WPSPAM (with a discussion at WP:AN). I asked him a bit about it on his talk page, where he asked that "these links from this site [cruisecritic.com] may no longer be welcome on the [WP:SHIPS] project" - so I'm bringing it up here.
So the question ... is it even appropriate to use a link to cruise ship reviews? I'm aware that the ship star rating from these reviews are utilized by multiple travel agencies (the local travel agency that I use, and a quick check I did over the weekend showed that Cruise Critic star ratings are also used by web travel sites such as Orbitz, Travelocity, and Expedia) - so the reviews from Cruise Critic do appear to be a common standardized rating method for the industry. But, do these reviews provide enough value to include on Wikipedia, given the raised concern about the sites use of Adsense? Should WP:SHIPS have a position on the use of these links? --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 16:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
List of future Spanish Navy ships (via WP:PROD on 25 December 2007)
Has anyone ever heard or seen a legitimate explanation from a reliable source as to why the USN does not use forward ski jumps on it's LHAs and LHDs? They vessels are larger than just about any other aircraft-capable ship in service save supercarriers, and yet much smaller carrier-type ships have jumps. Is it soley related to how the USN spots aircraft on flight decks (using every space available), or are there other reasons? I'm really looking for some citeable material, not just informed specualtion, but that would be OK too, as it's always fun to hear other opinions. But I'd really like to put some cited explanations in some articles I've been working on, such as those on the LHA and LHD, as this questions has come up on some of the ship talk pages. (Stating this clearly to hopefully avoid the obnoxious Talk pages are not forums response that some like give to experianced editors as if they were newbies!) - BillCJ ( talk) 05:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
DF, I saw that you added [[:Image:YAV-8B Harrier testing a ski jump.jpg|this image of "A YAV-8B Harrier II tests a ski jump at Naval Air Station Patuxent River". So it seems the USN/USMC have used ski-jumps in testing, so there more than likely have a good reason for not needing them on LHAs and LHDs. Would be interesting to find official word on this. - BillCJ ( talk) 03:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
i belive the placement of bigger acraft on the front is a cause but other factors must be included like the magnetic launches (cvn-79 or was it 80?) oh and there rebooting the united states of america class (cvn?)81-85?) but the placement of aircraft and weight plus maybe it's uneconmic to put in considdering we have enough space to take off. um when the uss. kitty hawk is decomishend can we make a special page for decomishend ships under maybe the title of The Kitty Hawk decomisend (page) or project. oh.. why didn't anybody tell me about the SUPER YAMATO CLASS??? that's awsome to bad it was cancelled ugh i hate todays warfare of missle each other form a billion miles away what hapend to dog fights and good old batlleship mono Vs mono engagements. ugh.........-- ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 01:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I just applied {{ DEFAULTSORT}} to HMS Trincomalee as normal... only it seems to have messed up two of the categories and I cannot understand why, as they are unchanged from their original forms... Martocticvs ( talk) 17:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I have updated {{ sclass}} (and its documentation) to allow for disambiguation of the ship type (a problem with "minesweeper"). I tested the changes before implementing them, so I hope there won't be any issues with the changes. — Bellhalla ( talk) 19:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Which articles on these somewhat-neglected but rather important topics do we need? I suggest that at the very least we should merge stability conditions (watercraft) and ship stability, probably at the latter name. We could also merge in metacentric height: one the one hand, metacentric height currently covers a lot of matters to do with stability which are not strictly to do with the metacentric height; on the other the mathematical mechanics might do a bit better in its own article separated from the engineering. Regards, The Land ( talk) 17:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
These articles should be limited to discussions on the marine use of these terms and avoid any reference to aircraft or other vehicles as this will just confuse the issue. These could be covered with a "See also" section.
I would admit that this is just the beginning and has probably missed important items and may have dealt with others in too little detail. My intention is to point out that the present articles are incomplete and not well structured but have a lot of excellent information that should not be lost. I would like to help resolve these issues however I can. Jmvolc ( talk) 13:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
We have no article at all which deals with the roll of a ship, except possibly flight dynamics. Can someone think of a name for one? Could it be added to the wanted articles list? The Land ( talk) 18:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Have a look at Ship motions, is that what you are looking for? Jmvolc ( talk) 14:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm having a problem getting the importance of using Reliable sources over government propoganda across to an editor who ought to know better, and would rather not fight this battle on my own. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force#Indian Navy for the full explanation. Thanks. - BillCJ ( talk) 19:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)\
I've nominated Shibumi2 to become an administrator here. He has been working hard for a year, getting Wikipedia articles on Japanese Navy ships to conform to WP:SHIPS standards. Please join me in supporting his nomination. Thank you! Neutral Good ( talk) 20:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
hi all, just a update on the status. Things were slow because of the holidays season so here goes.
The following were some of the questions and conditions:
1) Drawings needs to be from the correct versions of the ships and the responsibility to separate them from our varius alternative universe/neverwhere versions rest on your side. No alterations are allowed.
2) It has to be clearly explained that these are only artist impressions, not detailed line-drawings. All the pics are in 1 pixel/two feet scale and that effects on some sort of differences to the actual ships, and eq. many weapon barrels and missiles are overexaggerated by size.
3) The artist of the picture needs to be clearly mentioned.
4)If we agree to this, we expect to have some sort of exclusive role for the illustrations, and sort of gentlemen agreement that you wont acquire similar pics from elsewhere. If you spot someone keen to drawn this way, you will of course direct him to contact us.
Any concerns if Creative Commons could work here?
Koxinga CDF ( talk) 03:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Koxinga CDF ( talk) 09:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have an idea what the stripe or bump is that runs nearly the length of hull above the waterline on Kirov class battlecruisers? See also commons:Category:Kirov class battlecruiser for more images that show same stripe. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 19:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
http://www.enemyforces.com/navy/1144.htm Krylov Institute: http://www.ksri.ru/eng1
Koxinga CDF ( talk) 06:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
An unregistered user added a load of additional length fields to this part of the template earlier - firstly one of them is not correctly implemented, so it is showing up all the time, whether filled or not, and I don't know how to fix that. Secondly, I don't think that it is necessary to have lots of dedicated fields for different length measurements. These infoboxes are meant to keep things simple, and as with the armament field it is quite easy to put (keel) or (gundeck) or (overall) or whatever else you happen to be measuring after the measurement in question. With these extra fields I think it is now unnecessarily bloated. Martocticvs ( talk) 11:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
and stuff. As per our Dab guidelines, HMS Amethyst (U16/F116) ought to be moved I think. My preference would be to HMS Amethyst (F116) over the redirect, since that was the pennant number she carried when she got caught up in the Amethyst Incident. But that's a job for an administrator and since I am unaccountably not one, could someone help? Ta muchly, Benea ( talk) 12:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, how many different "Infobox Ship"-type templates are there now out there? 3, 4, 5, 6, more? Not to mention all the infoboxes in free HTML coding. I was trying to create a couple of ship articles here and decided to copy a infobox from an existing article. I became a little suspicious when I ran into one that I hadn't seen before, so off I went to see WikiProject Ships recommendations....*sigh* sadly I found that it seemed like it hasn't even been possible to standardize here, on the project page. The templates section even lists one that one is "discouraged" to use. Please, could we try to fix this thing during 2008? One template for all - or is that too optimistic?. -- MoRsE ( talk) 13:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I just found Template:Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force ship classes, and it seems a bit off from the format of most current navboxes. There are no built-in edit links at the top, and the whole template isn't boxed in. I know nothing about navbox formatting and codework. Can someone see if they can bring this up to spec? Thanks. - BillCJ ( talk) 00:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Gneisenau class battlecruiser to Scharnhorst class battleship
Please discuss at Talk:Gneisenau_class_battlecruiser#Requested_move. The Land (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been trying to look at articles in "Korean War xxx ships of the United States" cats and have a question about whether two three (oops!) ships belong in the
Category:Korean War aircraft carriers of the United States. According to their articles/DANFS,
USS Cape Esperance (CVE-88),
USS Windham Bay (CVE-92), and
USS Tripoli (CVE-64) ferried aircraft to Japan in support of the Korean War, but never participated in a combat role. I'm leaning towards including them as Korean War aircraft carriers, but wanted to see what others thought. —
Bellhalla (
talk) 06:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I could use some help keeping an eye on King Sejong the Great class destroyer. It's had a lot of IP traffic of late, many adding what appears to be POV commentary, with no sources - of course. I don't know engough about destroyers in general or this class in particular to recognize outright errors. Thanks! - BillCJ ( talk) 03:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
As a side note, it was a member of Category:Ahn Yong-Bok class destroyers, which was a previous proposed name. I've created Category:King Sejong the Great class destroyer to replace it. Maybe someone with the admin bit could make the old incorrect name go away. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 00:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Click here for details. TomStar81 ( Talk) 02:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello WP:Ships, I need help from your project with the MS Nindawayma article. I'm not a ship expert, but rather a locak historian. Could someone please review all the recent edits made by an anonymous user for factuality. Thanks. Flibirigit ( talk) 22:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there a consensus on what types of articles should populate this category? Is it just civilian tankers, i.e. SS Fort Lee, or Navy tankers, like USS Agawam (AOG-6) or USS Armadillo (IX-111). And what about oilers like, for example, USS Brazos (AO-4) that are already in the category? — Bellhalla ( talk) 00:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so as you know, our new ship infobox is made up of four templates: {{ Infobox Ship Begin}}, {{ Infobox Ship Image}}, {{ Infobox Ship Career}}, and {{ Infobox Ship Characteristics}}. It's little confusing, so I created {{ Infobox Ship Example}} as a central location for documenting it. I made it a template so that people would transclude it wherever documentation was needed; I had noticed that the old infobox had out-of-date documentation scattered everywhere.
I did this before /doc subpages became popular, or at least before I heard about them. However, /doc pages are a much better way of managing template documentation. Looking at it now, I kind of think we should do something about Infobox Ship Example. That's not the name of the infobox, it's the infobox's documentation template. However, it looks like that's its name, and I've got to assume that people look at it and wonder why the hell we call it that.
Does anyone else agree that we should address this? Perhaps make Infobox Ship Example a /doc subpage? If so, a subpage of what? TomTheHand ( talk) 21:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, any objections to moving {{ Infobox Ship Example}} to {{ Infobox Ship Begin/doc}}, and then protecting them all? TomTheHand ( talk) 16:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Right, after quite a bit of work, I have moved Example to Begin/doc, then moved all the documentation of the separate pages to /doc pages and then protected all of the main template pages. The templates affected are {{ Infobox Ship Begin}}, {{ Infobox Ship Characteristics}}, {{ Infobox Ship Career}}, {{ Infobox Ship Image}}. I have also created the talk pages for the templates to add {{ permprot}} to them although you could create redirects to Template talk:Infobox Ship Begin/doc. What do people think, and did I miss any of the templates? Woody ( talk) 19:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I just nominated the newly-created Category:Turkish Navy ship classes for deletion here because it does not fit into our categorization scheme. Please weigh in. Thanks! TomTheHand ( talk) 21:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Some of you may have dealt with the user who keeps adding POV info to the USS Holland and Electric Boat articles. If I'm not mistaken, the user has been blocked/banned for these actions. He is now active on the General Dynamics page, as per this diff. If reverted him twice, but am reluctant to revert more, even tho I don't see this as a content dispute. Now, I've been reverted by my stalker, a not-very-bright troll (banned user:Wikzilla) who thinks that by reverting me, and harrassing editors who come to my aid, he will be reinstated. (When the troll reads this, he will get mad, and strike out at me and someone else.) any help would be appreciated. - BillCJ ( talk) 00:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted additions to Kitty Hawk class aircraft carrier which removed USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67). I've requested that the editor stop and discuss before making unilateral changes of this nature. I think a discussion is now required, as to if the ship should be considered a member of the class or not. - MBK 004 02:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm having problems with Natchez (boat). There is supposed to be just one Natchez I, but I see two prior to Natchez II. Both are at http://www.riverboatdaves.com/docs/nat.html . Any ideas to remedy this would be welcomed.-- Bedford 03:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Bane22 ( talk · contribs) has added links from a number of carrier and amphibious assault ship pages to their pages on uscarriers.net. Those are the only edits he's made, which makes me suspect that it's his own web site. It seems to violate the first guideline of WP:LINK's "Links normally to be avoided": it "does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." I was planning to remove the links and ask him not to add more, but I wanted to see if anyone had any objections first. TomTheHand ( talk) 14:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Polish Navy 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. — Bellhalla ( talk) 12:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I have opened an RfC to try to resolve this issue, which is proving very difficult. Please take a look at: Talk:Scharnhorst_class_battlecruiser#Request_for_Comment:_Battleships_or_Battlecruisers.3F. The Land ( talk) 14:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as how the USS Constitution and the USS Bonhomme Richard (1765) are two very important ships in the story of the US Navy, I'm somewhat disappointed these articles aren't higher up on the scale than B-class. The ships project seems to have a liking towards battleships, with 8 of 15 FA being centered around the subject. Nothing wrong with battleships, but it would seem they're the only important ship the Navy ever sailed.
I'm bringing up the subject of trying to improve these articles yet not having much of an idea what needs to be done in order to bring them up the scale. I did just replace the infobox on the Bonhomme Richard, so that's one step in the right direction. -- Brad ( talk) 04:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I've replaced all instances of {{ Infobox Ferry}} and nominated it for deletion at WP:TfD. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 00:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Can someone with appropriate sources check as to whether HMS Vanguard (1678) was really wrecked in 1703? I'm using Brian Lavery's Ship of the Line vol 1 currently, where she is listed as being rebuilt in 1710 - no hint of being caught up in the storm. Martocticvs ( talk) 19:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The OHP frigates use templates within the infobox template for statistics that are common, ie. {{ OHP frigate displacement}}, {{ OHP frigate length}}, {{ OHP frigate beam}}, {{ OHP frigate draft}}, {{ OHP frigate propulsion}}, {{ OHP frigate speed}}, {{ OHP frigate range}}. Take a look at the infobox for USS Oliver Hazard Perry (FFG-7) to get an idea what I'm talking about. I've only seen this done in a couple of classes of ships and I was wondering if it was encouraged / supported by WP:Ships. The main problem I see with it is watchlisting and vandalism. There may be quite a few people who have the OHP frigates in their watchlist, but I'm guessing only one or two people are watching the templates. Another problem might be if individual ships have varying stats, like different propulsion, sensors, armament etc. I was thinking of re-doing the CF Adams class in a similar fashion, but I thought I'd check here before creating all those templates. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 01:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Oddly, I picked a class of ships that I actually created the templates on. I'm sure I copied someone else back in 2006. I'd still like to know if this is sanctioned by WP:Ships. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 01:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
As you may know, in October {{ DANFS}} was modified to add an optional parameter: an external link to a DANFS entry. In December, Brad101 ( talk · contribs) suggested that {{ NVR}} be similarly updated, and that the templates should really take up to two parameters, so that they could link simultaneously to the Navy's copy of DANFS and Hazegray.org's, or link to two names that the ship served under. I made both of those changes today. TomTheHand ( talk) 16:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The List of Liberty ships by hull number articles were nominated for deletion on 8 January. Any thoughts can be expressed at the entry at AfD. — Bellhalla ( talk) 14:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Is anyone particularly attached to the behemoth that is Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/footers? It's unbearably large and consequently (at least for me) stops actually displaying the templates less than halfway down the page. I'm sure it served a purpose before the templates were standardized for formatting and categorized in Category:Naval navigational boxes, but at this point it's terribly unwieldy and incomplete. I think it has outlived its usefulness now that footer templates are (largely) properly standardized and categorized. I'd like to go through it section by section, confirming that each template is standardized/categorized, then purging sections as I go, ultimately resulting in deleting the page. We can easily cover footers from a guidelines standpoint by updating Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Tools#Ship class footers to describe standard formatting and include a link to the category. Thoughts? Maralia ( talk) 15:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Just curious if this has been considered. Would it be reasonable to merge the class template in with the existing ship infobox? I think this could be done by still using {{ Infobox Ship Begin}} and {{ Infobox Ship Characteristics}}, but where the regular ship articles use Infobox Ship image and Infobox Ship Career, the class one would instead use something like "Infobox Ship Class ID" (or some similar name). The reason I suggest this is that the Characteristics box can easily perform double-duty in both areas, and making this change would improve consistancy in infobox style and usage. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 21:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I chopped out First commissioned date, Final decommissioned date, First in service date, and Final out of service date, and replaced them with a single field called "In service range" which displays as "In service:". I think that was a really good idea; this is much cleaner. I'm looking hard at the "Total ships..." fields, trying to determine how they're best used and if they need any adjustments. I'm thinking of changing "Total ships in class" to "Total ships completed" or something... or at least adding a "Total ships completed" field. TomTheHand ( talk) 15:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess I'm satisfied with the box now. I'm not sure what to name it, though, since Infobox Ship Class and Infobox Class are taken. Infobox Class Overview? TomTheHand ( talk) 21:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
These two articles, Italian cruiser Giuseppe Garibaldi (1961) and Italian cruiser Giuseppe Garibaldi (1936) are intriguing me at the moment. They are the same ship, which was reconstructed as a missile cruiser in the late 50s/early 60s. Ordinarily we would deal with the two incarnations in the same article, and it seems that this logic would apply to this case (same name, navy, role, etc). I guess the rearmament of the Iowas into guided missile platforms rather than big gun ships might be an appropriate comparison. In those cases we have the ship's history in one article, with a section dealing with the refits. Should the same be done here, or not? I don't have desperately strong opinions (a vague preference for a merge) so thoughts and feelings on a postcard please. ttfn, Benea ( talk) 18:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The article Aces of the Deep needs to be renamed to List of U-boat aces, however, given that the redirect already exists, I can't do it myself and still retain the article history. The current name is wretchedly melodramatic, not to mention a likely copyvio of the computer simulator of the same name from 1994. Also, the article name as it stands implies that the top scoring aces from all countries, from all time periods, not just Germany during World War II, are included. The proposed name fits in line with present "List of..." standards. Thanks for your help. Parsecboy ( talk) 23:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed the infobox doesn't have a field for ship type, but only for "type and class". Unless I'm missing something, this becomes a problem IMO when you have an article on a ship that has a type but no class, like say, a schooner, or a sloop etc. Also, I couldn't see a "cost" field in the sailing ship sub-infobox, so if you want to include the cost field you (presumably) have to use the entire infobox (haven't checked the other sub-infoboxes). Can these little problems be fixed? Gatoclass ( talk) 13:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
On my talk page, Gatoclass suggested that rather than the current practice of putting dates of commissioning and decommissioning in separate fields (and possibly repeating those fields for ships with complex careers), we specify ranges in the Commissioned field. Quoting him:
I can see where he's coming from. It certainly is cleaner. Can anyone think of why we shouldn't do it that way? The biggest concern I can think of is when we have incomplete information on a ship. For example, say we have a date commissioned and a date struck, but no decommission date. The ship might have decommissioned and been struck on the same day, but maybe not. With our current setup, we specify those two dates in separate fields and avoid implying anything that might be untrue. Another concern is a ship that sank. Do we close the range on the date the ship sank? Is that the way navies look at it?
Should we perhaps specify ranges as above when we have complete information, but when our information is incomplete we do it the old way? TomTheHand ( talk) 16:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Check it out: USS Illinois (BB-65). TomStar81 ( Talk) 08:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone got a copy of Colledge to hand? If so, could they look over HMS Blanche please. Thanks. Woody ( talk) 15:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
An editor keeps removing sourced information about the manufacturers of this ship's components, claiming that it's advertising and not relevant. It seems to me that it's perfectly relevant in an article about a particular ship to give the details of its construction, and would appreciate any comments (either pro or con) at Talk:No. 1 (yacht). Thanks, Jfire ( talk) 17:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Currently on infoboxes we have a standard graphic reading No Photo Available. This is all well and good for ships from the mid-19th century onwards, when photos started to become more common, but for anything that ended its life before that time its either very unlikely, or simply impossible that a photo would exist, let alone be available - but paintings often are. So 'No Image Available' would seem to make more sense here. Martocticvs ( talk) 17:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I created the image about a year ago as a result of the 4th wall issues of its predecessor (Insert Image Here). See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Archive_4#Insert_image_here and Image talk:IIH.png. Personally, I use those image pages to find articles with no images and then replace it with an image. I don't see any reason to remove or change it in existing articles, unless no image or photo can be reasonably located. In cases, where it is not applicable, simply don't use it. Maybe a todo list item could be find images for the articles listed at Image:IIH.png and Image:No Photo Available.svg, but it seems like a bit of a waste to run through and change or remove them only to replace it with a category or talk page template. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 02:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
As a result of the discussion above, we've developed a new template, {{ Infobox Ship Class Overview}}, which can be used with the multi-template ship infobox to support classes. I've updated the documentation at {{ Infobox Ship Begin/doc}}. TomTheHand ( talk) 21:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. You may be familiar with the Philip Greenspun Illustration Project. $20,000 has been donated to pay for the creation of high quality diagrams for Wikipedia and its sister projects.
Requests are currently being taken at m:Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests and input from members of this project would be very welcome. If you can think of any diagrams (not photos or maps) that would be useful then I encourage you to suggest them at this page. If there is any free content material that would assist in drawing the diagram then it would be great if you could list that, too.
If there are any related (or unrelated) WikiProjects you think might have some suggestions then please pass this request over. Thanks. -- Cherry blossom tree 16:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm dangling dangerously close to 3RR on USS Forrestal (CV-59). An IP is removing mention of an operation with a corresponding article, claiming that they were onboard at the time and the event did not happen. I've asked them to provide a proper citation to prove their assertions, but I don't want to revert again. Can someone help? - MBK 004 22:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I found this little toy today: {{ newinfobox}} and I think it could be a deadly weapon in my hands since I'm still doing audits and checking conditions of articles. We of course have our own {{ Ship infobox request}} but its more suited for an article that has no infobox at all. I guess the question is whether I should affix one or the other to articles needing the new super improved infobox? I would expect the list to grow very long, very quickly. -- Brad ( talk) 20:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I was looking at wikipedia guidelines on article length today, and they were concerned about long articles taking too long to serve. The guidelines are clearly obsolete. Articles with lots of templates (e.g. Bristol East (UK Parliament constituency) take much longer to load than long articles with only a few (e.g. Battleship). This is because of all the template calls to the server. If there is someone out there who thinks it a good idea to change perfectly good table infoboxes to template ones, please could he/she go think again.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 16:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
that would have to be a really long article like say a nine hundred pages maybe. to overload the server bank that wiki would need to run this website with all of the trafic their is. um so this list is a list of infobox requests? well if we made a standerd templte and just one template that asks for a name, weight, commision, decomision, Etc... then genrates an infobox for the page which you would cut copy paste. kinda like cition machine .com but it would have to be a program that is only downloadable by members of the ship project and we would need (obviously) a really good programer. just you know mull it over and let me know what ya think. i might be able to find a programer but... it would be better if someone elese knew someone else to do this. i thank ye -- ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 20:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
um..yea i should do that. however my point was that if we compiled a database of flags and images with a series of questions that asks for the input of the ships name year of commison and decommision and weight, beam, length,draught, and armment,(leave blank if none),and you select flag and picture, ETC... make it into a program that asks for said input it would then make a ship info box/template thing. What this templete/box thing looks like might need to be voted on.
basicly the program asks for input we give said input it gives a ship info box thing that agreed in layout. tada massproduced ship template things. saving tons of time because you wont have to write the code you just cut copy paste the code of the info box that has been made for it to the article. insta-shipbox. the template thing is a minor note the point is the program. ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 21:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
yea but id rather cut copy paste once instead of twelve to fifteen times then cheaking it and then filling in the feilds and then search for the flag code and search for the picture code. its time consuming for me i don't know about other people but writing and/or fliping between pages and copying and cuting and pasting is annoying and can be frustrating. im just sayin but it's cool eathier way i think this could be faster though.-- ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 21:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
In regards to: Category:Ship articles without infoboxes I have been picking away at US Navy ships listed there and have managed to remove many of them. In some cases the box had already been laid down but the editor didn't remove the tag from the talk page. As a bonus, I've been able to find a few non-conforming ship articles and fix those too. -- Brad ( talk) 22:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Fishy.. USS Carlinville (PC-1120) Not in DANFS; not in a word search at NHC; not on the NVR; not on a word search at WP except to turn up the same article. Text of article looks like a DANFS entry yet there are some statements that are not DANFS style. Anyone else concur this is fudge? -- Brad ( talk) 20:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Given all the above comments, the text of the article is too much of a rip of the navsource article [11] and if someone associated with Navsource wrote the article then WP can't use it word for word as we do with DANFS. Even the navsource article states there is no DANFS article. So, the ship did exist and had an interesting career but the article as is needs to to stubbed down to the minimum to avoid a copyright issue. I appreciate the help with the searches. -- Brad ( talk) 22:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)