Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Ships and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcuts WT:SHIPS WT:SHIP

Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75Auto-archiving period: 21 days

Ships Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Main Project Page Talk
Things you can do
Assessments: Class assessment needed • Log Categorize and tag: New article feed Cleanup listing: Articles tagged for cleanup alphabetically or by category at Labs Expand stubs: Stub-class ship articles Images: Requested ship photos • Infoboxes without an image Infoboxes : Infobox needed • Infobox conversion needed Recent changes: US changes • UK changes • cruiseship changes
Information and sources
Article alerts: Updated daily Guidelines Manual of Style Infobox ship: Usage guide Naming Conventions (articles) Categorization Project Scope Past AfDs Popular Pages: Most popular ship articles Tools and Templates Ensigns {{Navy}} {{USN flag}} Outreach Resources Participants Barnstars Project subpages

I would really appreciate it if someone were to improve Draft: Prima-class Cruise Ship. I can not get a link here so you can access it from my talk page. A link should be in the title of the heading closest to the bottom. History Buff1239ubj (talk) 23:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You had a lowercase "s", not an uppercase one. Link added. Mjroots (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's an existing article on the subject -

Project Leonardo. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Inspired by a lengthy discussion at Talk:USS Missouri (BB-63) and the comments that I've occasionally received over the years, I'd like to propose streamlining the infobox and amending the guidance at Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide accordingly. Let me begin by saying that I think that some editors are misunderstanding the purpose of the infobox and trying to make it as complete as possible rather than a summary of the most important info about the ship as is stated in the usage guide. All the extra details can be placed in the main body So let me begin with the ship characteristics template as that probably less controversial than ship career template.

• I think that we should link the jargony terms like displacement, beam, draught, etc. so non-experts can quickly learn what exactly they are? Some will object that we'll have a mixture of black and blue terms in the infobox, but we should already have that if people have been linking to the gun, engine and boiler types, etc. For a look at how that can look for the leading terms, scroll down to the bottom of North American P-51 Mustang and find the specifications page. It's a little odd, but I believe that the informational advantages of linking outweigh the oddity.

Firstly, apologies for somewhat hijacking your thread with the post below - I've now added a subheader to keep the two discussions separate. With regard to blue-linking elements in the infobox, I agree that would make ship articles more user-friendly and although aesthetics are an important consideration for me, it would be difficult I think to object to the proposed change solely on that ground. Gatoclass (talk) 05:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• One entry per measurement field like displacement, length, etc., the others can go into the main body. An exception may need to be made for all the various civilian tonnages. I'm particularly interested in hearing from editors who do more work on civilian ships than I do.
  • As someone who works primarily with civilian ships, I can support this. For most ships, the relevant dimensions are length overall, moulded beam, and summer load line draught. There are of course special cases particularly with variable-draught vessels, but IMHO there's no real need to include largely arbitrary dimensions such as length between perpendiculars in the infobox. As for tonnages, all there (GT/GRT, NT/NRT and DWT) are relevant. Tupsumato (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trappist's selection of a sub for his example reminds me that submarines need to be an exception to this rule as they generally need to show both surfaced and submerged data. Beam for modern warships is to the outside of the hull plating; moulded beam is to the inside of the plating, IIRC. Is it worth differentiating between them by adding moulded beam or is this sort of detail better saved for the main body?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Considering that the difference between a moulded beam and the beam measured outboard of shell plating is few tens of millimetres, there's no need to specify both. However, which beam is given should perhaps be mentioned in the article body if known. However, as with other exceptions, if the vessel has some otherworldly appendages, the maximum width should be mentioned at least in the article body and, if notable enough, perhaps even in the infobox. Tupsumato (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Specify the type of tons, length, etc. in the field with links. I prefer to do it parenthetically after the measurement like foo ft (
  o/a
  ), but I'm sure that somebody out there cannot see the infinite superiority of my preference (that's a joke, friends!). Just so long as it's indicated one way or another, I'm content. BTW, after some discussion earlier, I've come to believe that we need to link both long and metric tons as Americans confuse long and short tons, while the rest of the world cannot remember the difference between them. I dislike using the default conversion for long tons into metric and short tons as it bulks out the conversion and none of our sources use short tons.
  • We should probably provide examples of the conversions, explaining that long ton cannot be abbreviated, and showing how to avoid outputs in short tons. As a minor point we should also prescribe all disambiguators surfaced, submerged, standard displacement, etc., should be enclosed in parentheses for consistency.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't believe that we need to provide the manufacturer or the exact model of a piece of equipment unless that manufacturer has an article relating to their house design of boiler or whatever. Parsons just links to the company and is unnecessary while there's an article for Yarrow boiler which is much more useful for the reader. Similarly the two most important facts for a gun are its size/weight and type; the mark or model number and its caliber length can be relegated to the main body.
  • Although guns are not my thing, I'm against leaving makes and models of key equipment such as engines out from the infobox unless they complicate things too much. While we are not writing Wikipedia only for specialists, we are not writing it only for the laymen either. Of course, if one writes "4 × Wärtsilä 8L32E" in the infobox, one should also write an explanation about it ("four eight-cylinder four-stroke medium-speed diesel engines") in the article body. Writing just "four diesel engines" (or, heavens forbid, "four diesels") among all that other numerical data feels like dumbing down too much. Still, name-dropping should be limited to principal equipment and not every piece of gear onboard. Tupsumato (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've gone back and forth on this a bit myself. Perhaps we should just limit the field to a single line? Your example of Wärtsilä would fit, but Babcock & Wilcox would probably not. Would that be a reasonable compromise?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      I can think of too many multi-line examples (e.g. two different types of main engines, a combined this-and/or-that power plant, etc.) that such compromise would unlikely to be reasonable. Tupsumato (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• We are massively inconsistent about how we present the layout of guns and turrets. I prefer 3 x twin (with an implied 'mounts' at the end) vs the (3 x 2) used by others. Is that two triple mounts or three twins? I can never remember and there's no way to actually tell the reader which one is meant. We certainly cannot expect ordinary readers to have perused Conway's or Whitley's books to know that ahead of time.
• Let us not provide multiple armament listings or even additional infoboxes unless the ship has been rebuilt or converted like HMS Glorious or Japanese battleship Ise. The additions of light anti-aircraft guns do not each need their own listing. Pick one date and everything else goes in the main body. Generally I prefer to use the armament as built, but some editors prefer to use a wartime armament. Should we standardize on one or the other?
• Almost all units that can be linked, should be linked, including ihp/shp/kW (lk=on), nautical miles, knots (lk=in). I don't see any need to link feet or meters, though.
• Seeing the HMS Ouse infobox linked below by Nigel reminded me that the date of the data should be noted. I like to do it in the header caption as that wouldn't add an extra line.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I forget who maintains the template, but can I request a sandbox version with displacement, beam, etc. linked so people can see for themselves what it looks like?
  • Thanks, Trappist, I thought it might be you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Please put your comments under the appropriate bullet points so that we can keep them focused. They'll make a bigger impact that way than if you just throw out one great wall of text covering all of these points together.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that currently infoboxes tend to be way, way, too long - for example - look at HMS Ouse, which is by no means a stub, but the infobox dominates the whole right side of the screen and at least for me is the length of the article text.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's pretty damn long. The biggest space-saver that I can think of would be to trim down the armament section along the lines that I proposed above. We don't need to know the exact mark of the guns and certainly don't need to know the exact gun mounts used! And standard displacement is a bit of a misnomer since the ship had been scrapped three years before the Washington Naval Treaty defined the term. But it could just be a mistake for designed or normal load displacement.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • A more minor thing, but IMO I don't see much point in listing the amount of fuel that the ship could store, like the Ouse infobox current does. We don't need to be going for comprehensive details for infoboxen. Hog Farm _Talk 20:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreed. I saw that, but forgot to mention it specifically. In fact, I usually save the amount of fuel for the class article, just saying in the individual ship articles that they carried enough (fuel type) to go x nautical miles at y knots.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would question whether the service record section of the infobox (as used in HMS Ouse) is appropriate - also note that in that particulr case things like the gun mounts aren't in the body of the article and aren't actually sourced - the Jane's cites are just for the class. We shouldn't have anything in the infobox that isn't properly sourced in the article body.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • I was going to save that discussion for later, but everything in the service section should be covered in the lede, IMO. Links for everything in the infobox is already specified in the guide, IIRC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While we're here, it would be nice if we could agree on a standard wrt to metric, imperial and knots. And I also know of some people that have had issues with displacememt; short & long tons, and tonnes, along with full, empty and normal loads. Some articles use one format, others use two and some use three, and even then the order in which they appear also varies. Some standardization would be helpful. (imho) -

I try to use whatever system was in use when the ship was built, but that's just me. I'm not sure what exactly you mean about issues with displacements. I know that I've had sources get mixed up between metric and imperial tons, not to mention confusing myself over the issue. But I'm not sure that's what you mean; can you link to some examples?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some other issues

I've been considering proposing wholesale changes to the ship infobox template for years, but just haven't been able to find the time or energy to do so. And while I agree that infoboxes are often too long, I don't necessarily agree that we only need to eliminate fields - some might theoretically be eliminated, but in some cases I think we need more fields (which wouldn't necessarily lengthen the infobox). For example, it's long been a source of annoyance to me that the "Builder" field ends up having the place of construction squeezed in, which is untidy and confusing. The builder field should be for the builder alone, and it should be followed in the infobox with a "Where built" field, which is consistent with many reliable sources.

That would be fine by me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other fields are confusing or badly named. "Installed power" is about the worst as it breaks into two lines of text and it isn't at all clear what it is supposed to represent, with some using it simply as a horsepower field and others using it for boilers and/or the engine, or whatever. "Propulsion" is also confusing as it can refer either to the propulsion type (screw, sidewheels, etc) or to the entire system including the engines, and thus also gets used by different users in different ways. I'd prefer to see "Installed power" simply renamed "Powerplant" or "Engine(s)" so it's clear to everybody what that field is for, and then the meaning of "Propulsion" also becomes clear. A separate field for "Boilers" would also be useful - which again, would not lengthen the infobox, since the amount of information added is the same, it's just presenting the same information in a more clearly defined way.

At least one field that I would like to see go however, would be the "Ship recommissioned" field. IMO this kind of information should be presented as ranges, ie "Ship commissioned: 3 Oct 1896 - 8 Jan 1910" etc. (in which case, is the "Ship decommissioned" field even needed?) Just some thoughts to go along with. Gatoclass (talk) 08:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re:long infoboxes, would it be possible to add a collapse button so that all sections of ship infoboxes can be collapsed? Mjroots (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be possible I assume, but I don't think it would be desirable. Users shouldn't have to make extra clicks to peruse the basic information IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 04:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Set to display, with an option to hide? Mjroots (talk) 09:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would work for me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support revising "installed power" one way or another as well as agreeing on a clear division between that and "propulsion" (e.g. where to put steam engines or turbines). Boilers could be separated with a note emphasizing that the field is only intended for boilers producing steam for propulsion, not for auxiliary heating boilers; this would allow renaming the "installed power" to "engines" (though is gas turbine an engine?) or more generalized "power plant". Of course we could combine everything into a single field describing the whole drivetrain, but that comes with its own problems... Tupsumato (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I rather like the idea of a boiler field. Is that where the horsepower/kW info should go? We still need to tell the reader how that power is delivered to the water, though, via propellers or water-jets. Some editors use screws/propellers rather than shafts, which is a problem for early destroyers that had multiple propellers on a single shaft, which is why I generally use shafts. Currently most ship articles use two lines for installed power (boilers + power) and one to three lines for propulsion (shafts/propellers/paddles + powerplant). If we rework this as suggested we could have 1 for boilers, possibly another for power, 1 for delivery method, and another for powerplant. This was change things from the current 3-5 lines to a standard 4 lines. This latter would probably be the least confusing for editors but would bulk up most infoboxes for modern warships. The guidelines are going to have to address how to fill out a couple of these in great detail, particularly for the newly popular combined powerplants like

CODAG, COSAG, etc., while keeping each field to a single line.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

It really depends on what power is given. My general rule of thumb for civilian ships has been the following:

• Mechanical propulsion: power defined only for main engines (typically diesel engines or gas turbines) in "installed power" as propulsion power is typically this minus some drivetrain losses that are usually not known or really significant (the exceptions are few and far between, and can be covered in the article body)
• Electric propulsion: power defined for both main generators in "installed power" and propulsion motors in "propulsion" as both ratings are usually given and relevant
• Steam engines and turbines: power defined for steam engines or turbines in "propulsion" as this is typically the only rating given (I have rarely, if ever, seen any power rating given for fuel-fired boilers)
• Nuclear propulsion: reactor thermal output defined in "installed power" and propulsion power (electric motors or turbines) defined in "propulsion" as both ratings are usually given and relevant

When writing new articles, I try to balance between infobox entry length and level of detail. With "simple ships" such as typical deep sea cargo ships, I would have no problem with including propeller diameter in the infobox, but with some obscure CODLAD or CODLOG system I'd try to keep it simple and perhaps only specify the number of shafts and whatever other rotating bits there are...

Anyway, while the present infobox could use some improving, I think the current split between "whatever generates power from fuel" and "whatever makes the shaft turn and ship move" make sense. I don't want to split these fields into too many small parts or have separate fields for power. I'm also opposed to any kind of "if you can't condense it to a single line, don't write anything" limitations. Tupsumato (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

drafT:HMS Rosemary was rejected as being a "disambiguation page" and not a notable shipname, with no articles. Do with it as you wish, as I'm done with working on this. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 06:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page should be judged as a Set index (i.e. a list of items of a similar type that share the same), where redlinks are allowed, rather than a disambiguation page (where they are not). Saying that, it should be noted that the first two entries (i.e. the sloop and the survey vessel) are the same ship - the sloop Rosemary served as a fishery protection vessel in the 1930s and discovered Rosemary Bank during a survey to find new shipping grounds, and that there appears to be no LSD called Rosemary in Royal Navy service during WW2 - the RN only received four LSDs under Lend-Lease, Eastway, Northway, Highway and Oceanway, so that would leave only the sloop and the trawler Lady Rosemary.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I cannot see any obvious way to make this viable as a list article. There is only one properly-cited HMS Rosemary - but that could probably be made into at least a worthwhile stub - and there are leads to further content here, here, here and here. Davidships (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The vessel listed as "HMS Lady Rosemary (FY 253)" should properly be HMT Lady Rosemary, with HMT meaning His Majestey's Trawler. FY 253 was her pre-war

fishing boat registration. Mjroots (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Article for the sloop now at HMS Rosemary.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way is this photo from from the IWM (unknown author) or this (credited to the Oscar Parkes collection free enough to use in the article?Nigel Ish (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this draft (or at least some of it) could be merged with Rosemary (disambiguation)? It currently does not mention any ships at all. Alansplodge (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have added the existing article to the dab, since there aren't any other articles and dabs function differently than set indices. Parsecboy (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History
United States
Name	Will Rogers
Hull number	SSBN-659
Namesake	Will Rogers (1879–1935), an American humorist
History
United Kingdom
Name	Hood
Pennant number	51
Namesake	Admiral Samuel Hood

There's a dispute at Talk:USS Torsk#Hull Number in Lead Paragraph that seems like it could use some external eyes. DMacks (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably something that should be discussed more broadly than at just one article. Parsecboy (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seeking to include the

wolf 17:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

If hull/pennant numbers are retained in the lead, then yes, the link should be there too. The vast majority of readers don't know what the little combination of letters and numbers are, and

we shouldn't be presenting them without an explanation, or hope that they stumble upon one down in the body. Parsecboy (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

It looks kinda clunky. Would you propose the opening sentence of, say... USS Iowa (BB-61) be changed from
"USS Iowa (BB-61) is a..." to
"USS Iowa, hull number BB-61, is a..."?

I'm not sure we need to spoon-feed an explanation to readers immediately like that. Numbers (and letters) are used everywhere, in everyday life, from lisense plates on vehicles to home addresses, complete with postal/zip codes. I believe it more likely that the majority of readers will accept that the little combination of letters and numbers are a means to organize the ships, just as they do on their homes and cars. That seems more likely than readers

wolf 19:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The point is, we shouldn't be doing things the vast majority of readers won't understand without additional information. It's why we avoid jargon, link terms at first use, introduce individuals at first mention, etc. I'd just as soon ditch them from the lead altogether - no other type of disambiguator is treated this way, so I don't know why the hull number needs to be there either, heresy though this idea may be. Parsecboy (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we're aware of your disdain for hull codes, and that you'd like to get rid of all of them, especially in titles... except you can't. They are needed for the numerous ships here that share the same name, so at most you can only get rid of some of them, which is why we have this silly mix of ship articles, some with hull codes and some without, that quite frankly looks ridiculous. We should undo that needless bit of guidance and restore the hull codes to all ship article titles, for the sake of consistency, and to help reduce some of "shock, surprise and confusion" some of our readers and editors must experience as they "struggle" to cope with the lack of uniformity, and missing relevant information. (imho) -

wolf 21:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, yeah, we can; using years to disambiguate would actually be more consistent, and as you are probably aware, there was

WP:AT to do just that, it ended in a consensus in favor of the proposal, but it sort of just petered out as no one had actually put forward specific wording. Hull and pennant numbers are bits of specialist information and we are supposedly writing articles for a general audience, are we not? Parsecboy (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

And it only took minutes to get to years ;-). It would seem that the list-by-year prop flaked out because many writers here can't even agree which year to use. Beyond that, if anything years are the specialist info, for they need to be reasearched, while hull codes are typically plastered on the side of the... well, the hull. -

wolf 23:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Right, because it’s the obvious and superior alternative. I’m not sure what discussion you read, but no one in that thread was confused about what year to use. Years are hardly more specialist; one can tell which

talk) 00:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

For what it's worth, I've always found the use of pennant numbers for disambiguating RN ships a bizarre choice, as they have not always been painted on the ships so they provide no information to a casual (or even realtively knowledgable) reader as to which ship it refers to. They're not incremented consistently like US hull numbers either. It's a perfect example of arcane knowledge, and I'm sure that must fall foul of disambiguation rules... Martocticvs (talk) 09:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and there are of course examples of the same pennant numbers that have been reused for ships with the same name (the

talk) 11:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Right now, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines § Introductory sentence seems to say that hull numbers for US military ships are included with the ship name in the article's opening sentence. If that is offensive and a wikilink to hull number preceding the ship's hull number is offensive, then perhaps a pair of new parameters in {{infobox ship career}} are in order. Perhaps: |Ship hull num= and |Ship pennant num= (only one allowed) the infobox could then render an appropriate heading that links to either hull number or Pennant number according to the parameter chosen; error message if both are provided. If this is adopted, the guidline would, of course need modification.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that could work. Cheers -

wolf 20:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I suggested putting it down in the infobox as a compromise or solution way earlier in the discussion. But that was simply ignored. GansMans (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the article in question and tell me what you see directly under the photo.

talk) 20:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)=[reply

]

I see the hull number. What's your point? That's not what was suggested above and not what I suggested 4 days ago. Actually, what is suggested above is kind of what I had in mind, but I never had the opportunity to elaborate on it because you weren't ever considering compromise. GansMans (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Broader issue

1. Hull numbers are not part of a ship's name. Treating them the way we do contributes to the false idea that they are. We should not continue practices we know contribute to misinformation (harmless though this specific situation may be).
2. The entire purpose of hull numbers is to differentiate from other ships of the same name (both from our perspective and the issuing navy's). They are therefore no different from any other disambiguator used on Wikipedia, and they should not be treated differently.
3. Hull numbers are no different than pennant numbers, which the guidelines already advise against including in the first sentence. There's no reason to exclude one and not the other.
4. Hull/pennant numbers are specialized bits of information the vast majority of readers will not understand and they will either ignore it (bringing into question why we're presenting it in the first place) or be confused about what it means (and my solution at USS Torsk is objectionable for reasons that have thus far failed to materialize).

As a result, I propose that the guidelines be amended to remove "U.S. hull numbers should be retained in bold and instead simply state "For example, HMS Ark Royal, USS Enterprise. This would bring the project into compliance with the broader consensus at

Whatever we decide to do with infoboxes as proposed by Trappist above is a separate matter and doesn't directly address the core of the issue at hand. Nothing here should be construed as an endorsement or rejection of the infobox changes, as that should be discussed separately. Parsecboy (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - this regularly comes up. This also would help with those ships that carried multiple pennant numbers. Only one is listed in the title of the article and the rest of them are jumbled together following the name. ex: USS Enterprise (CVN-65) where the pennant number CVN-65 is given, but the previously used CVA(N)-65 is also placed in bold. Nothing is explained and only the 65 is painted on the hull, not the CVA or CVA(N). If things painted on hulls would help people understand ships, then every cargo ship would have their homeport/registration number in the lead. Llammakey (talk) 11:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - What we're forgetting here is that hull numbers have been treated differently from other disambiguators for a reason. That reason is because hull numbers are not just Wikipedia disambiguators. They have a real life purpose outside of Wikipedia. No wonder they're being treated differently. It's because they are different.

I also think you're over grossly overstating just how "specialized" hull numbers are to the casual reader. As someone stated before, this isn't the only place on earth were a serial number or code is placed after an object. Regular readers probably understand that the bolded numbers and letters attached to the ships name are some sort of accessory to the ships name. That's all that matters. They don't need to know exactly what the letters stand for or what the numbers are. They just need to understand what a hull number is, not what it exactly means. I think you're using "what it means/what it is" interchangeably, and that's why you're saying it's specialized info too complicated for the casual reader. GansMans (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asserting something is different without actually explaining how it’s different is a logical fallacy called

talk) 15:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I just explained how. Because it has real world purpose. I'm not quite sure how you missed that...I'm not getting into a pointless argument again just because you don't agree. It's my two cents. Take it or leave it. GansMans (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

[majestic titan] 16:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

No, you didn’t, GansMans; you said there’s a real world purpose but did not elaborate further. What real world purpose do hull numbers serve? Vaguely asserting that something exists is not proof that it does.

talk) 16:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The ed17. Hull numbers weren't made up by Wikipedia users to disambiguate. They were used for a real purpose in real life so the Navy could. Hull numbers have been treated differently here on Wikipedia because they aren't for Wikipedia, so I don't see why they should be treated the same as made up disambiguators that were invented by Wikipedia users to ease navigation. Just because we use them as disambiguators on Wikipedia does not mean we forget that they are used in the real world. If they're used in the real world, it makes sense we continue to use it here. I'm simply saying that people aren't idiots and we shouldn't assume Wikipedia readers are idiots either. People can recognize a series of characters when they see them and understand they have a purpose. I doubt anybody is looking at a hull number and racing though countless possibilities as to what they could possibly mean. Same with an address or zip code or a license plate, people understand a combination of digits and letters serve as an identifier or label. Again, I think we're all grossly overstating how complicated 4 characters can be. I don't think anyone is that confused when they read the ships name and its number. They assume the two go together and that a hull number goes with the name. After all, they do go together. GansMans (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

[majestic titan] 19:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The ed17 The more important question is what are we gaining if we take them away? Less confusion, less complication? I'm arguing it's not that complicated to begin with. We are the ones making this complicated. Specialized info? How complicated can 4 letters and numbers get? Like I said, people aren't confused when they see other sets of numbers and letters, why are we assuming causal readers are having their mind boggled by hull numbers? GansMans (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GansMan, so your argument is that because the USN came up with hull numbers to disambiguate their ships, they are somehow different from Wikipedia’s methods to disambiguate ships that lack hull numbers?

talk) 19:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support as Wikipedia is for general readers, not naval purists. Hull numbers are not necessary on Wikipedia; plenty of navies get by just fine without them. Most people visit Wikipedia for only a few seconds to get an answer to a question, so let's reduce unnecessary confusion and complexity in lead sentences.
  [majestic titan] 16:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The ed17 Another thing we have to ask is are we overhauling this because it actually needs changing? Or just for the sake of change? If there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the way we've been presenting hull numbers all this time (if there was something fundamentally flawed with it, then this would've changed years ago when this discussion popped up for the first time), then should we even change it? GansMans (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Per
  MOS:BOLDREDIRECT: "After following a redirect: Terms which redirect to an article or section are commonly bolded when they appear in the first couple of paragraphs of the lead section, or at the beginning of another section...". In almost all case, the hull numbers are unique to each ship, and redirect to the article, so they have to be bolded somewhere within the lead anyway, and doing so immediately after the name is the most obvious place to do that. Also, hull numbers are nearly ubiquitous in most USN online documents, and in almost any publication mentioning the ships, even non-specialist works. The useage is so common that is treated as part of the name in most publications, even though it isn't the official name. If we're going to be consistent, we'll also need to remove "HMS" and all other ship prefixes from article titles too when they're not necessary for disambiguation, as they aren't part of the official names either. BilCat (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

You are misreading the MoS; every redirect isn’t required to be bolded in the intro. If it did, articles would have dozens of bolded text in the opening paragraph. See the guideline it points to,

talk) 21:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Obviously I disagree with your interpretation, as hull numbers are not disambiguators, but simply being used that way. It's a fine difference, but significant. Seeing as this is is MOS issue, with it should be discussed on a MOS talk page, as project consensus cannot override Wiki guidelines. BilCat (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are hull numbers if not disambiguators? Why did the USN adopt them if not as a means to differentiate between vessels of the same name? And how is that at all different from how we use them here? But as to the MoS, you are more than welcome to open a thread there to see if your understanding of the section you cite is correct or not. But this proposal, to amend this project’s

talk) 23:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Question are we getting
  Yard numbers confused here? Yard numbers are not used as disambiguators. Mjroots (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • No, we're talking about USN hull numbers (which for some reason, the SHIPS guideline treats differently than pennant numbers, which is what I'm trying to have corrected). Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The issue is that USN hull numbers are not really treated the same as Pennant numbers, but are often used as alternative names - sources will say things like "RAST was tested aboard FFG 8 in 1981..." (a quote from Conway's), and will refer to classes by the lead ship's hull number (e.g. FFG 7 class). While it isn't part of the name of the ship (except where it is - i.e. for things like LSTs), it is a pretty regularly used alternative to the name and as such probably warrants appearing somewhere prominantly in the lead - so Oppose as written , although the hull number should probably be separated more clearly from the actual name to avoid giving the impression that it is part of a single name.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, the proposal as written is to stop writing articles with the format USS Foo (XX-123), which it doesn't sound like you're opposed to doing. I have no objection to including them in the lead (which I had done at USS Torsk, and was what started this whole kerfuffle in the first place). Parsecboy (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - this is a
  wolf 20:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Did you want to address the first three points (i.e., the main ones) with more than a dismissive hand wave? It’s no secret that a small group of editors

talk) 21:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, I disagree with the first point, I believe hull numbers are part of the ship's name, along with the prefix (please don't tell me you wanna get rid of those as well). That basically negate's the second point; they are not Wikipedia disambiguators and therefore should not be treated as such. The bungling attempt to do so a few years led to some USN ship pages with hull numbers and some without, and the on-going confusion and disruption that followed as a result. There is, to some degree at least, a difference between hull numbers and pennant numbers, which is why I've only addressed hull numbers (USN hull numbers to be specific). You and Ed keep asking why do we need these numbers included in article titles and lead sentences, and to that I ask; why this desperate push to remove them en-masse, when they're already there, have been since the beginning, and there is only the likely potential for more confusion and disruption and no appreciable benefit?

I do take this seriously... I think think this is a serious mistake. -

wolf 23:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, frankly, you're wrong. They're not part of a ship's name, plain and simple (if you're curious, you might wonder why a USN style guide advises writers "For first reference always include USS, the ship's name and the hull number", why NHHC explains that ships are "identified by their name (if any) and hull number" [and also makes clear that the USS prefix is not part of the name, another point you're mistaken about] why the NVR differentiates between hull IDs and ship names, the USCG does the same, as does this Navy report for Congress). That fact that we treat them as names contributes to the misapprehension (which has claimed you as a victim, apparently) that they are part of the name. This is the fundamental problem with how we treat hull numbers on Wikipedia. We should not be spreading misinformation. Parsecboy (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oy. Is your intention to pounce on every. single. comment. that doesn't completely support your position? Your persistent

wolf 03:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The point of a discussion like this is to discuss the issue at hand so we can arrive at a consensus. And in your specific case, if someone is operating under a plainly incorrect assumption, do you not think it wise to educate them? They might reconsider their position (well, one would hope; instead, we’ve completely ignored that in favor of ridiculous strawmen about my “desperate needs”. So much for good faith)

talk) 10:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support re. Pennant Numbers, Soft-Oppose re. US Hull numbers. Pennant numbers make for poor disambiguators IMO, as they are neither unique or chronologically sequential. They are unique only for ships currently in service, as their function is as operational shorthand identifiers. Especially for capital ships, where there is no flag superior, they are confusing. For all of these reasons, I have always felt that pennant numbers were a poor choice for disambiguators, and and were most likely used for some apparent consistency with US ship. US Hull numbers are different, however - as far as I am aware they ARE unique, and they do seem to have more widespread use amongst the public. To me, US Hull numbers do seem to be valid disambiguators so I don't see much need to stop using them in that way. That said, using the launch year is never going to be wrong. Martocticvs (talk) 08:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal isn’t about disambiguators for article titles, but whether they should be included in the bold text in the first sentence of the article. For some reason, our guideline says we should treat pennant and hull numbers differently

talk) 09:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Right, sorry. Although I think my comments above can be applied to that as well. Martocticvs (talk) 10:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - can you explain why pennant numbers should be treated as the MoS suggests but hull numbers shouldn’t? It seems to me that we should be consistent with how he handle disambiguators.

talk) 10:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

My knowledge of US ships is limited so I don't really have a strong opinion on it. But the way I look at it is that in the example Egg (food), 'food' is not an intrinsic property of Egg. Sure, it often is used as food, (in most cases) usually has the potential to be food, but it's not an actual property of an egg. BB-61 on the other hand IS an intrinsic property of USS Iowa - at least to the same extent that the name itself is. Together with widespread public use, that is why I view it as OK both for disambig. and to appear in article leads if authors wish. I don't think it should be bolded, however, as it is not part of the ship's name. You can say the same things about Pennant numbers as used in the RN et al, but as I've already said they are somewhat more ephemeral, and are definitely not widely used by the public. I do agree that we should be consistent. Martocticvs (talk) 22:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are generally in agreement, and that you don't actually object to this proposal, which is limited to stopping the practice of placing hull numbers in bold text in the lead. There's nothing wrong with including them (preferably with a link to hull number as I did at USS Torsk, or pennant numbers are frequently treated as at HMS Hood). The one thing I'd add about the seemingly more durable nature of hull numbers is that many ships change them over the course of their careers, particularly in earlier decades before the United States Navy 1975 ship reclassification program, which more or less solidified the nomenclature. Parsecboy (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - USS Indiana (BB-1) is a good example of why our current practices are broken. The ship never wore the hull number and Indiana (and in reality, by that time, Coast Battleship Number 1) was at the bottom of the Chesapeake when the USN's hull number system was instituted, and yet we've got it in the article title and bolded in the intro. We are actively propagating the false idea that there ever was a "USS Indiana" with BB-1 painted on the side. There are many ships that fall into this category; USS Tennessee (ACR-10) never wore that hull number, let alone while under the name Tennessee. Why are we perpetuating bad information, in bold text, in the lead of our articles? Parsecboy (talk) 12:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This I can definitely see being perceived as an issue, and it is technically incorrect. But I will point out that other databases and archives use those unofficial hull numbers for disambiguation so they still have some sort of organization. So this isn't unique to Wikipedia. GansMans (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another example: USS Arkansas (BM-7); there never was a "USS Arkansas BM-7"; there was a "USS Arkansas M-7" and a "USS Ozark (BM-7)". As to other sources, how many of those are reflections on our practices, which have been going on for 15+ years? Webber's Monitors of the US Navy correctly reflects that BM-7 was attached to Ozark, not Arkansas. Webber, published in 1969, got it right, but Osprey titles (published in 2019 and 2021, respectively) appear to be parroting Wikipedia. Citogenesis related to Wikipedia is a well-known phenomenon, and we should use caution when determining whether something is commonly done outside of Wikipedia, because it may well be influenced by Wikipedia. Parsecboy (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support I see no reason to bold hull numbers in conjunction with the ship's name in the lede. They're not part of the ship's name and refer to the ship's role or classification, with the number being its place in the roster of ships with that classification. I can accept the hull number being given somewhere in the lede, but, offhand, I'm at a bit of a loss of how to phrase that gracefully. In the USS Missouri (BB-63) article that I'm working on, I moved that to the construction para as that's when the hull number is allocated. The reason that you run across references to ships solely by their hull number is that doing so is often easier that writing out the ship's full name.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why bother...?

@Parsecboy: that is the question, one of many. Why bother with this discussion? Why ask all these people for their responses if they never mattered to you in the first place? This discussion is still active, yet you are now on an editing spree, changing numerous ship pages: (BB-1), (BB-2), (BM-6),(BM-9), (CL-105), (CL-104), (CL-103), (CL-102), (CL-101), (CL-90), CL-89), (CL-87), (CL-86), (CL-50), (CL-49), (CL-45). In edit summaries and tp comments, you've repeatedly stated that the "local consensus..." (here on wt:ships) "has no bearing" (on your interpretation of) "the MoS", and then just "MOS:FIRST" repeatedly.

I don't see how mos:first supports these mass-changes of content, of long-standing, consensus-supported content on FA & GA pages, and apparently I'm not the only one. I reverted two of those edits (BB-1 & BB-2), as this discussion was still active, (and per

The discussion is happening because the guideline here should be corrected. But the fact that it is currently wrong doesn't preclude me from editing articles to bring them into compliance with the MoS. As I already told you, Wikiprojects don't control articles, and any editing guidelines they might put together are in no way binding. There's nothing for me to discuss at the MoS, since I don't have a problem with it as written. If you want the hull numbers to remain in bold in the intro, you can go to the MoS and get it amended. It really is that simple.

I've already made clear how

MOS:FIRST

supports what I've been doing. But since you have apparently missed it previously, see this line:

"Similarly, if the title has a parenthetical disambiguator, such as Egg (food), "(food)" should be omitted in the text"

Hopefully that clears things up for you.

Consider this your last warning. If you don't stop hounding my edits, we're headed to ANI. Parsecboy (talk) 13:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... another threat? And what is the ANI gonna be about? How I "hounded" you yesterday, with a whopping total of two reverts, to two separate articles, both on my watchlist, and haven't made a single edit to your contribs since? (That is, since your last threat.) Imo, this type of behaviour, from an admin no less, is designed to have a

pivot

to an MOS tp. That's just not cricket.

As for the MOS, what's "clear" is that you believe it supports your position, but that doesn't mean it does. That's why, when your edits are challenged, you need to stop making them and start discussing, as opposed to edit-warring, posting threats, and other generally hostile behaviour (like wasting people's time, ignoring other editor's postions, and posting these dismissive, condescending comments, while claiming you don't think you're superior to anyone else here). What's more, while editor's generally can make changes to content, when the subject of that content is currently being disputed and discussed, then you need to stop editing, join the discussion (if you like), and/or await a consensus. What you don't do is make a series of edits in a despertate race change numerous articles to your preferred version, disrupting them in process. I again suggest you self-revert all those pages back to QUO, and await the outcome of this discussion, that you started, and that directly addresses this dispute. -

wolf 01:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

It’s only a threat if you can’t find it within your control to stop stalking my edits. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be a problem, now would it?

No, the language at the MoS is abundantly clear. Do we include disambiguators in the first sentence? No. Plain and simple. You say my interpretation has been challenged, but what’s stopping you from providing an alternate interpretation?

What this boils down to is your mistaken belief that hull numbers aren't disambiguators, but rather part of the ship’s name. Trouble is, your assertion is patently false, but you still have refused to even acknowledge that I pointed this out, let alone try to argue your point. Instead, you filibuster here. Why is that?

talk) 01:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

"It’s only a threat if you can’t find it within your control to stop stalking my edits." - it's only "hounding" and "stalking" and if you can provide the evidence to support it. I've lost count of the number of times you've now posted this same, empty accusation, which is an

wolf 02:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

"No, the language at the MoS is abundantly clear. Do we include disambiguators in the first sentence? No." - but they are not disambiguators we've added, they already come attached. They are nomenclature included with the ship's name by the Navy, and then again by virtually every source we use. You continue to filibuster over semantics, using the phrase "part of the ship's name" as literally and as limiting as possible, ignoring any explanation and reasoning provided, to drag this on as long as possible. Why? Because your proposal, the one you posted here in the first place, did not get the consensus you wanted, and now before the discussion is even closed, you keep going on these mass-editing binges to change the content being discussed anyway. You need to stop your tendentious editing and follow the process. -

wolf 02:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

And now User:GansMans has decided to mass edit his preference into articles, arguing that no-one is allowed to change the article as long as there is an ongoing discussion. This is not acceptable behaviour and probably needs to go to ANI. .Nigel Ish (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Ish: I'm sorry, but why is User:ParsecBoy allowed to mass edit war but I get in trouble for cleaning it up? He's been told twice now by User:Thewolfchild to stop his edits. GansMans (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested in pursuing this discussion, but it has become abundantly clear that the two of you are only interested in stonewalling. Engage in good faith or stop wasting our time. Parsecboy (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that when you revert peoples edits, it's not you stonewalling, it's us "acting in bad faith." But when we are reverting yours, we are the ones stonewalling. If this goes to ANI, it's not the slam dunk you think it is. You are not coming across as the good guy here. You will not be unscathed if administrators determine that action is needed. That is not a threat, it's simply pointing out that your behavior here over the last 2 weeks has been questionable and some of it has been worthy of reprimand. GansMans (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be abundantly clear. I have attempted to debate the merits of this issue with you and TWC; both of you have repeatedly refused to actually engage on the points. Instead, you have made nonsensical and patently false arguments, and have stood content to stonewall when challenged on them. You are the individuals here who are not discussing the issue in good faith. Parsecboy (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How you be acting in good faith while simultaneously threatening, insulting, and refusing to cooperate with your fellow editors? How can we be acting in bad faith trying to find compromise? You won't budge an inch, let alone meet us halfway. GansMans (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I insulted anyone? If you feel insulted by my description of your behavior, maybe you should do some honest self reflection and think if the reason you feel insulted is because you know it’s true. Show me literally one diff where you actually responded to one of my points, rather than move the goalposts, make spurious claims, or pretend I haven’t said something I clearly said, and I’ll retract what I’ve said.

There is no room for compromise here; you want the hull numbers bolded in the intro, I don’t. One of us has the MoS to support our position, one of us doesn’t. What’s your proposed compromise, we bold the letters but not the numbers? Where exactly do I meet you halfway? This is a binary, it’s yes or no.

talk) 23:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

GansMans - did you want to respond to my question here? What compromise do you see possible in this situation? And do you see how your continued refusal to actually engage on the points I raise and instead focus on how "insulting" I've been (while directly insulting me, I might add - I haven't called anyone a prick) only confirms to me that you aren't discussing this issue in good faith? Because if you were, you would actually respond to my questions? Parsecboy (talk) 12:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse to engage in a discussion until you apologize for the way you've treated me over the last 2 1/2 weeks. You've been disrespectful to so many editors that you being told you were acting like a prick is the least insulting thing anyones said has said. If you can't handle being told you're being rude and disrespectful, that's on you. GansMans (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll have to assume you've conceded the point, then, as I will not apologize for calling out your bad behavior over the course of this discussion. I do not have to tolerate your repeated lies about what I've said, your logical fallacies, and

refusal to get the point. And no, you didn't say I was "acting like a prick", you said I was "being an overall prick"; try to soften your insults all you like, but our "semi-private" discussion is open for all to see. Parsecboy (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Then you have no self respect. Anyone with any would admit to their wrongdoings and apologize. But apparently that's too hard for you. I'll start. I'm sorry I said you were being a prick. I was pointing out you were being disrespectful and then crossed the line myself. It was too brash and straight forward. And for that I apologize. Now it's your turn.

I haven't conceded. I'm simply waiting for the apology I deserve.GansMans (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How's about you apologize for repeatedly lying about what I've said and refusing to admit your false statements and tendentious debate tactics, and then I'll apologize for calling out your bad behavior? The fact that you can say "Anyone with [self respect] any would admit to their wrongdoings"], and yet you still refuse to engage with this comment from 2 weeks ago. Let me be blunt: either admit that you were engaging in tendentious debate tactics or explain how you somehow weren't (in a way that is satisfactory to me - simply saying you didn't won't cut it) and I will be more than happy to bury the hatchet. But until you can admit how your bad behavior caused this entire problem, we don't have much to talk about. Parsecboy (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shame. Even when provided an opportunity to right your wrongs you still choose to sour the water...and you refuse to admit you had a hand in escalating the entire predicament. GansMans (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeatedly said I've lost my patience with you during this discussion. Have I gotten exasperated with you? Sure. But I have not insulted you or belittled you (even when you've done the same to me). Do you not see how your repeated refusal to even address your behavior in infuriating? I made a simple request, now at least three times, that you explain why you've moved the goalposts when I've demonstrated that you were incorrect, and you can't bring yourself to do it. Why is that?

If you are doubting my sincerity in this discussion, I once had an editor of this project more or less directly accuse me of abusing my children during a rather heated discussion about that person's interactions with a third editor (who has since been banned on an unrelated issue), and while they and I avoided each other for some time, we are (as far as I'm aware) perfectly fine mow. I won't say more than that as I'm not particularly interested in dredging up something that happened several years ago and is water under the bridge at this point. I see no reason why you and I can't also bury the hatchet. Believe it or not, there was a time when TWC and I got along, but then he resumed his old patterns (a comment he referenced at Torsk, but you wouldn't have caught the point of that comment). Again, if you think TWC's characterization of me is a good one, you might want to consider the possibility that he's an unreliable narrator. Parsecboy (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(arbitrary break #2)

The first problem is your reading of MOS: "Similarly, if the title has a parenthetical disambiguator, such as Egg (food), "(food)" should be omitted in the text"... these are not WP dabs, created and added by WP editors to disambiguate same-named items, but merely part of the ships name that the Navy has added as part of their nomenclature to organize the ships. And it doesn't matter if it was on the side of the hull or not. As far as the Navy is concerned, it's part of the name. Now on that point, let's clear up some phrasing here; "part of the name", "attached to the name", etc., - I'm using them synonymously, you are using them disruptively. There is the ship's given name, "Foo", but also the prefix, "USS" and hull number, "ABC-1", which combined altogether make the full name; "USS Foo (ABC-1)". Numerous sources report ship names this way, the very sources we rely on. This is not "specialist knowldge", it's everyday info that everyday readers, of either the attached sources or our ship articles (or both), look for and understand. I said before, your argument is not as solid as you seem to believe. Certainly not enough to change the long-established, consensus-supported content that you are seeking to omit or drastically alter, in dozens if not hundreds of articles. And that still doesn't take your behaviour into account; the mass-changes your're cramming through (during a debate), the battle-ground attitude, the edit warring, the threats and bogus accusations, and so on, and so forth. This is disputed content, including at (DD-5), (DD-1), (DD-2), (DD-3), (DD-4), (DD-10), (DD-11), (DD-12), (DD-13), yet you keep changing these articles to suit your preferences, without regard for the relevant polices and guidelines, or essays you've cited, or even the whole dispute resolution process. It applies to you, just like everyone else. -

Provide literally a single .mil source that supports the idea that hull numbers are part of a ship’s name. I provided you several that say otherwise above, which you conveniently ignored. We can address the other points you made after you provide a source to support your assertion, but I can assure you, they are equally baseless. But first things first, a source please.

talk) 08:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Just go to https://www.navy.mil/, there are two ships currently highlighted on the main page that both include the prefix "USS" (you're not looking to get rid of that as well, are ya?) and both include the hull numbers. Same goes for just about any ship you care to search out via that page. They all appear to include hull numbers, just like most of the secondary sourcing we use. -

wolf 02:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Is that supposed to be a joke? No one is disputing that hull numbers exist. You need to provide a source that explicitly states they are part of the ship’s name, not purely disambiguatory information appended to the name. Otherwise your position here is completely baseless.

talk) 08:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

"Is that supposed to be a joke?" - you've been treating this whole process as a joke. I really don't even know why we're here, since you're just making the changes you want anyway. You just seem to like arguing, making shit up as you go, one strawman after another. This is fast becoming pointless... -

wolf 13:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Thewolfchild - still waiting on that source, friend. While we're waiting, let's address the red herring about hull numbers being special and different because Wikipedia didn't come up with them. Firstly, the argument amounts to

MOS:FIRST

makes no exceptions for "special" disambiguators. We don't include them in bold text in the lead, full stop. And this argument ignores the fact that the Navy adopted hull numbers to disambiguate their ships.

Second, what makes you think hull numbers are unique in this regard? Do you believe that the Wiki sages of old invented the concept of using the year of launch to disambiguate ships? They didn't. Do me a favor and flip to the end of any edition of Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships and tell me how they decided to differentiate ships of the same name in the index. I'll give you an example, from the 1922-1945 edition: USS Ranger (CV-4) is listed as "Ranger (USA/1934)". Clearly, using the year of launch as a disambiguator did not originate on this project. Parsecboy (talk) 09:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"still waiting on that source, friend." - Erm, I didn't edit at all yesterday, "friend". I am not at your beck and call.

"let's address the red herring about hull numbers being special and different..." - nice strawman. I've never once claimed they are "special and different". Quite the opposite actually, hull numbers are a routine part of the naming used on numerous ship articles, many of them FA & GA, and going back years (some as old as the project itself), utilized by countless editors.

"fundamental point is that hull numbers are disambiguators." - a point of view that you keep hanging your hat on. Just how do you propose we disambiguate ships of the same name?

"Second, what makes you think hull numbers are unique in this regard?" - quote please, or redact, admit you lied, apologize and move on.

"Do you believe that the Wiki sages of old invented the concept of using the year of launch to disambiguate ships?" - um... what are you on about now?

"Do me a favor and flip to the end of any edition of Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships and tell me how they decided to differentiate ships of the same name in the index. I'll give you an example, from the 1922-1945 edition:

wolf 13:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

1. Didn't say you were, but you did respond here without providing a source.
2. "they are not disambiguators we've added, they already come attached" - you are asserting that they are special disambiguators, because reasons. So no, I will not be striking or redacting anything, because I haven't lied. You just don't like the fundamental logic (or lack thereof) of your argument pointed out.
3. You've missed the point entirely. I don't myself care what we use to disambiguate articles. If you look at the big RfC I've cited previously, I didn't actually comment in it. Hull numbers are perfectly fine to use as disambiguators. The issue at hand is how we treat hull numbers (or any other disambiguator) in the text.
4. See the diff cited in #2. You are asserting that hull numbers are special because the USN invented them, not Wikipedia. And also these are not WP dabs, created and added by WP editors to disambiguate same-named items. If you're going to make an argument, stand by it, don't pretend you didn't That's tendentious!
5. See above. You seem to think that only dabs invented by Wikipedia need to follow
   MOS:FIRST
6. Not at all. What was that about strawmen you were complaining about earlier? Parsecboy (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]