Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 40

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Well if a user objects to changing something that has been in position for a long time and where the guidance or MoS is ambiguous then, its probably time to stop making that change until the consensus position is established. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm having trouble reading your comment as anything other than an accusation of wrongdoing. It implies that I continue to make those particular edits and am ignoring Editor Foxxraven's objection. I have not used the AWB script that strips prefixes from the |Ship name= parameter in {{infobox ship career}} templates since Editor Foxxraven's first post on my talk page. If you have evidence to the contrary, please show it.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

If we are talking about |ship name=, there is no need to include the prefix to that field. The prefix is not part of the ship's name. Tupsumato (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, it is not part of the name of the ship. In my view, it is a type of "honorific" derived from the status of the vessel as a commissioned naval ship - perhaps a bit like "Professor" for an academic that has a particular status. Davidships (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

That's not how it works either. It's not an honorific, and it's not part of the name - it's a prefix. One does not say "the ship U.S.S. Kitty Hawk" - that's redundant, as 'ship' is in the 'USS' prefix. The ship name is the ship's name, no more and no less. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Can you really equate a ships prefix with the honorific 'Professor'? Presumably academics don't pop out of the womb as fully formed Professors; they had to earn that honorific.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hence my "a bit like". No of course it's not the same. But it doesn't pop out of the shipyard as an HMS (question is about British examples, US may be different); it has to be formally commissioned into the Navy to be an HMS/HMCS. That quite a different thing to "delivery" by the shipyard. But anyway, we agree that it's not part of the name. Davidships (talk) 12:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Live

History
Spain
Name	list error: <br /> list (help) Using break 1 Using break 2 Using break 3 Using break 4 Using break 5 Using break 6
Namesake	Standard * list 1 Standard * list 2 Standard * list 3 Standard * list 4 Standard * list 5 Standard * list 6

Sandbox

History
Spain
Name	Plainlist css class 1 Plainlist css class 2 Plainlist css class 3 Plainlist css class 4 Plainlist css class 5 Plainlist css class 6

In the infobox Usage guide under the heading

The infoboxes at right have lists:

live infobox using <br /> markup with items on separate lines (shows the vertical offset and the gap between the last two items):

|Ship name=Using break 1<br />

Using break 2<br />

Using break 3<br />

Using break 4<br />

Using break 5<br />

Using break 6

live infobox using standard * list markup (this also shows a slight vertical offset):

|Ship namesake=*Standard * list 1

*Standard * list 2

*Standard * list 3

**Standard * list 4

*Standard * list 5

*Standard * list 6

modified sandbox infobox using standard * list markup but displaying the bulleted list as a plainlist:

|Ship name=*Plainlist css class 1

*Plainlist css class 2

*Plainlist css class 3

**Plainlist css class 4

*Plainlist css class 5

*Plainlist css class 6

There is an artifact to this: in normal * list markup, the ** markup indents the list item. This does not appear to work with the plainlist class (it doesn't work in the {{plainlist}} template either). A workaround is to insert    between the * and the list item value.

It would seem that we could, perhaps should:

1. Modify {{infobox ship career}} and {{infobox ship characteristics}} to use the plainlist class for those parameters where lists are permissible
2. Edit the usage guide to deprecate <br /> formatting and to specify the use of * list markup as the preferred list method
3. Create a bot that will sift through these templates and replace <br /> formatting with * list markup and also remove existing {{plainlist}} templates.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

A fix to common.css now makes plainlist act like the normal * list markup where ** indents one level from the item above it.

I have made these parameters 'listable': |Ship name=, |Ship identification=, |Ship owner=, |Ship operator=, |Ship registry=, |Ship refit=, |Ship honours=, |Ship honors=. Clearly not all parameters should contain lists, |Ship launched= is an example. Are there others that should be listable?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a proposed move under discussion at

14:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Infobox ship career

USS Bang

History
Spain
Name	Ship name
Namesake	Ship namesake
Owner	Ship owner
Operator	Ship operator
Port of registry	Ship registry
Route	Ship route
Ordered	Ship ordered
Awarded	Ship awarded
Builder	Ship builder
Cost	Ship original cost
Yard number	Ship yard number
Way number	Ship way number
Laid down	Ship laid down
Launched	Ship launched
Sponsored by	Ship sponsor
Christened	Ship christened
Completed	Ship completed
Acquired	Ship acquired
Commissioned	Ship commissioned
Recommissioned	Ship recommissioned
Decommissioned	Ship decommissioned
Maiden voyage	Ship maiden voyage
In service	Ship in service
Out of service	Ship out of service
Renamed	Ship renamed
Reclassified	Ship reclassified
Refit	Ship refit
Stricken	Ship struck
Reinstated	Ship reinstated
Homeport	Ship homeport
Identification	Ship identification
Motto	Ship motto
Nickname(s)	Ship nickname
Honours and awards	Ship honours Error: has synonymous parameter (help)
Honors and awards	Ship honors Error: has synonymous parameter (help)
Captured	Ship captured
Fate	Ship fate
Status	Ship status
Notes	Ship notes
Badge	Ship badge

Does it not seem odd that when a ship infobox uses |Ship renamed= it is displayed between |Ship out of service= and |Ship reclassified= which is often several lines below |Ship name=? Am I missing something? Shouldn't the new name directly follow the old name?

From the template code, here are the {{infobox ship career}} parameters in the order of their display. Besides |Ship renamed=, are there any others that should be moved? What about the order of the groupings of these parameters in general? Name or identification information; owner/operator information; construction details; in commission / service life dates; etc. Are they correct? I've listed other possible changes below.

• Ship class – why is this here? It isn't documented as part of {{infobox ship career}} nor included in any of the template skeletons. Should it be removed?
• Ship name
• Ship namesake
• Ship owner
• Ship operator
• Ship registry
• Ship route
• Ship ordered
• Ship awarded
• Ship builder
• Ship original cost
• Ship yard number
• Ship way number
• Ship laid down
• Ship launched
• Ship sponsor
• Ship christened – move to follow |Ship launched=?
• Ship completed
• Ship acquired
• Ship commissioned
• Ship recommissioned
• Ship decommissioned
• Ship maiden voyage
• Ship in service
• Ship out of service
• Ship renamed – move to follow |Ship name=?
• Ship reclassified – move to follow |Ship name=/|Ship renamed=?
• Ship refit
• Ship struck – move to follow |Ship decommissioned=?
• Ship reinstated
• Ship homeport
• Ship identification – move to follow |Ship name=/|Ship renamed=?
• Ship motto – move to precede |Ship badge=?
• Ship nickname – move to follow |Ship name=/|Ship renamed=?
• Ship honours
• Ship honors
• Ship captured
• Ship fate
• Ship status
• Ship notes – move to the end?
• Ship badge

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The |Ship renamed= is, in my opinion, primarily intended to indicate the year when the ship was renamed. This is also reflected in the usage guide although the alternative way of using the field is also described. Personally, I don't use this field and instead collect the names to |Ship name= field with corresponding year ranges. In my eyes, it's a redundant field as the |Ship name= should reflect also the current name of the ship and could perhaps be phased out/depreciated.

|Ship class= should indeed be removed. I agree with your proposal to move |Ship christened=, |Ship struck= and perhaps |Ship identification=.

Tupsumato (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Somewhat a general mess as this template is tailored to naval ships yet includes nonsense "commercial" fields in that context. For example:

• Ship owner (redundant with vessel's flag in naval context)
• Ship operator (Could have naval use as multiple national agencies often operate naval type vessels.)
• Ship registry (naval nonsense)
• Ship route (naval nonsense)

A good scrub of naval and commercial templates would not be out of order. For those commercial type auxiliaries with both commercial and naval service separate boxes, one strictly naval the other strictly commercial, might be appropriate, just as we see with naval vessels serving with two or more nations. Palmeira (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

We could make wholly separate templates for naval and civilian ship careers instead of using the same template for both, but with hiding some of the fields. That would remove the need for scolding someone for using |Ship homeport= instead of |Ship registry=. Also, we could move the way people describe civilian ship careers away from naval ships (e.g. no separate career boxes for multiple owners). On the other hand, I also like the current system, so perhaps that would just add complexity without providing anything worth the trouble... Tupsumato (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

There are already separate templates: 1) Warships (except submarines), 2) Submarines, 3) Age of sail and 4) Commercial vessels. Then there is Full code for individual ships. That last is where the problem I mention lies. I may have added convenient fields from the full code to warships or commercial vessels to handle specific cases myself so there are probably lots of variants spread among all the ships here. While it is a bit more trouble and runs some risk of having info boxes be far longer than articles for many ships I probably lean toward two clearly separate boxes for ships with clear and separate naval and commercial "careers" that fall short of warranting a split article. I suspect there are more people doing things with naval vessels who are not all that well versed on maritime practice than on commercial vessels where there is less general interest. Just fixing with a note, rather than scolding, seems in order. Palmeira (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

For the record, there is only one {{infobox ship career}} template. I think what you are referring to is the template skeletons in the documentation page. Each of those is simply a subset of the available template parameters that were selected to cover most cases for those particular groups of ships.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, agree those are subsets of the full choices. The subsets are pretty good if people use them for the two distinct types of "careers"—naval/commercial. The full template leads to some forcing naval concept pegs into commercial holes or the reverse. There may be an argument for eliminating the "full" template in favor of a naval and commercial template to be used as two info boxes in cases of mixed careers. While I agree some of the "order" is odd, no tweaking of order is going to solve actual misuse of fields. Palmeira (talk) 10:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

At right is a infobox with the parameter position changes I suggested. You all should play with it and see what changes should be undone, or what other changes should be made.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I still kind of dislike the |Ship renamed= field. How are you supposed to use it together with |Ship name=? Also, |Ship reclassified= should come after |Ship commissioned= because if that field is used to indicate year, it would happen chronologically after |Ship commissioned=. Also, |Ship refit= also usually occurs somewhere between commissioning and decommissioning. |Ship homeport= could be placed after |Ship registry= because these fields are used for nearly the same purpose, but rarely if ever for the same vessel (naval vs. civilian). |Hono(u)rs and awards= should come after badge, IMHO. I mentally group it with |Ship motto= and |Ship badge= instead of the group where it is now. Tupsumato (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I've made the adjustments that you suggested. I don't have an answer for |Ship renamed=. Perhaps it has no value and should be deprecated and removed.

I wonder about the parameter names that contain the prefix re as in |recommissioned=, |refit=, |renamed=, |reclassified=, |reinstated=, etc. In some cases these imply multiple associated events: a ship might be commissioned, decommissioned, placed in inactive reserve, reactivated, recommissioned, decommissioned, struck, scrapped. It seems to me that we might adapt {{infobox ship career}} to support some number of multiples of these kinds of parameters, perhaps three shall be the number. Then we might write:

|Ship commissioned=16 July 1954

|Ship decommissioned=21 September 1959

|Ship commissioned2=31 October 1963

|Ship decommissioned2=5 March 1965

With this, |Ship recommissioned= is deprecated in favor of |Ship commissioned2=.

The same method could apply to |Ship name= though the number should be somewhat larger, perhaps ten.

I wonder about the value of |Ship refit=. Is it not true that ships go through refit several times in a lifetime? Are these maintenance periods important enough to warrant a place in the infobox. If so, which one do we select, or do we allow for several as I've suggested above?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, there should be only one |Ship name= fields where names are separated either line break or plainlist. As for |Ship refit=, naval ships generally receive a major mid-life upgrade, so I think a separate field is justified. Tupsumato (talk) 07:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

|Ship honours= and |Ship honors= can both be displayed simultaneously but probably shouldn't. We can make one of them the default so that if both have a value only that selected one displays; or we can hide both when both have values. Lest we upset anyone in the pro-British English / pro-American English language camps I'm more in favor of the latter choice. Whatever the decision, this same rule should also apply to the {{infobox ship characteristics}} parameters |armor=, |armour=, |draft=, and |draught=.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I have tweaked the sandbox markup so that when both |Ship honours= and |Ship honors= have values, neither are displayed. When only one has a value, that one is displayed. You can see this at work in the infobox at right. Both |Ship honours= and |Ship honors= have values so neither are displayed.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I recall that we have discussed the header before. Here is a possible solution that wan't discussed at the time.

This solution uses the |Hide header= parameter. When |Hide header=<blank> or |Hide header=no then the header is displayed with a horizontal bar that reads Career with country and flag below that. When |Hide header=bar, all you see is the country and flag header. This is useful for the last option which is |Hide header=plural which changes text in the career header bar to Careers. I did this because it never seemed right to me that the country is listed parenthetically in the header. So, to give it more space and prominence, this solution occurred to me.

|Hide header=<blank>

History
Austria- Hungary
Name	Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand

|Hide header=bar

History
Austria-Hungary
Name	Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand

|Hide header=plural |Hide header=bar

History
Austria-Hungary
Name	Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand
History
Spain
Name	Sin Nombre

I'd like to find a better set of parameter values for |Hide header= and an alias that could ultimately replace |Hide header= but I haven't yet thought of anything suitable.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, "Careers" is wrong. It should be "Career" if we are writing from an individual ship's point of view. Also, I'm not sure if we need the options "=bar" and "=yes". Can't see any use for those except mis-using. Tupsumato (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

As it is now, each new {{infobox ship career}} template added to the infobox carries the Career (country) header which amounts to Career 1, Career 2, Career 3, ... So what you are really saying this: the Career term in the header is unnecessary, right? Every time {{infobox ship career}} is included in the infobox, the rendered output should look something like the |Hide header=bar example.

The |Hide header=yes is useful for those occasions where duplicate fields a desirable. It isn't often used but it is done. I see no reason to take that functionality away. Nor do I think that these parameters will be misused; and if they are? fixes are easy.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I may be wrong, I believe he is simply saying that it would never be appropriate to use "Careers", because from the ship's perspective, the term "Career" would properly encompass the entirety of a ship's lifetime. If agree with elements from both your statements: while most of the header options have their place, there's really no reason for "Hide header=plural" to exist. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot about using multiple career boxes or custom fields. Thanks for reminding me. Also, Huntster clarified my point regarding plural careers. Tupsumato (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll give it one last attempt. I know that a ship isn't a person. In my lifetime I could have a military career, a business career, and perhaps a political career. I can then be said to have had careers. A ship could have a career as a military ship, a commercial ship, as a yacht. The ship then, can be said to have had careers. Are these two not similar enough to warrant the plural title bar?

If careers (plural) is the wrong word for the 'things' described by multiple {{infobox ship career}} templates, what is a better word? History? Curriculum vitæ?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

That's one way of looking at it, but another way is saying "I've worn many hats in my career, from joining the military, serving in politics, to owning my own business." I dunno, perhaps we need some clarification from the linguistics department. Finding a replacement term is certainly an option...curriculum vitæ seems unnecessarily wordy, but history might work. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

For the time being, |Hide header=plural is disabled and I've changed the title bar to History.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that works nicely, thanks Trappist. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I have proposed

The proposal has been relisted due to lack of consensus. Tupsumato (talk) 08:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI, if anyone was looking for some ships to start articles on, at Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370#Search asset list displayed by two collapsible wikitables are some redlinked ships that have been involved in the search. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 06:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Should

Moved to talk:List of aircraft carriers of Germany

I just looked on Prince of Wales (disambiguation), it's not there. The HBC had many vessels, I hadn't heard of this one before; it came up redlink just now in the name origin section of Compton Island, re its namesake. Anyone familiar maybe with HBC vessels able to provide more on it for a stub/start?Skookum1 (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The NNS Okpabana article is seriously in need of referencing, expansion and updating. Plenty of material available (link on talk page). Therefore a bounty of a barnstar is offered to any editor(s) who bring the article up to GA standard. Mjroots (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi all.

WP:SHIPS convention is that ships over 100'/100tons should be notable enough to sustain an article. Subject to meeting

WP:GNG

.

Re this ship, it turns out that there were two ships built in 1909 that carried the name Espagne. The other was of 11,155 GRT and was scrapped in 1933. If/when that ship gets an article, we should consider a page move using the builder as a disambiguator.

Returning to this ship, Wrecksite has some history, but it is unreferenced and should be treated with caution. Uboat.net has details of her loss. A Yahoo search for "Espagne" + "Adolf Deppe" brings up some more sources in French. Mjroots (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I would challenge that "convention".

GNG. Is there substantial coverage in independent sources? (Not just sources that try to catalogue every ship). bobrayner (talk

) 21:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I refer the honourable gentleman to

our record at AFD. Mjroots (talk

) 05:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that smaller ships are non-notable. It's just been my understanding that by precedent and consensus a presumption of notability applies to named warships and large passenger/cruise liners, again presuming reliable sources attest to their existence. I think the smaller merchant ships absolutely can be notable if they meet GNG or some other notability conferring criteria. But finding RS sources for this ship is proving to be a real bear. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

This should be a keeper, will see what I can do later today. Mjroots (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Done what I can. I've created a shipindex page at SS Espagne and moved the article to SS Espagne (Anversois, 1909). The CGT ocean liner is the most likely of the other four to get an article, and arguably has a better claim to the original SS Espagne (1909) title. Mjroots (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I knew that Archeosousmarin had a page on the ship, just took a little while to find it! Mjroots (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Good work. I've copied the knowledge to nl-wiki and I think we'll keeep the article now.

talk

) 06:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Tanks to everyone for their help. And I agree that we have enough now to keep the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I created SS Espagne (Provence, 1909) last night. Needs an editor with access to Miramar to fill in a few details. Mjroots (talk) 07:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I subscribe to Miramar. What details do you need? Manxruler (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Exact launch date for a start, but any missing info is always useful. Mjroots (talk) 05:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

There was almost nothing more to find at Miramar, no launch date at all. I added the single detail I could find that was not already in the article. Manxruler (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, thank you for that. No doubt it would have been reported in local/regional newspapers at the time. Mjroots (talk) 08:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds sensible. Manxruler (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I have added the SS Espagne (Provence, 1909) to the List of ocean liners. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see Talk:HMS_Pandora#Other_Pandoras; the Pandora became the Jeanette, which has an article, HMS Pandora (1858) does not; doesn't seem it should be just a redirect, but I don't know practices with such successive names; there's a large number of places named for the Pandora and her crew (see Drury Inlet for starters), and I know more is out there in various older histories of BC and the Pacific Station and in some more modern ones.Skookum1 (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I cannot see any problem about a redirect, unless and until the article becomes too large and a fork is necessary. I do not believe that it makes the slightest difference to the reader (indeed, it gives instant access to a bigger story) - and I don't follow the idea that every HMS or USS or whatever must have a discrete article. Let the article title follow the leading notability and redirects deal with the rest. Much better than endless stubs. Davidships (talk) 22:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

General practice is to only have one article on a ship unless it was particularly notable in two different navies. The example that first comes to mind is

talk

) 23:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Content at the Jeanette' article needs expansion re the Pandora then; I don't have enough in those cites to do much; I'll see what I can find in certain histories available at http://www.nosracines.ca i.e. Howay, Scholefield, Howay & Scholelfield (together), Begg, Bancroft; Captain

Walbran is on-line somewhere; in "Legacy" alone there might be twenty items (currently around 12) for the Pandora.Skookum1 (talk

) 02:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@Skookum1: - do you gave access to the Gale News Vault? Should be plenty of material there from contemporary British newspapers. I get free access via my library'w website. Mjroots (talk) 07:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Ship articles seem to have a very strange system of infoboxes. There might be a better (faster, less complex) way to handle these. Can anyone tell me how this system came to be used (because perhaps I'm overlooking something critical)? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The archives have what looks like one of the

[majestic titan]

21:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Kirill is still around; perhaps he'll have time to share his memories. I'm assuming that the goal is having multiple flexible submodules, and Lua might be able to do that with more grace than the old templates-in-a-table system. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

That's part of it, certainly. The more specific problem the system was intended to solve, if I recall correctly, was that ship infoboxes can potentially contain an arbitrary number of submodules; for example, a ship that served with two navies will have two {{Infobox ship career}} sections, a ship that served with four navies will have four, and so forth. There was no effective way to do this within a single template at the time the template was designed, and I'm not sure that Lua is going to provide any better solution either (short of having each section rendered as a set of "careerX-paramname" parameters, which I suspect would be rather cumbersome in practice). Kirill ^[talk] 23:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The system could atleast be simplified by making the {| included in the begin template, like how other template systems are done, instead of separately, since the infobox doesn't actually begin with "begin", so is not the most intuitive name for the first template that doesn't actually start the infobox... -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 06:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Moving the{| wikitable markup inside {{infobox ship begin}} would require a matching {{infobox ship end}} for the closing |} markup.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 09:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, which would be a sensible situation, making it complementary and matching. {{infobox ship end}} could even be created as a redirect to {{End}} -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

That seems like a change that could be made by a bot, which is good. I don't think anyone wants to hand-edit 28,000 articles. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, could be done by a bot. But just how would you go about implementing it in a way that's transparent to readers and editors? One possible way:

1. create an interim version of {{infobox ship begin}} that has the {| markup
2. replace {|{{Infobox ship begin}} in all articles that use {{infobox ship begin}} with {{Infobox ship begin/interim}} and at the same time replace the closing |} with {{Infobox ship end}}
3. add {| to {{infobox ship begin}}
4. replace all instances of {{Infobox ship begin/interim}} with {{Infobox ship begin}}
5. delete {{Infobox ship begin/interim}}

Is it worth the effort?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

If it's done by bot, there wouldn't be too much effort on the part of individual editors. It would make the infobox more logical, so I think it's worth the effort. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 07:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Related question: Does anyone know if there are any other infoboxes structured sort of like this? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

{{Infobox flag}}

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

That lets you have six sections, but they're all part of a single transclusion, instead of multiple ones wrapped in a table. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It looks like {{Infobox aircraft}} has the same system. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi all, you may be interested in this AfD on an article that falls within the project's scope. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#HMS Adamant as Reserve Fleet Flagship we have a report that the information about the career of this ship is inaccurate. In fact there are next to no specific citations in this article, and the references listed either don't exist or don't provide this information. I haven't been able to find such information either. If someone could address these issues I would appreciate it; otherwise I'm inclined to stub the article down to the bare essentials. Mangoe (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

When I come across articles like Pacific Squadron that I think should be part of the WP:Ships should I just add them? This article seems like it would be of interest to the project.--Plmerry (talk) 05:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that one is of interest to the project. Thanks for pointing it out! -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

A quick FYI to anyone interested, Brianboulton has created SS Arctic disaster as a sub article to SS Arctic. Granted it is still under construction, but so far it looks promising. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

AFC would appreciate any expert help in improving and reviewing this draft: Draft:The Cunard Queens. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Why does there need to be an article about the two ships together when they both already have independent articles? —Diiscool (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Does seem a pointless article. Difficult to see what content could emerge that is not already covered in the two ship articles and Cunard Line. Davidships (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Are not these two ships the same class (albeit highly modified from one to the other) ? Wouldn't a class-article be in order instead of what you created? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't go for a class article unless we can find a very reliable source which states that the vessel belong to the same class. I don't think this kind of article ("Cunard Queens") is necessary — the information can be incorporated to the existing single-vessel articles. Tupsumato (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I have nominated the article

Without looking it up, can you guys give me your first guess what "landing ship minelayer" means? This will help me answer a copyediting question. - Dank (push to talk) 19:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

A landing ship for minelayers?

talk

) 21:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

There's no wrong answer to this btw (well I shouldn't say that, someone will come up with one :). Thanks Nate ... anyone else? - Dank (push to talk) 21:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

With the weird and wonderful naming conventions for amphibious warfare vessel types, my guess would be a landing ship that has been modified to operate as a naval mine deploying vessel. -- saberwyn 23:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Silba-class landing ship-minelayer is a Croatian ship now up at GAN. The nom's sources say "landing ship-minelayer", translating directly, so my question is: is the phrase "landing ship X" going to automatically mean "WWII landing ship for Xs" for a lot of readers? (I don't think the hyphen will make a difference.) - Dank (push to talk) 23:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as much as the name aircraft carrier means people think first of superheavies like the Nimitz class and not peewees like the Thai HTMS Chakri Naruebet. A closer example would be the Landing Craft Tank (Rocket) was a rocket barge instead of landing rocket tanks. As long as the article explains what the ship is and does, you shouldn't have any problems.

As an aside, I'd personally prefer no hyphen, but I Am Not A CopyEditor, and I don't know how to express "landing craft/minelayer" in an article title. -- saberwyn 02:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the standard naming format would be something like Landing Ship (Minelayer), LS(M), or Landing Ship Minelayer, LSM. The dash really wouldn't pop up in any standard source, I believe. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Is

I think that might be a stretch. But that's just my 2 cents. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)