Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 20

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

What was the rationale for this category? Her Majesty ruled too long, practically everything built in the 19th century can be listed there, from the survivors of the Napoleonic Wars to the Great White Fleet. There were specific, local episodes of British-French, British-German, British-Russian standoffs and arms races, but limiting "Victorian" to these episodes is too subjective... so it becomes a pool for everything, even the Category:American Civil War naval ships of the United States or the Chinese turret ship Zhenyuan that were (I suppose) of no concern to Her Majesty at all. Is worth keeping? Isn't it practically the same as Category:19th-century ships ? East of Borschov (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. The term Victorian is only really applied in the sense of the British Empire. The cat by century is a good one. Mjroots (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:Naming conventions (ships), Marshal Shaposhnikov (BPK 453) should be at Russian destroyer Marshal Shaposhnikov (BPK 453) (similar to the other Udaloys Russian destroyer Admiral Panteleyev (BPK 548) and Russian destroyer Vice-Admiral Kulakov) but a redirect with history blocks the move. Can an admin perform it? Benea (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done Parsecboy (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I have proposed that HMCS Charlottetown (K244) (Flower class corvette) and HMCS Charlottetown (K244) (River class frigate) be renamed to HMCS Charlottetown (1941) and HMCS Charlottetown (1943), in order to better conform with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships). Please comment on each article's talk page. -- saberwyn 23:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for SMS Helgoland is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The A-Class review for SMS Hannover is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for HMAS Australia (1911) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone created Shipyard Burner recently. The article has one sentence. Could someone from this project with knowledge on the subject fix up the article (or nominate for deletion or redirect to an existing page)? Thanks and good luck. — Timneu22 · talk 11:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The title is wrong; should be shipyard burner, not caps. — Timneu22 · talk 11:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The peer review for List of battlecruisers of Russia is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 21:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

CFD: Non-British Victorian Era ships. East of Borschov (talk) 09:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I recently started making grammatical/spelling edits to this article, but then ran into difficulties trying to reconcile data (especially the ships' range and primary armament) from the two online sources used and cited by previous editors. I've summarised these on Talk:Type 1936B destroyer, with additional comments on User talk:Driftwood87.

These problems extend to the articles on the individual ships of this class ( Z35, Z35, Z36, Z43. Z44). The German World War II destroyers article generally seems fairly well-written, but may have some errors (eg showing that the Type 1936B remained in commission until 1964, despite the last commissioned vessel, Z43, being scuttled on 3 May 1945) as it also seems to rely on the same cited sources.

I think that these articles could benefit from being looked at by someone with better knowledge and access to the literature, as the on-line sources cited may not be completely reliable. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 05:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't usually work on ship articles and I'm looking for suggestions for naming an article. I've created Doggerbank (ship) but I don't like the articles name much. Any other suggestions? The ship was a WWII German auxiliary minelayer and blockade runner. Thanks! Calistemon (talk) 10:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it in Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, and it's not on the German Wikipedia. If it was commissioned by the Kriegsmarine (war navy), then I'd go with SMS Doggerbank, and in that case I'd recommend starting the article like this: SMS Doggerbank ("His Majesty's ship Doggerbank") ..." - Dank (push to talk) 13:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The German monarchy ended at the end of World War I. Kablammo (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Doh, was thinking "WWI" for some reason. - Dank (push to talk) 14:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. http://www.netherlandsnavy.nl/Speybank.htm#7a has a lot of information, apparently summarized and translated from a Dutch-language book, although it wouldn't be considered a reliable source unless you can make the claim that the author is a noted expert. - Dank (push to talk) 13:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Would Doggerbank - Schiff 53 or Doggerbank (Schiff 53) be suitable names? Calistemon (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If Schiff 53 was its formal pennant number/designation, then that would be the logical naming, yeah. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 22:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Schiff 53 seems indead the correct pennant number, just like Atlantis having been Schiff 16. Should I use the German Schiff in the title or the English translation, Ship, and should it be in brackets? Calistemon (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Parens, yes. Not sure about the translation - or if "Shiff/Ship" should be included at all (i.e. "Doggerbank (53)" - or maybe "German ship Doggerbank (53)")...thoughts folks? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, German ship Doggerbank might be quite ok, too. Calistemon (talk) 01:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

German ship Doggerbank would probably be the way to go. If the brackets are used, I'd suggest that Ship or Schiff be included as well as the number...if Schiff is used, it can be translated in the lead section. -- saberwyn 03:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think, German ship it is. The article is currently in the DYK queue, I will move it after that to prevent confusion.Calistemon (talk) 04:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

German auxiliary minelayer Doggerbank would be a better title in accordance with WP:NC-S. Mjroots (talk) 05:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that is, that the ship wasn't just an auxiliary minelayer. Its a possible title, but at the time of sinking it had nothing to do with mine laying. Calistemon (talk) 10:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That title can be a redirect if the article is moved to German ship Doggerbank. Mjroots (talk) 06:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

{{Infobox ship image}} - template inserts interwiki to Tagalog (??) wikipedia ? - please fix (I thought I found an easy way, it did not work). East of Borschov (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, you might need to purge the page you are working on if it is still showing up. Woody (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The A-Class review for HMS Princess Royal (1911) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 07:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 07:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

White Shadows has written an article on the A variant of the Type IX submarine. We'd discussed it and I voiced my preference that sub-types of ship classes shouldn't have their own articles and that a list would be a much better way to organize such a thing. And I suggested that he post here about the advisability of an article vs. a list, but he never did so. I believe that he's more comfortable with articles and wants something to hang a GT on for the Type IXA sub articles that he's been working on for the WikiCup. All well and good, but do we really want people writing articles for every ship sub-class? Personally I believe that the differences between sub-classes should be covered in the class article, not in a separate article, but that's just me. What say y'all?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that it's one of those "I know it when I see it" scenarios. In this case, there's a distinct division between the main class and sub-class; it is, IMHO, notable to have seperate pages - in fact, it's no different than having a page for a distinct variant of an aircraft. For instance, note C-47 Skytrain vis-a-vis AC-47 Spooky - the same aircraft, just a different variant...a different 'subclass'. But clearly different and notable enough for a seperate article vs. a section in a main article. On the other hand, to give an example, different articles for, say, the variations on the Ticonderoga or Arleigh Burke classes would be silly, just as having a different artcle for the P-51D Mustang vs. the P-51B Mustang would be - but the A-36 Apache, which has the same airframe, is different enough for it's own article...

TL;DR version: "It depends, in this case it's fine, in others, it wouldn't be." - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 07:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Good points, but the IXA was the first production model and should form the core of the class article. I can maybe see articles for the later sub-classes, but not the first one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I did ask the question but never got an answer. (Do not down play that) And the Type IXa subs are important in of themselves. (Just take a look at a few of them) If the community overwhelmly wants to, I can re-work the article into a list.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 10:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed you did bring it up; I missed it earlier. My apologies.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you please provide a link to the new article in question? Personally, I don't see anything wrong per-se with separate articles on the main variants of German U-boats - enough has been written about each variant in isolation to support separate articles on them. It's worth noting that many of the different 'classes' of warships in this period were only minor variations on earlier designs. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I just noticed that the article is linked in the title of this thread. It looks OK to me. Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Apology acepted Sturmvogel. However, the article is now on the main page as a DYK as we speek and I have nominated it for a GA. Also, it appears that some form of consensus has formed to show that sub-class articles can exist and their creation is not only alowed but encouraged in the case of aircraft. Do you agree now Sturmvogel? If so then how's about you start on that GAN review :)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 20:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Little early for a consensus, don't you think? I'll give it a week as I'd like to see who else has an opinion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

fine by me. Just thought that we are too far along to turn back now. I'll wait.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 21:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

From memory, WP:AIR has also struggled at times to define when articles on sub-variants of aircraft are worthwhile. The current position there seems to be that major variants can warrant their own article, with the availability of sourcing being the key factor in justifying creating such articles. Nick-D (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you belive that this article is good enough to exist based off of the prose and the sources?--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 23:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said earlier, yes. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

To achieve consensus here would be helpful. I've suggested a compromise which User:Recon.Army has rejected for now, saying he would like to hear from more editors. Benea (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been asking editors to write out and link certain units (mainly nautical miles, knots, indicated horsepower and long tons) at the first occurrence in the text as well as the sidebar because that's kind of the mantra on how we deal with things unfamiliar to the reader. I admit to a lack of patience, but it's so tedious to hunt down the first occurrence, spell it out and link it (and many editors are bumfuzzled by the relevant parameters in {{convert}}) ... and then, how do we tell the reader that the second time they see "nautical miles", it's going to look like "nmi"? A lot of people link the first occurrence of "nmi" ... more hunting and wrestling with the convert template. And if it's tedious for us, isn't it tedious for the reader to hunt these things down, too? It would be nice if I could change my advice to, "Link the first occurrence of those units in the sidebar", something like: "4,800 nautical miles ("nmi"; 9,000 km)". "4,800 nautical miles (nmi), 9,000 kilometers (km)". I think that will make it a lot easier for the typical reader to find the information, if they need a link or a reminder what "nmi" means. (And personally, if this information were in the sidebar, I would stop caring whether people use "nautical miles" or "nmi" and whether they link those in the text, but I can't speak for what's likely to fly at FAC on this point.) Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 18:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

As one of those who only intermittently remembers to link the definitions of the units I'd support making this sort a thing a formal part of the MOS. But also I think that perhaps some canned examples of the conversions would do for most editors' needs. And perhaps we should specify the number of significant digits to be used as well. No more than 3, I think, for most purposes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

This discussion may bear on the question. Kablammo (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I have tried reviewing and making comments in a few of the articles at FAC that I copyedited at the A-class review (ACR), and I'm going to stop that. I'm flattered that people are mentioning me, but I think it would be better not to say that I've copyedited an article when you introduce it at FAC; I don't think it will help (they'll notice quickly enough that it's been copyedited), and there's a risk that it will sound like a challenge (Dan said it was fine, what are you gonna do about it?). If you said at the ACR that the article was headed to FAC, then I tried to copyedit for FAC to the best of my ability, but there are some things I deliberately don't touch that are usually going to be commented on at FAC: I don't always get units and conversions up to FAC standards, and in general, my idea of "tight" writing is to try to eliminate phrases and clauses that I think you don't need, but that's not always good enough for FAC, they want it "tighter" than that. Just go with it.

Once an article is at FAC, it's perfectly reasonable to make your case if you disagree with a reviewer, but at the end of the day, you can expect some FAC copyeditors to oppose (and none of them to be happy) if they gave you a long checklist of to-do's, and then they have to read several paragraphs of discussion and check the article themselves to see what the end result was. They're particularly not going to be happy if what they see is "but the Manual of Style (MOS) says" or "but the source said" or "but we've always done it that way", with no more discussion and no action taken. Point by point:

• "but MOS says" ... MOS is the mininum (at FAC), FAC is supposed to produce "our best writing". I'm trying to keep this short so I'll just say: listen to Tony (if he's doing the review), and not just because you're trying to get the article through FAC. If there's some general copyediting question where you disagree with the reviewers at FAC and don't want to change what you've got, let me know and I'll try to help. I'll keep looking at what happens at FAC, but usually silently, so that I can do a better job with the next article I copyedit.
• "but the source said": many of you could be successful writers if that's what you want to do (and some of you are). Every day in publishers' offices, it's the same thing over and over: the writer says "This is the way it happened, this is what the sources say, this is how experts describe it", and the "editor" says "Yeah, but that's not what our readers want to see, that's not how we do things". I haven't gotten much resistance to my copyediting recommendations, but that's partly because I'm not pushing too hard, because copyediting involves building working relationships with writers where we understand and trust each other over time. FAC reviewers aren't looking for a warm, fuzzy feeling, they're generally interested in trying to follow FAC standards the best they can, and in that respect, they're much like the publishing industry. You don't have to agree with FAC reviewers or learn AP Stylebook front to back, but if you don't study FAC standards or the standards of the publishing industry, then please give some credit to the folks who do, especially if we can find some evidence to back up what we're saying.
• "but we've always done it that way": I'll put more effort into studying previous FAC reviews. Just like hurricanes are so hard to predict because they're so big they make their own weather, MILHIST and SHIPS are big enough to have a big impact on standards at FAC ... but only over time. For any one review, you're more likely to pass FAC if your default position is that you want to understand and follow FAC conventions. - Dank (push to talk) 15:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Sturm says: "Personally I don't mind grammatical corrections, etc. too much, although I often don't see the point. But I do mind bending to reviewer's perceptions of what is correct/best regarding facts." Right, I'm not saying that in order to pass FAC, you need to defer to anyone who wanders in with an opinion about what you should call something. - Dank (push to talk) 01:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

P.P.S. Substituted "FAC copyeditors" for "reviewers" - Dank (push to talk) 14:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems like you have some disagreement with the FAC process?.. at least this is the only thing I can really understand here. --Brad (talk) 01:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Dank, your post is a little unclear as to what you want to address/change. Could you add some clarification? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

To some degree I think that he's talking to me regarding some of my replies where I've cited previous FAs where the particular issue raised by the reviewer doesn't seem to have been mentioned rather than addressing the issue on its merits. In other words don't wave red flags in front of the reviewers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. I was hoping to stay out of the line of fire at FAC, but if what I wrote above doesn't make any sense, then that's not going to happen, I'm going to have to field copyediting questions about stuff I've copyedited when it gets to FAC. Nevermind. Since there's no black and white line that separates copyediting from more important things, that's going to put me in the middle between people with strong opinions, and that's going to create some problems, but we'll deal with it one issue at a time. - Dank (push to talk) 14:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The peer review for Royal Navy is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 04:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Some interesting points are made at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Habsburg. Speaking as a reader, if the "narrative" of a ship article is two (SMS Árpád) or three (SMS Habsburg) paragraphs that tell me that the ship didn't really do anything, then I'd want my time back after reading the article. (And no, this is not the same thing as opposing any article less than 20k.) My reading of the A-class criteria is that they imply that the article should at least be interesting to some set of readers; if they don't imply this, if a dry recitation of what little is known about a completely uninteresting ship meets the current criteria, then perhaps we should add something to the criteria? Perhaps that would help editors have more realistic expectations of the likely results at ACR? I'm not thinking of "it has to be more than X words"; we can do better than that. We could say that it's especially important for articles with a very short "narrative" to cite relevant books and/or place the actions of that ship in context. - Dank (push to talk) 15:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this has just been an implied standard I've understood, but my line of editing, there are articles that just won't make it past GA. And that's perfectly fine; writing a GA is certainly a respectable achievement. I think that is the case wrt to the habsburg class ships; I would have recommended against nominating them in the first place. Maybe it would be help to suggest in the instructions to first-time nominators to strongly consider filing for a Peer Review before going to A-class. Parsecboy (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

On another note.. since there were only 3 ships of that class and they have a limited service history I think the best thing would be to roll the three ship articles into the class article. The class article is only 16 kb presently including all templates and etc. I'm sure the goal was to have a featured topic but maybe that's just not possible. --Brad (talk) 21:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that you don't think a boring article should be A-class? I'd have a problem with that because interest is subjective to the reader. Now, if you're merely referring to the quality of writing, that can be fixed, but if a ship never did much, that doesn't affect the quality of the article. After all, the encyclopedia has many articles on incredibly obscure things that few would find interesting, but they are well-rated. bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see WT:Manual_of_Style#Erratum_and_proposal_about_unit_conversions. - Dank (push to talk) 04:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

So far, so good, no one has reverted. My interpretation of what just happened at MOS and MOSNUM is: when a unit appears in the title of an article, and we need to link to that article, you don't have to ... and shouldn't ... give the converted units, both because the unit serves as part of the name of the thing, and because anyone who wants a quick conversion to their preferred units will be able to find it just by clicking on the links.

Another style question: which is better, "The captain raised a signal flag" or "The captain ordered a signal flag raised"? - Dank (push to talk) 19:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless he hauled it up himself - the latter, since it is unambiguous to those not versed in naval matters. "a signal flag was raised" could be used if the orderer or hauler are unknown. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The A-Class review for List of battleships of Austria-Hungary is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed an influx of editors adding a list of every single CO of military vessels to ships regardless of their individual notability contrary to what I believed was our policy that if they are notable they are mentioned in the prose of the article. We really need to have a finite set in stone policy about this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines, i.e. on a stand-alone list (List of commanding officers of USS Nevada (BB-36)) or whatever. I have been removing the instances I come across from the articles on the ship on the basis that they belong as a stand-alone list and then they are mentioned in prose. I have not touched USS Enterprise (CVN-65) since the editor who added it there will most likely engage in edit warring to keep it there. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I support the stand-alone list idea for COs of notable ships (i.e. BBs, BCs/CBs, CVs, maybe the heavier cruisers). Once we get into destroyer/frigate territory it would get ridiculous, but for the bigger, badder ships, it's a useful thing, I think - certainly educational. I may work on one for CGN-9 myself. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Just out of interest, that's the second US ship I've seen with weird-looking cylindrical masts. Anyone know what they were about? There might be an article in that. Gatoclass (talk) 03:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Even the lists should be able to meet notability to be kept. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Despite creating the Nevada list, I'm not sure that they are really needed. On the flip side, they would certainly be educational and helpful to anyone needing a quick reference, so why not? Just so long as FTC doesn't require them to be included in a topic. :P —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

A list of commanding officers might fall under "is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Does the list tell me anything about the career of the ship? It might be informative (data) but not educational (teaching). If any of the officers are notable in their own right I think they should be mentioned in the article, and it would be good to know where their command of the ship fitted into their career. If there is an off-wikipedia source for the CO list then it could go into the Ext links/Further reading sections. I note also that the list of officers means there is now a category for the battleship which has two articles in it. What is the future of this category - to cover every article that features the ship or just to hold the List?GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This is most definitely an annoying issue. There should not be a list of CO's in an article just because they can be listed. The classic example I give for this argument is USS Constitution which has had over 70 CO's in her lifetime. I certainly did not list them all in the article as a lot of them weren't worthy of a mention just because they commanded the ship. I do not believe that even banishing them to a separate list would be the proper thing to do either. If the CO is notable enough to have their own article on WP or was of important influence to the ship then it would be fine to mention them. I'm sure these lists that keep appearing in articles are taken from cruise books or the like which are not a reliable source. --Brad (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm generally opposed to these kind of lists because they take up a fair whack of space while adding little to the understanding of the subject at hand (being the ship). My view is that commanders whose time aboard significantly impacted on the history of the ship should be mentioned in context in the article. Those who do not impact on the ship's history should not. (Of course, anyone with their own article should have the fact mentioned there, as it is important to that officer's personal history.) -- saberwyn 03:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It's really a matter of good judgment. Stephen Decatur commanded Constitution but only for 30 days while she was having repairs made.. not worthy of mention even though Decatur is legendary. On the other hand I did mention George Dewey (who is also legendary) because he was CO for several years even though it was during Constitution's big yawn as a training ship. But to get back on the subject, CO's should only be mentioned within the article prose and not listed in some section of an article only because they commanded the ship. A break out to a separate list article is basically silly for reasons already mentioned. --Brad (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

One might argue that commanding a capital ship (being officially commander, to clarify, not "the captain's on shore, you have the bridge" extept in rare cases (Pearl Harbor)) would be enough to make one notable... - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Being the captain of a major warship would contribute to an individual's notability, but in the end, regardless of the vessel under their command, the captain's job is to manage and oversee the operations of the ship and her personnel. For officers of equivalent rank and experience, it can be assumed that the actions of and happenings to the ship will be more-or-less identical whether Captain Joe Bloggs or Captain John Doe has command. I think that they should only be mentioned and discussied in the ship article when reliable sources discuss the actions of a specific member of the ship's company (captain or otherwise) significantly affected events (i.e., its impossible to talk about HMAS Armidale (J240) without at least mentioning the actions of Ordinary Seaman Teddy Sheean) or "How Things Might Have Been" during "That Major Event" in Captain Bloggs' time if Captain Doe was in charge (i.e., most sources discuss the role of Captain Joseph Burnett in the loss of HMAS Sydney (D48), and speculate about what might have happened if her previous commanding officer, Captain John Augustine Collins was still in charge).

That said, while I'm fairly opposed to mentioninng every captain in list format, I could probably accept 'listing' them in the text of the ship's history (starting with "...commissioned on 9 September 1999 with Commander Jane Doe in command" followed by variations on "In November 2003, command was transferred from Doe to Captain John Christian."), although it should be a per-article consensus on how far along the sliding scale of "none to all" a particular article uses. -- saberwyn 23:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The next question is who will see this through to the end and apply the changes to the guideline? --Brad (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, would I be right in saying that:

There is/appears to be consensus for the lists to be removed/depreciated. If commanding officers of warships are to be mentioned, they should be mentioned in the relevant article text.

while observing that there doesn't appear to be consensus on whether "all" or "only those with major impact" should be included? -- saberwyn 23:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The first question would be where the instruction should be located within the guideline. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines#Article_body seems to be the right place. You're right that separate lists of CO's is an entirely different matter. So essentially we want to say that sections within an article that only list CO's should not be placed in an article. CO's can be mentioned in the relevant area of the article text. --Brad (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Darn. My list on Oklahoma's will be deleted, me thinks. Buggie111 (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

So this article List of commanding officers of the USS Oklahoma (BB 37), where does it stand? Buggie111 did a good job researching all the information and judging from the conservation above it doesn't seem like a ruling on independent list articles outside of the ship article has been made. I find his list quite informative and with the sortable tables I've added it can be quite useful in determining information like who served the longest, easily search-able list of captains, etc -- Esemono (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Esemono and Buggie111 - stand-alone lists outside the ship article serve a useful purpose and should be maintained. Personally, I cannot really see the objection to keeping lists of COs within the ship articles provided that the list is properly referenced, as the names of COs of capital warships, particularly in times of war, can certainly be notable. --MChew (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I find that when a CO's actions are important to the ship (for example, command during wartime), it is very hard not to mention them in the prose of the ship's history. -- saberwyn 22:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm opposed to the creation of standalone articles on a topic such as this because I believe it fails policy such as WP:NOTE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There are a probably an endless amount of details one could add to the Wiki about this or that topic, but this is an encyclopedia, not a database. I also think it sets an uncomfortable precedent. Gatoclass (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I maintain my position that being appointed to command a Capital Ship makes one noteable. And I seem to recall a mention that lists can be used to mention things that would not, on their own, be notable enough for an article? WP:INDISCRIMINATE is true, but one also needs to remember WP:NOTPAPER. And Wikipedia is also 'the sum total of human knowledge'. If the captains aren't to be mentioned in the ship's article, and they also aren't to have their own page...where do they go? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 19:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this discussion is wanting to prevent the mention of COs in an article at all, just in the form of a laundry list at the end of the article. There is nothing wrong with mentioning them in the relevant piece of prose...whether a particular article lists 'none', 'some', or 'all' would probably be best handed on a case-by-case basis. -- saberwyn 22:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I have just been reminded of a rather extreme example of this list at HMS Phaeton (1883), which lists many different officers at different stages in the ship's life. I believe there are a few others like this. I'm interested in how this relates to long lists in general in articles on ships. The section 'Weapons and Systems' in HMS Dauntless (D33) is a case in point. I've a feeling that it is redundant when it is already present on the class article, but even so is there a preference for this to be presented in prose rather than lists in the article body? Benea (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Both those examples would be much better off as prose. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

In my mind, the lists in Phaeton are definitely overkill, whether in list or prose format. However, in list format, it brings the reading 'flow' to a screeching halt every time one comes up. In the Dauntless example, I'd support the conversion of the weapons list to prose, but not its outright removal. I think individual ship articles should provide a summary of the design and technical information for the ship, so readers can get an idea on what the ship is and what she is capable of...if the reader wants more detail, then they go to the class article. -- saberwyn 22:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The Phaeton lists I definitely agree with, even if there is data as to who was commissioned her Boatswain in 1886 (Abraham Tuck) or her Paymaster in 1897 (one Montague Stephens it seems) there is a line that should be drawn. I think the user that has added these lists though might disagree. Incidentally the listified weapons information on Dauntless is now cropping up on the other Type 45 pages, courtesy of User:Recon.Army. If there is a consensus, can we act to have this prosified? Benea (talk) 09:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I gotta throw my two cents in here. While I agree that an unsightly bulleted or tabled list of commanders (and other ship's officers, such as Phaeton) are not desirable, I do think that noting the captains of a ship in the history section of that ship's article is absolutely necessary. A change of command is a very notable and significant event in the life of a naval vessel (I can't speak intelligently on a civillian ship), perhaps second only to combat, and thus should be noted, whether the individual is otherwise independantly notable or not. I do think that a standalone article makes little sense, why not just merge them? It seems to me like some editors may be too wedded to thier idea of how a "proper" ship article looks; they are crying that a square peg can't fit in a round hole because they refuse to make the hole square. This of course, is merely my opinion, and not to insult anyone; but a little more flexibility in consensus would be nice. bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What is notable for the ship is not necessarily notable for WP. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

But what may not be notable for a WP article, might well be notable for mentioning in an article, also. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 18:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

My point exactly. The song Unforgiven III may not rate its own article, but not mentioning it on the article for the album Death Magnetic would be utterly stupid. Or, to take the analogy in the opposite direction, nobody would insist on not mentioning the armament of a battleship on that ship/class's article simply because that particular model of cannon isn't notable enough for its own article. bahamut0013^words_deeds 02:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to chime in on this discussion. I think what it comes down to is a question of whether the information is useful to the reader, if it is better represented in narrative or as rows and columns, and if the information significant. I contend that a commanding officer who serves during time of war is an historic figure and that makes them especially notable. Why I believe the table is important for Commanding Officers rather than narrative is that the Narrative doesn't help me as a reader to know exactly who commanded a ship in each battle. I'd have to read in some cases 10 or 15 sections to know this.. or as is often the case the narrative isn't clear about who commanded each battle so I wouldn't be able to tell. In row and column form I can see in one glance who commanded, when, and in what battles. This is very important historical information about a ship. Additionally, I've seen them used often in various sources when summing up commanding officer information. So their commonly used. Why would only Wikipedia not allow the use of Tables for Commanding Officer data when it seems to be the common useage to use a table for this type of information? I'll be interested in the SHIPS teams comments. Ussrangercv4 (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

There is another related issue, having to do with the compilation of lists of information at the bottom of articles, a newish editor whom I have largely forgotten about until today has been a large culprit in doing this: Ussrangercv4 (talk · contribs). The user has had lots of problems and is definitely not adhering to our style guide, and has inserted large lists into USS Pennsylvania (BB-38), USS Tennessee (BB-43), USS Ranger (CV-4) and USS Hornet (CV-8). This needs to be cleaned-up and it looks to be a massive undertaking. Almost every edit the editor has made needs to be gone through and cleaned-up. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to the ongoing discussion in the "Agreement seems to be reached" section and the "When the use of Tables are Appropriate" sections. Also please note, the additions to those articles were reviewed and approved by an Editor. The tack that seems to being implied in your question is that there can be no use of tables in ships articles period. I disagree strongly with this tack and think it's an overreach. I don't believe it's completely settled as to when the use of a table is appropriate in an Ships article. I also contend there are legitimate uses for tables in these type of articles as have been stated in the referenced sections. I'm looking forward to the SHIPS team members input. THanks Ussrangercv4 (talk) 11:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This system is well set up for the Royal Navy (eg HMS Invincible, but not yet established for some other navies such as the Brazilian - there are a couple of Sao Paulos, for example. Can I go ahead and set up the disambiguation or is there something else I need to do? 203.97.106.191 (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You mean the 'ship index' pages. It would probably be a little harder, because while prefix-carrying navies will have standardised names that can be used as the title of the index page (in your example, all Royal Navy Invincibles will be "HMS Invincible (disambiguator)", so HMS Invincible works), but non-prefix navies will be disambiguated in between the nation and name (i.e. "Brazilian aircraft carrier Sao Paulo" and "Braziilian battleship Sao Paulo"). However, once we work out how to do it, doing it should be easy.

I'd like to suggest that such ship indexes be titled "Nation warship Name" as first preference, and "Nation ship Name" as second preference (the second will open it up to both military and civilian ships, which may or may not be what we want to do). However, don't take my suggestion as gospel...wait for some consensus to develop. -- saberwyn 02:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The French Navy already has a well established format (French ship Neptune, French ship Africaine, French ship Algésiras, etc) and some other navies have been following this (Chilean ship Almirante Condell, Chilean ship Almirante Latorre, etc). Benea (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Having looked at one of those (Neptune) it seems fair enough. Warship and ship splits might be pertinent if the the index becomes too big - ship avoids issue with vessels which might not appear to the casual reader as a "warship" even if in military service - eg replenishment tankers. Though I must also add that the index for Neptune doesn't need the huge French Navy navbox down one side.

If there are no further comments, I'll go ahead with 'Brazilian ship Sao Paulo.' Buckshot06 (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that for nautical distances, the units of choice (for the modern period) are either km or Nautical miles. And that equally speed is km/h of knots. Between them these two cover the older measurement systems (British Imperial/US customary) and the metric/SI. Save for short distances or certain comparisons (eg with a motor vehicle), would there be any justification for giving conversions in (statute) miles or mph? GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I usually use the general convert templates (with defaults to nmi and kn), such as 20 knots (37 km/h; 23 mph) or 100 nautical miles (190 km; 120 mi), such that both are given. Parsecboy (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm strongly in favor of harassing the devs until they come up with software that lets the reader choose whether they want to see SI or American units. I'm also strongly in favor of Graeme's idea, as long as we provide a conversion or two to miles etc. in the main infobox. (And I'm rarely strongly in favor of anything.) Whether we can get this into MOSNUM, I don't know. - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Graeme's suggestion. As we know from our research, conversions from knots to mph are relatively rare in sources. I think we can dispense with conversions to miles entirely. Kablammo (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, while books on ships can get away with ignoring ordinary miles, I don't think that we can do so as we get a lot more casual American readers who have no idea how to convert from either nmi or km. I'm not all concerned that triple conversions might clutter up the text, as far as I'm concerned there's not any significant difference between a double or a triple conversion in terms of interrupting the flow of the text. Besides I'm all for anything that saves me typing, which is why I'm moving away from abbreviating short units like feet or inches. The seven characters needed to abbreviate a unit are longer than those units spelled out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree. A large chunk of en. readers are from the US and need the mph mi etc. This is why I'm always picking at conversions in articles. --Brad (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the need for mph. nmi -> km, kn -> km/h and ft in -> m+cm (x.xx m) and vice versa is adequate convesion for ship articles. Mjroots2 (talk) 07:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I've given a little thought to this issue lately. I think it makes sense to go with the unit of measurement in use in the country of origin at the time the vessel was constructed as the primary unit of measurement. Also, I've decided that I dislike conversions in main body text altogether and I think they should be avoided or at the very least not made compulsory. I think it's sufficient to list conversion figures in infoboxes. Gatoclass (talk) 08:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's unlikely we'll get consensus in a wider forum (or even here) to remove all conversions from the text. Could you live with asking editors to indicate what should be converted in the text (and please, make them stop forcing us to type out and read "convert" with parameters you need a rulebook to understand), and letting users set a preference for SI, Imperial or American, that would hide units they don't care about? - Dank (push to talk) 12:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That may be the case, and I'm not necessarily opposed to having no conversions in the text. But from what I've seen, it's being done to the point of making some article sections practically unreadable. The silly part is that most people who are likely to actually care about these facts and figures will already be comfortable with the different units in any case. We are just doing a disservice to the readership with this obsession with conversions IMO. I think at the very least, conversions should be made optional (except in the infobox), so that people can decide for themselves when and whether it is appropriate to add them. Gatoclass (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

i am happy with giving conversions of units. I am not happy with multiple conversions (aside from knots/mph/kmh I found an u=instance where ship boiler pressure was given in three: psi,Pa and kg/m3) nor the same conversion repeated in the text (eg repeated use of a phrase like "8 inch (203 mm) gun"). As to unit display preferences; date preferences got the heave-ho with the delinking of dates under the MoS. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Those would be some of mine. I've got books that use psi and kg/cm2, and I don't think that I've ever seen kPa, but I have no idea what units metric countries commonly teach for pressure. It's easy enough to cover all the bases. As for over converting, I hates it, I do! I will normally clean out every instance that I can find. Once is sufficient.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I think at the very least we could decide that conversions already provided in the infobox do not have to be given again in the text. One could probably get rid of quite a lot of gratuitous conversions just by doing that. Gatoclass (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, and what we learned from that was that people hated using linking as the code, and that letting logged-in users set a preference meant that what the page displayed to non-logged-in users was being hidden, usually, from our active editors. These are two things we definitely want to keep in mind in any future changes to the interface. - Dank (push to talk) 14:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

(replying to thread further up) The MOS and FAC do not require repeated conversions. See Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_criteria/Archive_9#Unit_conversions. Kablammo (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Re boiler pressures, In Europe, Atmospheres is a common unit - eg 10 atmospheres or 14 atmospheres. Mjroots (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#http:.2F.2Fnavweaps.com. - Dank (push to talk) 12:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI, HMS Sea Robin (P267) has been prodded for deletion. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 04:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Swiftly deprodded Mjroots (talk) 08:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The A-Class review for USS Indiana (BB-1) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 09:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

For all merchant ships registered in the UK before 1923, the flag and flagicon are not linking to the correct article - this is incorrect, this links to the correct article. It's quite an awkward work around to achieve this, so I've proposed at Template talk:Country data United Kingdom that {{Country data United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland}} be created. To save a lot of typing, possibly {{Country data UKGBI}} would be a better title. Comment over there please. Once created, we'll need to change a lot of articles, with some displaying the same flag in the infobox, but linking to different articles for pre 1923 and 1923 onwards (the opposite of those German ships whose flag changed from to in 1933). Mjroots (talk) 11:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I've just noticed that the German example above is incorrect too. It should be changing to . Any German registered merchant ships in the period 1918-33 should be using that flag, and maybe a few cats will need creating, such as Category:Merchant ships of the Weimar Republic, Category:Steamships of the Weimar Republic, Category:Merchant ships of Nazi Germany and Category:steamships of Nazi Germany to name but four. Mjroots (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I just want to throw out the issues I'm coming across while I'm fixing Iowa class battleship. This template was causing 4 problems: it was outputting a "..", it was in the wrong alpha order since the last people to alphabetize the list of references couldn't tell from "Ref Jane's" that it should be alphabetized per "Bridgeman", it was duplicated (again because people couldn't tell where to put it), and the year showed up in the wrong place. It's very likely that none of these 4 problems would have happened ... they didn't happen for the other refs ... if we hadn't tried to hang on to an outdated template. I'm all for making things easier, but I think the best way to make it easier for those "in the know" to quickly type out commonly used cites is just to load up a macro program like AutoHotKey and make your own. - Dank (push to talk) 15:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for Nimitz class aircraft carrier is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been monitoring the thread and it seems to me there has been a lot of discussion pertaining to when the use of tables are appropriate. One side seems to be arguing that there is never an appropriate use of Tables in Ship articles. I strongly disagree. There are certain occasions when tables are appropriate and the Wikipedia guidance and literary rule of thumb bears me out on my contention.

The literary rule of thumb that I've seen for using tables is that a table should be used whenever the data more clearly conveyed by virtue of having rows and columns. Wikipedia Table guidance "When Tables are Appropriate" section at Wikipedia:Tables says essentially the same thing as the literary guidance rule of thumb.

For ships particular type of information that lends itself to a row and column format are things such as Battle Stars and Awards, Captains, Casualties by Operation, firing data etc. This is information that would look ridiculous if put in narrative form.

The question you might ask is why would an ship article use this type of information. I would say because the information is ship specific, has great value to the reader, and is commonly used in other encyclopedias, books, articles etc for these topics. Why would only Wikipedia ship articles not allow tables when they are commonly used everywhere else?

To put a point on this topic, what I've seen reviewing many of the Ships articles is they are essentially the DANFS article that eventually may get reference citations. One of the big problems with DANFS is that while it gives a basic history of the ship in the area of Awards it contains no real information. It'll say 8 stars but no one knows what those battle stars were awarded for.. I say that knowing the criteria for each star that ship received is important historical information especially in an Awards Section. Award data just looks and flows better in a table rather than in narrative format. Now who would be the audience for this type of information? How about people who are doing book reports about the grandfather who served aboard the ship on certain dates? Or people who always looked at the DANFS and only saw 8 stars and never knew what they were for? Or people who are researching the Awards a particular ship earned in WWII?

Here's 3 of many citable examples of table use to present Ship historical information to demonstrate that certain historical information is commonly represented in row/column form. The references include examples of tables of Awards, Commander, Ordinance Expended, Miles Steamed.. etc.

1. Myron J. Smith, Jr. (1983) [1983]. KEYSTONE BATTLEWAGON U.S.S. Pennsylvania (BB-38). Pictoral Histories Publishing Company, Inc.. ISBN 0-933126-27-1.

2. Navy and Marine Corps Awards Manual, NAVPERS 15,790 (REV.1953), Part III. - List of Authorized Operations and Engagements, ASIATIC-PACIFIC AREA

3. USS Tennessee (1946) [1946]. USS Tennessee, December 7, 1941-December 7, 1945 (Cruise Book). Clark Printing House.

etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ussrangercv4 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to a discussion on this topic and hopefully a resolution in what instances a Table is Appropriate in an Ship article.

Thanks Ussrangercv4 (talk) 11:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming by DANFS you mean DANFS? JonEastham (talk) 11:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes Jon you are correct DANFS. I dont think Wikipedia ships articles should be DANFS regurgitated and slightly modified with some references. The history of these ships are more than just what's listed in DANFS because there is a lot of historical information about a ship that DANFS doesn't really tell one about. For example, DANFS is very weak on ships awards. Additionally, DANFS is very weak on casualties, who was the commander for a particular set of battles, miles steamed, enemies shot down, etc. One should not have to read 15 sections to know that commander so and so was commanding during the following 15 battles. This issue comes up particularly for Captial ships that served from the beginnin to the end of the war. Ussrangercv4 (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Not taking a position, but I've got some pointers. WP:TABLE, which you link above, is mainly about tables vs. lists, which doesn't seem to be the issue we're talking about here; you would like to add certain list-like information to articles. This issue comes up all the time in WP:GA nominations, so I'd recommend WT:GAN as the place to discuss it. WP:GACR only mentions a few style guidelines, and one that they list ... and insist on ... is what's called "list incorporation" there, which is WP:EMBED. - Dank (push to talk) 12:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Please note, per John's recommendation a Topic was opened in WP:GACR to broaden the discussion of when Tables are Appopriate Use in Wikipedia Articles. The discussion has been broadened because of the seeming contention that only narrative is appropriate for ships articles. I do not believe that this is the case and to help inform this discussion am seeking a definitive Wikipedia wide answer from GACR about what is the Apporpriate Use of a Table in an Wikipedia article. Stay Tuned. Ussrangercv4 (talk) 13:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I want to take a fixed position on this just now, but I do think one needs to exercise a little discretion. I looked at one of your articles (USS Pennsylvania (BB-38)) and you have four tables, one for miles travelled by the battleship in certain periods, one for ordnance fired at different times, one a unit commendation, and one a list of awards won by the ship.

Now firstly I'd say the unit commendation either should be in main body text or not included at all, it looks totally out of place and WP:UNDUE as a table. The miles travelled and ordnance fired are going to be of roughly zero interest to 99% of readers, so I think they are a waste of space, but I suppose it might be possible to retain them provided they were cut down to more manageable size. That leaves the unit commendations. There may be a justification for retaining that one I think. Gatoclass (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I would also add, incidentally, that the formatting of your tables is nonstandard and looks weird. You are using capital letters and then using a couple of <br/>'s to separate the table heading from the table itself, and that just looks totally wrong. It also looks like a header when it isn't, which is confusing to the reader. I suggest you stop using the br's and just use italics for the headers, at least then your tables would look a bit neater. Gatoclass (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Gato. First I'd like to thank you for looking at the aricle and your insights. Regarding ordanance fired inforation, I would contend that for Battleships whos major role during WWII were the bombardment of islands (i.e., the Pearl Harbor Battleships) this is particularly valuable historical information because 1. the type of ordinance fired tells the reader exactly what was the nature of the combat and threat (island bombardment, AA etc.) in each action/operation 2. the historical information provided in an ordinance table is targeted (excuse the pun) in this case directly to the job of the ship, 3. The U.S. Navy, the Congress, and authors who have written definitive works on these particular battleships have cited ordinace information for these ships which indicates that they examined the question of interest and they and their editors determined the information is of interest historically, 4. There continues to be debates about which Battleship fired the most "ordinance" during WWII. For example, Pennsylvania boosters claim that she fired the most ordinance of any ship during World War II. However if one examines the ordinance data for Tennessee it's clear that Tennessee exceeds Pennsylvanias totals. The fact that there is a debate about this stuff means that the information is timely and needed. For these reasons, I content that ordinance information about these type of WWII battleships is not only valuable historically but is of past and current interest. Ussrangercv4 (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Framing this debate slightly differently, I think what's being discussed here is whether technical data about a ship is interesting, valuable historically, and tells the tale of a ship. I strongly believe technical data has a place in these articles as do the many scholars I've referenced.

If I had to compare whether the amount of ordinance fired is more apropos and interesting historically than the length and weight of a ship, I'd choose the ordinance data because the length and weight of a ship doesn't mean anything historically with regard to the "significant" events associated with that ship. If we are to ban technical information from ships articles then that means all of the info boxes will need to go as well.

Regarding formatting and placement of tables, any suggestions of formatting, placement etc. are much appreciated. This is all about in my mind represeting historically imporant information in the best format. Ussrangercv4 (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

As per a recommendation received from the WP:GACR group a discussion thread has been opened in the WP:TABLES group seeking a Wikipedia Syle Guide decision as to the rules that should be applied when a group evaluates if the use of a table is appropriate in an article. We also seek to determine if a group may ban the use of tables per se in favor of narrative when such a ruling is in contravention to the Wikipedia Style Guide rules for tables. We're seeking this to understand where the boundaries to banning the use of tables lies and the criteria which applies in such decisions. Stay Tuned Ussrangercv4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC).

This to me feels like forum-shopping to find a favourable response. -- saberwyn 05:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

We're seeking best practices for the incorporation of historical information in table form into a ships article. The reason particular information is in table format instead of narrative is because it is information best represented in a set and not scattered throughout various sections where it loses it's more readability and its correlatability. The current known best practices for tables are to include introductory text, a title, and to follow the WP:TABLES guidance indicating when the use of tables are appropriate.

Award criteria tables seem to have a natural section in the standard ships article format. But other important tabular data doesn't seem to have a natural place except for the Post War/End of WWII section of a ships article near the bottom of the page.

So the question is can we devise a better way to fit overarching ships historical ships information like ordinance information or miles steamed or casulaties by operations into a Ships article or is the End of WWII section the solution?

To get the topic going, here's some questions I want to throw out.

1. What are the merits of reformulating the standard Ships article template to better accomidate historical information in table form and how could it be reformulated best?

2. Would an inline link/reference and off page approach be a good solution and how would that be implemented?

3. Is putting the table information of the type described in the End or WWII/Post War section the best option of the 4 options listed?

4. Are there other options beyond the 3 above? Please elaborate.

Please note, the assumption of this topic is that some ship historical information is historically important, comes from a reliable source, is verifiable, and is best conveyed in a table form as per WP:TABLES guidelines. Additionally because the information is historically important it should not be scattered throughout the narrative which would effectively render it meaningless or banned or be marginalized out of existence because we've not come up with a best practice for it's placement within the standard template yet.

I'm looking forward to the teams creative feedback. Thanks. Ussrangercv4 (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you're proposing here. Maybe a link to an article you have in mind would help. Are you proposing a rewrite of {{Infobox ship}}? Info there can be adequately presented with careful use of line breaks to keep things in order - see SS Ernst Brockelmann for an example where the ship had several different names, owners, operators, flags / ports of registry, Code Letters, Official Numbers etc, and dimensions and tonnage also changed. Mjroots (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Mjroots good point. A good example to examine in discussing the particulars of the questions being posed to the Ships Team is as follows.

Table 2: AMMUNITION FIRED BY THE PENNSYLVANIA AGAINST THE ENEMY in the "Post-war" section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Pennsylvania_(BB-38) contains historically signifigant Ships information. The information is verified, its best represented in a set, the data is correlatable,its significant historically because it's about a Pearl Harbor battleship (main function was bombardment), and it contains information that spans all of the significant war time operations the ship particpated in.

The question is where should this table be located in the article? How should the information best be represented? Represetnting the information as narrative doesn't work because it scatters the information so as to make it meaningless.

There is not a specific section in the standard Ships template for this type of information so by default should it be placed in a Post War section? It also doesn't seem to fit in an info box. I hope the example helps. Let me know if you need me to elaborate further. Ussrangercv4 (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

All of this verbosity over tables isn't really necessary. While tables are allowed in an article, the article should not contain a majority of its information in table form. A lot of the information you want to add can be turned into prose. Brad (talk) 02:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Basically: sometimes a table is necessary, and an article shouldn't be demerited for it. But, if it doesn't have to be in a table, don't put it in one. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Brad and Bushranger thanks for chiming in. You both touched on points that if possible I'd like you to elaborate. Here's my take. Brad shouldn't the rule be more like what Bushranger alludes to (i.e., if the information is best represeted in tabular form it should be put in a table) rather than the converse that that you seem to allude to (i.e., if the material in a table could be put in narrative form it should be)? One problems with putting tabular information in a narrative format is that table information is often cohesive/related and the interrelationship cannot be understood if the information is scattered. Another reason for tables is that if it's a large amount of information a table compresses it for undestandabilty and readability. Beyond the pro's and con's of to use a table or not use a table, I'd like the everyones input on the case where a table is called for and the information contained in the table covers the ships operational life.. where should this type of table be placed in a ship's article? Ussrangercv4 (talk) 11:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

No, no and a thousand times no. In the Pennsylvania article, with the exception of the citation text, all of your tables contain information that should be in prose, in the proper section (WWII) of the article. Brad (talk) 12:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I seem not to have been quite clear: a table should only be used when you simply can't put the information it into the text. For instance, looking at Pennsy, I have to disagree with Brad a little - the table of ammunition expenditure should, IMHO, be kept as a table, because it'd be awkward to work that into prose. However, were I reviewing the article for GA-or-better, I'd fail it until the "Miles Steamed" and "Battle Stars" tables - especially the latter - were converted to prose, because, frankly, the page as it is looks like it's suffering from table-spam and looks horrible that way. One table providing useful information - yes. Stacked tables, multiple tables, tables piling up in Turn Three - no. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 14:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with Bushranger on the principle that, in general, you can add a table if that's the best way to present data and it's data that most of our readers will be interested in. I don't think I've ever seen a SHIPS article where more than one table would work for me, and for most of the articles, zero seems like the right number to me. - Dank (push to talk) 16:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional elaboration Brad101 and Bushranger. Perhaps walking through an experiment together might help better shed light on the table vs. narrative discussion. I have two experiments in mind. Let's look at the first one.

Please tell me using only the narrative text who controlled the destiny of the USS Tennessee BB-43 from 22-Feb-44 through 13-Oct-44 and under what operations? Please list the steps you went through to make that determination, how many steps were there, and how long it took to locate the information. The URL is for the article is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Tennessee_(BB-43).

I've walked through the experiment myself and have generated a few lessons learned from it. I'll be very interested to see how they stack up with the Ships team lessons learned. Please keep in mind as each of you walk through the narrative text experiment, using a table all of the information and the source(s) were able to be identified in less than a minute and in a maximum of two steps. Ussrangercv4 (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I read the article and found a lot of tables needing a lot of formatting to bring them up to reasonable standard (eg use of allcapitals, lack of italics for ship name). I also found some of the table generally redundnat to the article in that although they presented information nothing useful could be gleaned from it. eg the ammunition expended tells nothing without knowing what effect it had, and without anything to compare it too does it matter. Such raw data needs third party analysis and then that is what is needed not the numbers which are then superfluous. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Graeme thanks for the pointers about using all caps and italics for ship names. It's much apprecicated. Also please everyone, any suggestions that team members have towards making table information look prettier will be most appreciated. In my opinion, third party analysis of Ordinance information isn't really needed to make the information relevant. To me, the information stands on it's own merits because it is linked to the narrative text through the operation column (i.e, for database geeks the operation is a primary key).

It wouldn't be a bad idea though to think about ways to improve the table narrative lead-in and to think about ways of improving the articles narrative text to better identify operations.

Graeme is there a standard way to identify naval operations in ships articles? If so could you point me to it? If not, does the Ships team have any suggestions as to what the standard should be?

A couple of points about the Ordinance table I'd like to make are, 1) the narrative text and table compliment each other through the operation column linkage. They're supportive rather than redundant, 2) its impossible for the narrative text to capture the complex interrelationships that the table does, 3) its not clear where is the optimal location in the current ships article template for ordinance analysis if one wanted to provide it in the article

To the team, please keep chiming. This is an excellent discussion. The diverstity of opinion and expertise each of you have cannot help but yield quality dividends all around. Cheers and thanks.

Ussrangercv4 (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Just want to drop a quick FYI to let you know that all the tables in my articles have been modified per Graeme's formatting suggestions.

I also wanted to recommned a second experiment the team might walk through together to shed light on the table vs. narrative discussion. The experiment is as follows.

Please write a narrative the uses all of the information cointained in the "Ammunication expended by Pennsylvania against enemy table" and which maintains all of the inter-relationships between each piece of information. Record how long it took to write the narrative, if it was posisble to capture every interrationship and if not how many did you lose, how many words did the narrative take, and how many lines and pages did the narrative take. The URL for the article that contains the table is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Pennsylvania_(BB-38).

Please keep in mind as you walk through the experiment, using a table all of the information and interrelationships fit into 8 columns and 15 rows. With title, the tables footprint in the article is 16 lines.

Cheers Ussrangercv4 (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the value of this experiment. I think the data in the "distance travelled" and "shots fired" tables is miniature that fails Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (point #3: Excessive listing of statistics), as most of this data would be beyond the level of interest or usability for general readers (lets use your example of "school, high school and college students when writing historical papers" on World War II-era warships from #Who are our Audience and what are their Use Patterns? below, which I imagine is fairly, if not completely accurate for Pennsylvania), and the correlation of this data would be well beyond that level.

As for the battle stars, this could be easily integrated into the article without loss of information. When working with Commonwealth battle honours (which I'm sure are very similar in intent and execution), I've found that mentioning the award at the 'time' the related event is described in the article...the dates and nature of the operation and the ship's involvement are there, and readers also have the surrounding context to know what the ship did to earn that achievement. The DANFS method of handling them (as a sort of "By the way, Did You Know...?" line at the end of the entry) is one of the things I dislike most about DANFS. About the only thing you would lose by integrating them into the narrative is the 'running count', which could be solved through judicious use of prose: i.e. "For her role in the Gilbert Islands operation, Pennsylvania was awarded [a / her third] battle star".-- saberwyn 05:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This topic is being opened to discuss what is or should be the differences between DANFS Ship entries (i.e., Eictionary Entries) and Wikipedia Ships Articles (Encylopeia Entries). The goal of this discussion is to concense on the definition of an Encyclopedia vs. Dictionary and to arrive at a common understanding of how they differ and why.

To start the topic it would be good to note that the major criticism of the majority of Wikipedia Ships articles is that they are essentially barely reworded DANFS entries broken into sections with a few with verifiable inline references (some none). Is and should the only difference between a dictionary entry (DANFS) and these articles (Wikipedia Articles) be section breaks and inline references? How and why should these ships articles be different from DANFS?

I'm looking forward to the SHIPS teams comments. Thanks Ussrangercv4 (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I've always seen DANFS as an encyclopedia. There's no reason for anything to be fundamentally different, in principle, between the style of a WP and DANFS article, although the actual info should ideally be broader here. Fourth ventricle (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

There is Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/DANFS conversions with some instructions. As DANFS is public domain material it's there for the taking. Several other sites have copied DANFS articles besides Wikipedia. We're not exclusive in that regard. Realistically no one is going to improve these articles unless they take a particular interest in doing so. As the article works its way up the rating scale it will be improved along the way. Brad (talk) 01:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Although DANFS is a PD source, on the odd occasion when I've used it, I've treated it exactly the same as any other source - extracted the relevant information and cited the source as a web source. Mjroots (talk) 08:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed DANFS is a good source and is open for use but what is or should be the difference between a DANFS entry and a Wikipedia entry? If their just basically the same except there's been a conversion why should the Wikipedia Ships article not just a link to DANFS and be done with it?

More pointedly. Could the team expand on Brad101 and Mjroots point about improvement of the DANFS source material? What are or should be the type of improvements Wikipedia Ships article contributors bring to DANFS source material that improves it beyond just conversion (e.g. inline references and sectionalizing)? One example I would give is that Wikipedia allows one to use visual sources (e.g. pictures) to graphically detail the ships history. What other examples are there of how DANFS source material is improved in Wikipedia that sets it apart from DANFS? There has to be more than just adding pictures. Ussrangercv4 (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The difference between DANFS entries and what Wikipedia articles can be is that much more information can be added from other sources. Take Florida class battleship for instance, an article I wrote that incorporates some information from DANFS. The problem with DANFS is that it's often incomplete or very basic; we can fill in those gaps and expand the information from other sources. USS Nevada (BB-36) is another example of how this can be done. Parsecboy (talk) 11:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

A key problem with DANFS is that it was written and published by the US Navy. As a result, it's not an independent source and entries do at times omit topic controversial or embarrassing but well known incidents in the ships' histories - for instance, the DANFS accounts of the Iowa Class BBs in the Battle of Leyte Gulf don't mention that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time during the battle). As such, I personally don't consider it a particularly reliable source. Nick-D (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

All the DANFS entries could use rewriting with a view to actually being able to read them enjoyably. The style is abrupt and uses idioms that are not used by those without a naval background. They also inlcude infomration that is of no particular interest to the casual reader (eg the sponsorship at the launching). GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't care who sponsored a ship, but it's interesting (to me) that sailors cared. Some day I'll try to find scholarly information on how sailors and the public felt about sponsorship and get it into an article or two, but I agree that sponsorship isn't likely to seem important to most of our readers. - Dank (push to talk) 15:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the general public cared too – the sponsorship of USS Washington (BB-56) was covered great detail in a New York Times article on the ship's launch. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree 100% with the points all of the team memebers have been making about DANFS' weaknesses and found Nick's point about DANFS' reliability very interesting. I would propose that one of DANFS' major weaknesses is that historical content is only provided in narrative format. What do you all think? Do you agree that this is this one of DANFS' weakness and if so why? Or if you feel that only using a narrative format is DANFS' strength please elaborate? Ussrangercv4 (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the format as a problem (how else could this be written? - the only feasible alternative is a list or table of key events), but rather the content. Nick-D (talk) 04:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Nick that non-independant sources (like DANFS or the Royal Australian Navy's Sea Power Centre ship histores) sometimes contain omissions or tweaking to portray the subject in the 'best light', and also note that they are sometimes incomplete. They serve as good starting points, but when an article is heading towards A or FA status, I think they should either be avoided or used as a source of last resort. Narrative format is the best way to convey this kind of information, because people find it a lot easier to read a story than comprehend a raw list of dates and data (which is about the only other way to convey such information). -- saberwyn 05:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to pick up on an issue/concern someone raised in a comment in a thread focused on the DANFS vs Wikipedia topic. The issue/concern expressed was that Ships articles contain Naval terms that a layman would not know. This seems to me to be a readability issue that would affect layman members of our audience.

To start off the discussion let me throw out there that I can imagine several possible approaches for addressing this issue/concern. One option would be to try to describe, define, or simplify the offending Naval terminology in the narrative verbiage. Another approach would be to add a naval terminology/definition section in the article. A third approach would be to link the article to a Wikipedia reference/dictionary of Naval terminology.

I'm interested in hearing the teams opinions. My first inclination is that linking of the article to a Wikipedia Naval terminology reference/dictionary is the best approach. I can forsee cases where it's not practical to try to define all of Navy terminology in the article itself or to simplify all of the terminology in the narrative. What's your opinion Ships team? Ussrangercv4 (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Write it in an accessible manner as per the MoS "Plain English works best: avoid jargon, vague phrases, and unnecessary complexity" There may be cases where particular terminology needs to be explained eg in using direct quotes. Certain concepts already have articles eg ship commissioning. My comment earlier referred to idiom as much as terminology. As a example "Porpoise transited the Panama Canal" where "transited" just means "passed through". PS a few lines below where I found the entry in the MoS, there is this to say on section headings "capital letters are used only where they would be used in a normal sentence". GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Avoid jargon where possible. If it is unavoidable, then it needs to be explained. This can be done by wikilinking to relevant articles. Mjroots (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Great suggestions Mjroots and Graeme. Some naval terminology that immediately came to my mind as needing to be explained to a layman are port, starboard, yardarm, bow, stern, forecastle, bridge, steam, primary and secondary batteries, line, Dreadnought, Mainmast, Sparmast, Booms, Ensign, Flag Bridge, AA, 40mm Quads, 20 mm Anti-Aircraft, 5", Displacement, Beam, Draft, Propulsion, knots, screws, cruising radius, class, drydock, battlewagon, capital ship, superstructure, rudder, waterline, bluejacket, armor, topmast, etc. etc. As I go through these articles, I see lots of standard naval terms in use. Do you know of an article that I can link to that identifies standard features of battleships or ships of war? That might be a good way to handle this because I think it probably would be reundant for each battle ship article to describe the same details common to all battleships/warships and it would add a couple of additional pages to each article. Thoughts? Ussrangercv4 (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

A lot of those terms should already be in List of nautical terms. I don't think you should be putting weaponry descriptions in such an article though. Gatoclass (talk) 11:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I think most laymen know what a rudder is, where the waterline is and what armour does even if not specfically, also anti-aicraft - AA is an abbreviation so should be spelt out on first use - Quad mount is contraction for for quadruple mounting. careful writing remves confusion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

When in doubt, most of those terms have articles that can be wikilinked to for clarification. -- saberwyn 05:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to explore this topic with the team to see if we all have the same conception of who is using Ships articles and what are their use patterns. I'd also be interested in knowing if there is any Wikipedia data that we could examine that would give us insights into this question. Knowing who is using Ships information and how they use it will undoubtedly tells us a lot about how we should be presenting content to most benefit the users/audience.

To get the topic started, I'd like to throw out a classic encylopedia user example. I would hazard to guess Ships articles are used heavily by grade school, high school and college students when writing historical papers about WWII. What do you think team? Is this our primary audience? What do you think is their use pattern? Ussrangercv4 (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Team I've noticed that some articles refer to Service Stars and some to Battle Stars. DANFS always refers to them as battle stars. Also I noticed that the Navy documentation refers to them as Engagement Stars. Is the rule that they can be used interchangably in Wikipedia ships articles or is one preferred over the other and why? I personally like to the term battle star because invariably for WWII ships they represent a battle/operation in which the ship participated. This is particularly true of Pearl Harbor battleships and pre-war aircraft carriers who held the line in the first year of WWII. Please Advise as to the Ships Article standard usage. Ussrangercv4 (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC) Ussrangercv4 (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I imagine that these are different names for the same thing (or very similar things). Articles should go off what the source or sources for that particular ship call them. -- saberwyn 05:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for Indiana class battleship is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Attilios (talk · contribs) has removed all imperial measurements (which are those in the sources used) from the SS Ernst Brockelmann article. I've reverted him once, and posted on his talk page, but he has reverted me and further removed imperial measurements. Please can someone else deal with this. I'll appraise the editor of this thread. Mjroots2 (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Notified Mjroots2 (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be contrary to the relevant MOS guideline (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Unit conversions) which states 'Where English-speaking countries use different units for the same measurement, follow the "primary" unit with a conversion in parentheses. This enables more readers to understand the measurement.' And his justification that 'for non-UK use international (and postmedieval) units' does not appear to be supported by the MOS. I'd also note that the ship in question was also British flagged and operated for part of its career. If he declines to engage (which he seems to be doing), I'd suggest reverting? Benea (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I've already reverted once. Mjroots2 (talk) 20:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the conversions. The MOS is clear and further discussion should definitely take place before Imperial conversions are removed from articles. Benea (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've nothing against metric being used, but feel that both metric and imperial should always be used to enable as wide a readership as possible to understand an article. If sources are predominately metric, I'll use those first and convert to imperial. In this case, despite being a German-built ship, most sources were in imperial, which were quoted and converted. Mjroots2 (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)