Template talk:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide/Archive 1

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.

The output and name for |Ship depth= shows as "depth" (see SS Edmund Fitzgerald) when it should output as "Moulded depth" or "Molded depth". This change would more specific and explanatory both for the reader and the user of the infobox. "Depth" alone is too vague especially when confused with submarine or shipwrecks. Brad (talk) 22:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

How often such confusions happen? While moulded depth is usually the only depth value defined for ships, I think the infobox field names should be kept as short and general as possible. "Depth" is at the same level with "Breadth", "Draft" and "Length" while "Moulded depth" could be grouped with "Moulded breadth", "Waterline length", "Scantling draft", "Length between perpendiculars" etc. Tupsumato (talk) 06:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Copied from main page -- saberwyn 02:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Ship power

• (I do not know what this field is used for...it seems redundant to propulsion)
  • Not at all, provides the horsepower of the engine(s) used by the ship.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Usage I've seen puts horsepower or equivalent values in Propulsion with the rest of the engine data. Is separating the two something that has to be done, and if so, something we should be emphasising? -- saberwyn 02:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
• This coule probably use some discussion. Some editors use this to describe the ship's power plant, typically
  Haus^Talk
  10:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I usually use custom fields for main and auxiliary engines because "installed power" just feels... wrong. Some general guideline discussion could be useful... Tupsumato (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
    • For the aforementioned fields I have usually used the following notation: no of engines × [[engine manufacturer]] engine model (no of engines × output per engine in kW) (
      example). I think this is the most compact and most informative way. Also, I don't think it is necessary to mention engine type (diesel engine) in case of motor ships — it should be described in the article body. Tupsumato (talk
      ) 16:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Indicate the propulsion system used by a vessel, including the number and type of boilers, engines, and/or turbines, the amount of power being supplied, and the number and type of propellers
• Any auxiliary or alternate propulsion equipment (such as bow thrusters or backup systems) can also be indicated here
  • I'd say "propulsion" should be reserved for propellers, propulsion motors, thrusters etc. and engine types etc. should be listed in a separate field. As said above, discussion regarding this issue could be useful. Tupsumato (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Copy ends

So far, I'm seeing the following thoughts as to the usage of this field (with examples from data at

1. "Power" is redundant to "Propulsion", with all engine data listed in the latter. Alternately, "Power" is used to represent onboard electrical generation capability.

   |Ship power=4 x MTU diesel generators

   |Ship propulsion=

   Combined Diesel or Gas (CODOG):
   1 x General Electric LM2500-30 gas turbine, 30,172 hp (22,499 kW)
   2 x MTU 12V1163 TB83 diesel engines, 8,840 hp (6,590 kW) each
   2 x controllable-pitch propellers

2. "Power" should include the output of the engines, with the mechanics in "Propulsion".

   |Ship power=

   Combined Diesel or Gas

   (CODOG):
   30,172 hp (22,499 kW) gas turbine
   2 x 8,840 hp (6,590 kW) diesel engines

   |Ship propulsion=1 x General Electric LM2500-30 gas turbine
   2 x MTU 12V1163 TB83 diesel engines
   2 x controllable-pitch propellers

3. "Power" includes all engine data, with "Propulsion" limited to the bits where force meets water to cause motion.

   |Ship power=

   Combined Diesel or Gas

   (CODOG):
   1 x General Electric LM2500-30 gas turbine, 30,172 hp (22,499 kW)
   2 x MTU 12V1163 TB83 diesel engines, 8,840 hp (6,590 kW) each

   |Ship propulsion=2 x controllable-pitch propellers

Any advice suggestions on the preferred form and content are appreciated. Also, there is some confusion/concern about the term "installed power", which is generated by the "Power" field: one or both fields may need renaming, or have the generated text altered. -- saberwyn 03:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, I would prefer the last one, in which power generation (electrical. mechanical, steam?) is separated from the power usage components (propellers, propulsion motors, thrusters). While I do support listing also the auxiliary generators, they should have a separate field after the main engines. "Installed power" is too ambiguous and "big" — in worst case it can refer to anything from main engines to emergency generator. For mechant ships I would prefer terms "main engines(/generators)" and "auxiliary generators(/engines)". Tupsumato (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. For most military ship articles, the power field is used for total propulsive power (eg that Good Article,

Iowa class battleship

). This is universally true for 19th century ships, where electrical power was not fitted. I'd be opposed to any changes to the infobox in this respect. Thus:

|Ship power=212,000 shp (158,000 kW)

|Ship propulsion=4 screws;
General Electric geared turbines;
8 Babcock & Wilcox Boilers; G.E.

Shem (talk) 09:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not proposing changing the existing articles. However, being a contributor in the field of civilian shipping, I'm mainly concerned about the suitability of the fields for merchant vessels, which have main engines or generators, auxiliary generators, shaft generators, emergency generators and so on in one end and propellers and thrusters in the other. Of course omitting everything but the main engines from the infobox is an alternative, albeit not an attractive one. Tupsumato (talk) 10:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

To throw further fuel on the fire, Jane's Fighting Ships and The Naval Institute Guide to Combat Ships of the World contain everything within a single field.

@Shem : So, for the Anzac example above, version 2 should be more like:

1. |Ship power=30,172 hp (22,499 kW) gas turbine
   2 x 8,840 hp (6,590 kW) diesel engines

   |Ship propulsion=

   Combined Diesel or Gas (CODOG):
   1 x General Electric LM2500-30 gas turbine
   2 x MTU 12V1163 TB83 diesel engines
   2 x controllable-pitch propellers

@Tpusmato: Limiting it to "the bits that make up the primary propulsion system" and elaborating in the article would probably save on infobox bloat. -- saberwyn 00:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

1. |Ship power= 3 × Wärtsilä 12V46D engines (13,860 kW or 18,590 hp each)
   3 × Wärtsilä 16V46D engines (18,480 kW or 24,780 hp each)

   |Ship propulsion= 3 × 20 MW

   ABB Azipod, all azimuthing^[1]
   4 × 5.5 MW Wärtsilä

   CT3500 bow thrusters

Tupsumato (talk) 06:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I second the last notation from Tupsumato; as ship power I understand how the generation of energy (mostly kinetical or electrical) is done and how much of it (power) can be supplied to consumers; and as ship propulsion I understand by which means the ship is propelled, I would only add information about the propellers available (2 x 7.5MW SAM/VEM electric motors with controllable pitch twin screw propeller); I would also explicitly note, if propulsion is direct drive or not --Zevnik (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm seeing way more info in these examples that I think is appropriate for the infobox. Remember,

WP:IBX says that the purpose of the infobox is "to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." So all I think is appropriate for the infobox is # of propeller shafts/water jets, etc., main and secondary engines (forex a CODOG or turbo-electric installation), boilers if any, and the amount of power generated. All the rest of stuff (propeller diameter, variable pitch, bow thrusters, etc.) belongs in the main body where it can be explained more thoroughly. And I'll remind people that early destroyers experimented with more than one propeller per shaft so # of shafts and propellers is not synonymous.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk

) 16:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that not everything needs to be included in the infobox, but the amount of information that should be included to the propulsion field depends on the ship. If there's a dozen propellers stirring the water in every direction, there's no need to specify the manufacturer and power rating of each thruster, but in case of simple ships e.g. the diameter of the propeller could be included if otherwise the field would just say "fixed-pitch propeller". Tupsumato (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

So the question probably is, is this a key fact or not. I'd wote for yes: it can be explained in <3 lines, which nicely fit into a box; and from my usage of info, this (is prop directly driven or not) was exactly what I was looking for the other day, someone else might be interested in if props are CPPs or FPPs; but I agree, that we have to be carefull not to bloat it --Zevnik (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand mechanical powertrain is the "default setting" in ships, so it might not be necessary to mention it in the infobox. I've specified the type of powertrain only if it has been something else, such as diesel-electric. Tupsumato (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with omiting this information since a reader cannot distinguish between ommited "default setting" and ommited "information not available or unknown" --Zevnik (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, did someone actually build a ship with diesel-electric powertrain AND controllable pitch propellers? What's the point in that? Tupsumato (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

According to this and MS_Marina and MV Seabourn Quest there exists this kind of combination (as I can see, mostly on cruising ships); I'd presume it has the same function as on plane props-higher manoeuvrability; how fast can a 20MW electric motor change rpms from 0 to max? CP propellers need maximum 40 seconds --Zevnik (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Even 20 MW electric motors should be fast enough so that FPPs could be used in place of CPPs without compromising maneuverability. Tupsumato (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

While that's true, I still think it could be omitted from the infobox and described in the article body in most cases. Although many readers are not as familiar with ships as we are, I would assume most would nevertheless expect that the propulsion system consisted of, by default, engine(s) connected to propeller(s) instead of a more complex and not as common electric, hydraulic etc. powertrain. Of course if there's space in the infobox, more detailed information could be added to this field as well. I'll see if I come up with a good wording proposal later today. Tupsumato (talk) 03:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if we should include a picture like this (without the factual errors, of course) next to the explanation about the ship's main dimensions. Other illustration would, in my opinion, also be welcome. Tupsumato (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Career

• Now that modular construction and pre-fabrication is a common element in ship construction, should we also have a "First steel cut" field, as this is become a milestone in ship construction? -- saberwyn 03:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

"From a military pov ships are still "laid down" the date the keel is laid. Brad (talk) 03:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• I think "Ship Renamed" and "Ship Reclassified" may be redundant, the former to using "Ship Name" with multiple dated entires in the field, and the latter to data in the "Characteristics" subtemplate. Should these fields be depreciated/removed? -- saberwyn 03:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Reclassified refers to a military ship having it's designation changed. ie: something like (CVGN) to (CVN). Renamed is still useful. Brad (talk) 03:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Do we list minor/proficiency/competition awards (like the Battle Effectiveness Award, Gloucester Cup, and similar) in the "Honours" field? I'm personally against it, but is the inclusion/exclusion something we should be emphasising in the template help, or an article-by-article decision? -- saberwyn 03:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

  Not fussed. Shem (talk) 09:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Minor issue really. The rule is not to overload the template. Brad (talk) 03:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Class Overview

• I think the "Planned" field should be moved up to occur above "Building". -- saberwyn 03:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Brad (talk) 03:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• What is the difference between the "Laid up" and "Retired" fields? -- saberwyn 03:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

"Laid up" is a military ship in reserve. "Retired" would be ships now out of service and scrapped or other final fates. Brad (talk) 03:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The term can also be used for civilian ships. Tupsumato (talk) 04:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• The infobox needs somewhere to record dive wrecks and other ships that meet fates other than loss, scrapping, and preservation. This can either be a new field, or a modification of one of the others (probably easiest to achieve by tweaking "Scrapping" to read "Disposed of". -- saberwyn 03:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Not so sure about that. That sort of info is best saved for the main body rather than the infobox, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I support "disposed of" to replace "scrapped" since many naval vessels are sunk as targets or dive sites instead of being scrapped. I also think that the "sunk" field should be reserved for ships that were lost due to accidents or enemy action. I also² think that such change could be implemented directly to the infobox without going through every ship class article beforehand. Tupsumato (talk) 04:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Characteristics

• What is the "Hold depth" field for? Is it redundant to "Capacity"? -- saberwyn 03:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It's the measurement from the bottom of the top deck to the bottom of the ship's hold. This does not include keel depth. Brad (talk) 03:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• The "Power" and "Propulsion" fields need to be sorted: see below section -- saberwyn 03:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Should listing civilian ship passenger capacity be spun off into a new "Passengers" field, as a companion to "Troops"? -- saberwyn 03:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The Capacity field can also be used for passenger capacity; not just cargo capacity. Brad (talk) 03:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I know. It just seems a bit odd that civilian passengers are lumped in with cargo and vehicles, but military passengers get a field of their own. -- saberwyn 21:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not very knowledgable about ships, and it was quite disheartening, when I first came across the infobox ship templates, to be told that "most fields are self-explanatory". I was glad to find this guide, and I've been finding it incredibly useful. Shouldn't it be linked to from the template documentation? I appreciate it's a work-in-progress, but a rough guide is better than no guide at all. DoctorKubla (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm okay with that as most fields have been thoroughly explained, but I'm still waiting for comments regarding some issues (e.g. power and propulsion) from the senior members of the project. Also, we have to be sure that the guide represents the consensus of the project because putting a link anywhere in public. Tupsumato (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like to re-open the discussion about the usage of these fields in order to bring the guide towards completion. Please see earlier discussion about the topic. In my recent articles, I have used the "installed power" field to list the main components of the power generation system and their outputs, and the "propulsion" field to give an overview of the propulsion system (type, number of shafts and shaft output, propulsor types etc.). For example:

|Ship power = KLT-40M nuclear reactor (171 MW)
2 × GTA 6421-OM5 turbogenerators (2 × 18,400 kW)

|Ship propulsion = Nuclear-turbo-electric (AC/AC)
Three shafts (3 × 12,000 kW); 4-bladed fixed pitch propellers

or

|Ship power = 12 × Caterpillar 3512B DITA (12 × 1,258 kW)

|Ship propulsion = 2 × ABB Azipod (2 × 5 MW)
3 × Brunvoll bow thrusters (3 × 1,150 kW)

or

|Ship power = Low-speed diesel engine (approx. 29,000 kW)

|Ship propulsion = Single shaft; fixed pitch propeller

I admit that my editing lacks consistency and I don't expect everyone to use the same format all the time, but in my opinion the general division to "power generation" and "power usage" between the two fields is better than, for example, using the power field only to give the total power in hp/kW and stacking everything else from boilers to rudders to the propulsion field. Of course the division is not always clear, but perhaps we could have some "rules of thumbs" regarding most common propulsion arrangements. In addition, some style hints (e.g. &nbsp; between numbers and units) could be given. What do you think? Tupsumato (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I've been running AWB for a while, mainly in order to fix some template and conversion issues, but I have also kept an eye on how the power and propulsion fields are used. Quite often everything is lumped in the "propulsion" field, perhaps with just the output in the "power" field. There appears to be as many ways to present the data as there are editors, which is of course not a big deal, but we could aim for some kind of consistency. Although usually there are no issues, sometimes I wish there were some general advices or recommendations what to put to the infobox and what to the article body. We could also discuss the level of detail (e.g. should we always state in the infobox that the engines are "diesels", especially if the exact type is given?). Tupsumato (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The power/propulsion fields were added to the prior template as the result of this discussion, which may shed some light on the reason for two fields and the distinction between them.

Kablammo (talk

) 16:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems that the original intention was to separate "total installed power" from the description of the physical components of the power plant, as I suspected. I will write something to the infobox guide and we can continue working on that. Tupsumato (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

May I argue again for the addition of links for all of the arcane nautical terminology like tons burthen, beam, etc? While some may well regard the "bluification" of somewhere around half of the infobox terms as annoying pollution, it would save me and everyone else the considerable effort of linking these terms manually in the main body.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)