Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the Maritime warfare task force Talk Page!

Wikiproject?

I am delighted to see this task force get under way; thanks, Kirill Lokshin. Two questions:

  1. Is the scope of the subject not sufficient to justify it being a Wikiproject in its own right? The Military history project comes across as primarily focused on land warfare (which is the reason that I haven't joined in before now), and I think it possible that naval specialists will find this off-putting.
  2. Should articles on individual warships, or warship classes, automatically be included in the project?

Replies/comments here, please. Regards to all, John Moore 309 15:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

If the Military history WikiProject comes across as being focused on land warfare—and it has been, to an extent—it is not by design, but merely because that has been the main interest of many of the editors so far. Hopefully, this new task force will go a long way towards changing that impression. (It has certainly never been anyone's intent, as far as I know, to purposely create a project working purely on land warfare.)
As far as separate WikiProjects go, it's our experience that task forces working under the umbrella of a single project (and thus fully able to make use of a single, highly developed infrastructure) do better than separate small projects, which must expend a significant effort on internal organizational work, rather than working on articles more directly. The task force model allows all of this organization (and a number of other things not directly related to article writing, like template development or article assessment programs) to be handled by the central project, leaving task forces somewhat more informal and less likely to become inactive or unmaintained due to lack of time or attention.
As for individual ships, it's my impression, based on past discussions with members of WP:SHIPS, that they have no problem with our tagging of—and other dealing with—those articles so long as we avoid pushing new guidelines without discussion with them; so I think all of those can be safely included, at least for the time being.
If there are any other questions or comments, please don't hesitate to let me know! Kirill Lokshin 15:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
If you guys intend to tag and deal with individual ships, then what is the purpose of WP:SHIPS? You guys seem to want to cover nearly everything WP:SHIPS does and more so it seems odd to have them be separate. What would you think about a merger? TomTheHand 12:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, we'll only be dealing with individual ships as part of the work (and generally only with military ships, obviously).
More generally, though, I'm not sure what the benefit of merging the task force into WP:SHIPS would be (it would significantly expland the scope of WP:SHIPS with things that may not be really ship-related, as well as removing all the incidental organizational benefits of task forces versus separate projects), and I'm not quite arrogant enough to actually suggest that WP:SHIPS be merged into the task force. Kirill Lokshin 12:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm a member of both :-) I'm new to all this, so if I step out of turn, please excuse... But I see them as having 2 different scopes, with this one only concerned with warfare and those ships involved in warfare, so it also covers personnel, and battles; whereas Ships is dedicated solely to ships, classifying them, etc., which would also include non-warfare ships... I think both bring expertise that can only enhance those ships that are handled by both plange 13:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles

Is there a place to go to see a list of articles already tagged with this? -plange 01:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It's all the contents of Category:Maritime warfare task force articles, basically. Were you looking for something in a different format? Kirill Lokshin 01:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
That's what I wanted (I'm still new to Wikipedia so don't know all the ins and outs), thanks! -plange 01:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not acquainted with how the practice runs but to my mind it would be a good thing if the addition of the tag was not until one of the project members had worked on an article rather than a wholesale tagging of anything with a maritime military connection. The latter would idenitify a whole lot of material and then show up the task force because most of it would never get a chance to be worked on. That statement may not be as clear as I intended. GraemeLeggett 15:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Not really sure if that would be a good idea, considering that one of the primary purposes of the tagging is to advertise the existence of the task force to editors who might be interested in the topic. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
GraemeLeggett has a point - it bothers me too. I started tagging the various articles linked to the List of military operations, but there will be loads. Then add in ships and classes, etc. The article list may be unmanageable. perhaps we need management of the to do lists. Otherwise scope is a problem. But I do think the nettle should be grasped: id the articles, then prioritise. Folks at 137 19:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, once quality and importance ratings start getting added, you can do interesting things like this to find articles that need to be worked on for to-do purposes. But, fundamentally, the tagging has only limited (as above) applicability to generating to-do lists; and it's generally more useful to construct them at least partially by hand anyways. Kirill Lokshin 20:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, so I'll continue tagging articles (mainly ops) and someone (GraemeLeggett?) can shout if it's a problem. Have to start somehow. I'm also adding to the to do list if there's a clean-up or stub etc tag. The copied template use has other tags. Should I set the WWII tasl force and others "on" as appropriate or is that treading on toes? Folks at 137 21:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Not treading on toes at all; I would guess that the majority of tags are applied by people who aren't part of the task forces in question, and are just doing generic tagging. Please feel free to turn on any of the other task forces if the article is applicable to them; it would be a great help, and would remove the need to tag the same articles multiple times. Kirill Lokshin 22:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Another question - do we tag people who were in the navy?-plange 02:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I can't see any reason why not :-) Kirill Lokshin 02:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, also, just got done tagging any pre-existing article about Confederate ships (and made wikifooters for them) and will now work through people....-plange 02:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
What about Marines? plange 03:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Your call. I wouldn't necessarily tag them just for being Marines, but if they did anything related to maritime stuff (including amphibious landings, perhaps?), they can probably be tagged. Kirill Lokshin 03:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Makes sense. The one I was working on participated in the Battle of Mobile Bay, so that sounds like it should be tagged...plange 03:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Swedish warships

I've noticed several articles on Swedish warships that use the "HMS" prefix. Is this correct? I thought it was reserved (at least in English language usage) for Royal Navy ships. Other countries have their own. eg, USS, HMCS, HNoMS, etc. Is there an accepted convention? Folks at 137 15:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Technically, "HMS" just means "His Majesty's Ship", so isn't necessarily unique to Britain. I have no idea what the formal Swedish terminology (which is what we really should be using) is, though. Perhaps someone like Inge would be able to comment more specifically on that. Kirill Lokshin 15:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
In Swedish, the abbreviation HMS is used, it means: Hans majestäts skepp (His Majesty's Ship). If Sweden is ruled by a female monarch it becomes Hennes majestäts skepp (Her Majesty's Ship) Valentinian (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
See also: Ship prefix. Interestingly, in Denmark and Norway, KDM (Denmark) / KNM (Norwegian) simply means, respectively, "Royal Danish Marine Navy" and "Royal Norwegian Marine Navy". But in English, the prefixes used are HDMS (His Danish Majesty's Ship) [1] and HNoMS, respectively. See also Royal Danish Navy and Royal Norwegian Navy. The Swedes apparently chose a solution easier to translate. Valentinian (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not too familiar with the Swedish navy I just wanted to point out that KNM means "Royal Norwegian Navy". In Norwegian the word for navy is marine. The best translation of the english word marine (as in the US Marine corps) I have seen is marineinfanteri. I think the term HMS in English is reserved for British naval ships. So my guess is that it would be better to use HSMS, but since Sweden isn't a NATO country maybe that issue hasn't been resolved properly yet? Note also the difference between HMCS (Her Majesty's Canadian Ship) and HDMS (Her Danish Majesty's Ship). Inge 10:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Inge, you are right of course. Same situation with Denmark; KDM / KNM = "Royal Danish (or Norwegian) Navy". The Swedish navy uses the HMS prefix on its official website in both the Swedish and English versions (see e.g. [2], p.21 in the original, p. 11 on the screen). I'd personally go with HMS. Valentinian (talk) 10:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok. So, "HMS" is valid usage for both British and Swedish warships. How best to avoid confusion, particularly to casual users? Are there any ship names shared betwen the 2 navies? Should WP establish its own internal convention for clarity? Folks at 137 16:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) has any useful advice on the point, for what it's worth. Kirill Lokshin 16:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
There's always the good ole reliable {{disambig}} and parenthesiized articles (e.g. 1632 (novel), Ring of Fire (anthology)) to keep things straight. Then the intro to the article should also be deliniating which country is the subject navy, so this (theoretical) concern is managable. // FrankB 05:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
A standard article will be listing the country in question in the lead paragraph, use an infobox showing the relevant naval flag, and be sorted into a national category. If it is a stub article it will be stubbed with a national stub template (with a flag) as well as {{mil-ship-stub}} so it should be possible to avoid confusion with little effort. Valentinian (talk) 08:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I think Valentinian makes a good point here. It shouldn't be difficult for even a casual reader to determine that he is dealing with a Swedish ship when reading an article. I don't think we should use terms not used in the real world so if the Swedes want to use HMS then we should comply. If there are ships with the same name in the two navies we can use parenthesis. One remaning problem is that Swedish ship may be taken for British ships in categories, but we might just have to live with that. Inge 13:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Dan-no-ura

Greetings, and congratulations on the formation of your task force. I go by LordAmeth, and I believe I am one of the primary contributors to Japanese medieval military history. I am curious what you naval historians think of the battle of Dan-no-ura. I apologize my article is not particularly long or detailed at the moment, but I am more curious not about your impressions of the article, but your impressions of the battle. If any of you have taken courses or read books on naval warfare, I would be curious if this battle is mentioned, and what is said about it. How important is it considered to be, compared to Salamis and Gravelines for example? Is it even as innovative and unique in terms of strategy and tactics as I believe it is? Thank you for anything you might offer. LordAmeth 16:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't get much more decisive than settling the government for the next five-hundred years! Looks like a good start. Kudos // FrankB 05:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Commerce Raiding

When did the change occur between capturing merchant ships and sinking them? Capture was the rule in the early 1800's, and seemed to continue during the American Civil War, but during the world wars merchants started getting sunk instead. It would be great if this could be worked into the article on commerce raiding. Therealhazel 09:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Early WW I practice was the 'old fashioned way', but the space, crew size, etc. on the U-boats was prohibitive. In the early days, the Germans used to give the crews time to abandon ship... then some of them started shooting back, and things escalated. The whole idea of 'unrestricted submarine warfare' created quite a lot of adverse press and international breast-beating. Then it just went away as an issue so that the US Navy even designed the fleet boats (Gato class, etc.) assuming that sort of mission in the interwar years. Articles on infamous sinkings, iirc, the Lusitania, and a few others should provide some leads. May take some paper research in big libraries, but there should be a lot of material that just hasn't made it to the web yet. // FrankB 05:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
There is a little more on this subject under Unrestricted submarine warfare. I have put in cross-links between Unrestricted submarine warfare, Commerce raiding and Tonnage war. John Moore 309 09:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Article assessments

Who allocates the rating and importance tags to articles? The descriptions are quite sketchy and probably need someone objective and experienced to provide consistant evaluations. Folks at 137 22:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Per FAQ #4, any member of the project is free to assess things. (And yes, it really does mean exactly what it says. If we limit assessment to any small group of people, we're going to be buried under issues of geographic and cultural bias, given how broad the scope of the project is.) Kirill Lokshin 23:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Coastal defence ship, naming difficulties

Any thoughts would be welcome on the issue of what to do with this type of vessels. A literal translation of the concept in most languages ([küsten]panzerschiffe/panserskib etc.) would be armoured ship, which is unsuitable. The term Coastal [defence] battleship has also been proposed/used, though it too is a poor solution. The current article for this type of naval ship is Coastal defence ship. The matter seems to be complicated by a lack of research and references on the subject. Scoo 11:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have seen this problem before in relation to Norwegian "panserskip"(HNoMS Norge etc) and I believe the term coastal defence ship is too wide. We might almost as well use armoured ship. Any naval ship not intended to patrol the open seas might be labeled a coastal defence ship. I am leaning more towards the term coastal battleship as this says more about the "intention" behind the ship and the type of ship. It also implies they were smaller than normal battleships. They were in many ways the battleships of the small navies. Inge 12:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Naval weapons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Naval_weapons Naval Weapons Category is confusing with so many sub categories. If one category is "Naval weapons of US", then other category is "Cold war naval weapons". I think we should decide first on what basis we should categorize them.

Categories are not necessarily exclusive, by era and origin can co-exist. GraemeLeggett 20:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixing Category:Ships by country

Hey all. I've been trying for the past month to come up with a plan for standardizing Category:Ships by country and fixing all of its problems. I've been trying to discuss it on WP:SHIPS but it hasn't attracted much interest. A couple of people stated that they supported the proposal, so I went ahead with attempting to rename categories and got slapped with a couple of oppose votes out of the blue. It appears that the proposal needs more discussion and so I was hoping to entice some people from here over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships for a little while to get some input.

The current issue seems to be a disagreement between whether naval vessels should be categorized by country name or by navy name. Navies are not named consistently, so naming by navy makes it more difficult to find information when browsing categories, but naming by country may be less correct. TomTheHand 20:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Pennant Numbers in the RN

I was wondering what the protocol is on Pennant numbers on Wikipedia, if any. The pennant number article uses the simplest version, with no full stop/period between the Flag Superior and the Number. This seems to be the convention on many websites and in print, as well as being what appeared on the hulls of the warships themselves. By contrast, there are numerous articles on Wikipedia which cite the pennant number with the afore mentioned full stop/period.

If there isn't already an official convention on the matter, I propose that one be put in place.

-Harlsbottom 23:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Problem solved. Matter closed. -Harlsbottom 15:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Military history Collaboration of the Fortnight

The article Battles of Narvik which is supported by this task force is now the focus of the current collaboration of the fortnight. Please join in improving this article. Inge 12:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

5th Battle Squadron

If nobody has any objections, I'd like to move 5th Battle Squadron to British 5th battle Squadron as per the List of squadrons and flotillas of the Royal Navy.

-Harlsbottom 15:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  • No objection, except that the "b" of "Battle" should be capitalised. There is some information on the origins and purpose of the 5th BS in the Fast battleship article, which could be drawn on to expand the article. John Moore 309 13:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Apologies - I meant to write a capitalised B... I have a fair amount of information as it is with a view to creating all the Battle Squadron articles. Thanks for the link. -Harlsbottom 01:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Naming navy categories

Hey guys, could I ask your input on this subject? We're discussing what the naming convention should be for "Ships by navy" categories. Right now it's a mix between stuff like Category:Battleships of the United States Navy and Category:Royal Navy battleships. It would be appreciated if some of you could pop over to WP:SHIPS to weigh in so we can have the discussion in one place. TomTheHand 13:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Pirates & privateers

I've assumed that privateers and their activities are included as, by definition, they were authorised by governments and were "unofficial" warfare. I've also added some pirates' biogs. Is this appropriate for a military task force?? I have an idea that the distinction may be blurred. Folks at 137 20:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It's probably safe to include them insofar as they were actually involved in combat (regardless of whether they were part of a formal military); this is consistent to our treatment of, say, medieval military history. Kirill Lokshin 20:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Axis naval activity in Australian waters

This article is up for peer review by members of the military history task force. Maybe there's someone here who's qualified to have a look. The article uses an "HSK" prefix for German auxiliary cruisers (eg HSK Kormoran). Is this correct? I find no support here. Folks at 137 15:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think HSK stands for Hilfskreuzer, meaning auxiliary cruiser or some such. An unnecessary prefix that will only confuse. JimmyTheOne 23:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The Russian Commander in Battle of Chemulpo Bay

I have read the reference article listed below the introduction page, but found no references or mention of the Captain Stefanov. The article on www.russojapanesewar.com/chemulpo.html suggests receiver of the Japanes ultimatun as Captain Rudneff, thus I think he should be the commander de facto of Russian side in Battle of Chemulpo Bay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.115.101.121 (talk • contribs)

That's definitely the case. A number of other details in the article seem quite dodgy as well; I'll have to see if I can dig up some more reputable references on this battle. Kirill Lokshin 09:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

List of World War II British naval radar

Hi guys, I've compiled a list of World War II British naval radar sets at, oddly enough, List of World War II British naval radar. I've arranged the page so you can pipe links from articles into the relevant sub-section using an anchor (E.g. to link to Type 279, [[List of World War II British naval radar#Type279|Type 279]]). I chose the page name carefully after much checking, as it fits in with the general scheme of things in the electronic warfare articles. Emoscopes Talk 11:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Current or historic flags

It's customary to add the appropriate national or naval flag to various articles, eg ships. What's best: the current version or one appropriate to the ship's historic period? For example: in WWII, Australian and Canadian warships flew the "white ensign" used by the RN. Their own ensigns came into use in the 1960s - so which is best to use? Other affected nations include Italy, Germany, USA (two more stars so no big deal!). Changes are being made to articles to show current flags, so an agreed convention would help. Folks at 137 15:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm? I was under the impression that WP:SHIPS specifically kept a gallery of historical flags for such things. (Certainly seeing the Bismark with a modern German flag would be quite silly.) You might want to talk to them and see if they're aware of these changes. Kirill Lokshin 15:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys! I'm from WP:SHIPS. Some questions pertaining to flags have come up lately and we're currently revisiting the issue of whether our gallery of historical flags should specify the use of ensigns, or whether ensigns should be specified in some cases and jacks in others. If you're interested, please drop by and give an opinion on the issue. TomTheHand 20:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

USS Sculpin (SS-494) and alike

Please take a look at talk Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#USS Sculpin where I discuss these articles. Lincher 18:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Coverage of Royal Navy vessels

I was recently rather surprised that the coverage of RN vessel names is quite poor, both at the generic name, specific ship name and class name levels. I made a start on this with Ham class minesweeper, chosen almost at random. Has this issue reviously been raised? I assume the aim would be:

  • Each class of RN ship would have a class page (eg Ham class minesweeper) and a class category (eg Category:Ham class minesweepers)
  • Each individual ship name would have either
    • A disambig page where there is more than one ship of that name (eg HMS Abercrombie)
    • or a Redirect to a specific ship where one one of the name exists but naming conventions mean it has a Pennant number or date appended (eg HMS Aberdare)
    • or be a specific article in its own right (eg HMS Abbotsham)
  • Each individual ship would have its own unique page

Is there a simple way of identifying all redlines starting with "HMS" in order to identify a candidate list and to monitor progress?

Apologies if this guidance exists already - I have not located it! Welsh 10:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's List of Royal Navy ship names, but I'm not sure how complete that is. Kirill Lokshin 16:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Categorization provides the most relevent guidance, pretty much in line with what I was suggesting above. I have found List of Royal Navy ship names is helpful but not complete. Welsh 19:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The simple reason is, it's such a mammoth task. I've been hard at this problem on and off for a good 6 months, and finally managed to get the entire list of destroyer classes blue-linked recently, I think I'm going to turn my attention to the other escort classes soon (larger ships are pretty well covered). I'm afraid minor things like Hams, Leys and whatnot are lower down my list of priorities. Emoscopes Talk 20:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Requesting extra eyes for vandalism watch

Lately the page USS George H. W. Bush (CVN-77) has come uder increased vandalism attacks by anons who are adding (or subtracting, as the case may be) from the article. Luckly, AntiVandalBot has caught the worst of it, but minor stuff continiously ends up in the article anyway. Could I pester a few good men and women to add this article to your watchlists or otherwise make a point of checking it to ensure factual accuracy? I would be very thankful, especially since I do not get much wiki time during school. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The Battleships article has also had some rough treatment lately. John Moore 309 15:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Wisconsin on FARC

This is just to inform any interested parties that the Featured Article Review for Wisconsin has evolved into a featured article removal discussion; anyone with an interest in the topic is invited to comment there. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

HMS Hood picture?

Anyone direct me to pics of this ship already licenced for wiki use? Folks at 137 21:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Any template experts?

Hey all! Some time ago at WP:SHIPS we had a discussion about improving Template:Infobox Ship. However, we weren't able to get anything implemented and we could really use a template expert. If anyone is interested, please read about it here. I can further clarify what I was thinking we should work on, if it's needed. I think an improved ship infobox would help both projects out. Thanks! TomTheHand 14:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Replied at WP:SHIPS. Kirill Lokshin 14:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Peer review request for Portal:United States Navy

There's a new peer review request for Portal:United States Navy that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 22:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

United States Fourth Fleet

Anyone with a good knowledge of the US Fleets in WW 2, this page could really use some work. Cheers Buckshot06 22:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles to be improved list

Happy New Year. Are there views about whether items on this list can be removed? I'm reluctant to do this as I've edited some (and therefore am not objective) and I doubt I have the skills to judge. I no longer add to it as it's duplicated by the "Expansion needed" list and I think that a long list loses any sense of priority. It also seems to be largely disregarded. Folks at 137 09:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It's probably sensible to remove them, or at least move those that still need work into the list in the template; there's no real benefit to having two separate lists. Kirill Lokshin 11:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I'll just move them en masse - but the basic question of whether such a list is being actively maintained still remains. Folks at 137 12:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:US State Related Ships nominated for deletion

Category:US State Related Ships has been nominated for deletion; you are invited to comment (positively or negatively) at the CfD discussion page. --A. B. (talk) 03:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

How to categorize ships that served in multiple navies

Hey guys, just popping over to ask for some help for WP:SHIPS. We're having a debate about how to categorize ships that served in multiple navies, and we could use some input if anyone has an opinion. As a brief overview, look at Category:Submarines of Brazil. The category's two members were originally US subs, and were later sold to Brazil. Unfortunately they appear under the American names in the Brazilian category.

Here are some ideas we've come up with:

  1. Just ignore the fact that they appear under American names.
  2. Create redirects for the Brazilian names, and categorize the redirects, not the articles. This has the disadvantage that you cannot navigate from the article to the Subs of Brazil category.
  3. Create redirects, categorize the redirects, not the articles, and manually insert links to the category at the bottoms of the articles. See USS Serene (AM-300) for an example.
  4. Create redirects, categorize the redirects, and categorize the articles under a special category like Category:United States Navy ships transferred to the Republic of Korea Navy

Anyone else have any good ideas? Or opinions on which of the above ideas are best? We're kind of at an impasse and need outside input. TomTheHand 22:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's see:
  1. That's what I would do, personally.
  2. This isn't very useful, because it's only a one-way link. The point of categories is to provide navigation among articles (in the raw page sense), not arbitrary links; if the latter is needed, lists or templates are better options.
  3. Horrible, horrible idea. The links look atrocious even in Monobook (since they're bizarrely separated from the rest of the categories), but their appearance in skins that place categories somewhere other than the bottom of the article is even worse.
  4. Better than option 2, I suppose, but it means that the ships will presumably be doubly listed in the second country's category tree (once as redirects and once as actual articles).
Kirill Lokshin 22:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, Kirill; for what it's worth, I agree with you. Anyone else want to chime in? I'd feel better with more than just two people in favor of #1. TomTheHand 21:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
My opinion
  1. Does a dis service to Wikipedia
  2. Half works
  3. BEST OPTION Create redirects, categorize the redirects, not the articles, and manually insert links to the category at the bottoms of the articles. See USS Serene (AM-300) for an example. This allows for the best of all worlds. They appear in the categories under there correct names, i.e. when looking in Category:Republic of Vietnam Navy ships you only see the names of the ships while in Vietnamese service. Many looking for the RVNS Nhut Tao (HQ-10) under the category Category:Republic of Vietnam Navy ships will have no clue this is the USS Serene (AM-300). It makes for easy logical navigation.
  4. Doesn't solve the wrong name of ship in category problem.
Only option 3 allows navagation in all directions, and correctly identifies each ship. --71Demon 22:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Err, you did read my comments above on the horrible technical problems with what you're proposing, yes? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 21:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Putting in one extra  : is not what I would call a horrible problem. --71Demon 22:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I meant the part about categories not being placed at the bottom of the article in non-Monobook skins. Kirill Lokshin 22:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
It is a very minor issue for the benefit. What we need need is the ability to do a [[Category:Country Navy Ships|USS Boat|HMS Somebody Elses Boat]] The second entry would allow a name change similar to He this is me, but until it is programmed. I myself don't like the way it looks, but I will take function over form anyday. I puts all ships under their correct names, so people can find them. The Category:Ships of the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force has USS ships in it, as the category grows those become harder and hard to wade through to find the correct Japanese name you want. Option 3, while not pefect, solves all the navigational problems until we get a Renaming category option as I described. --71Demon 22:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
P.S. They are close enough to the bottom, to be useful, if not pretty. --71Demon 22:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Mmm, maybe I'm not being totally clear here. The links are, indeed, "close enough to the bottom, to be useful, if not pretty"—in the Monobook skin. Readers viewing Wikipedia through most other skins will normally see categories in an entirely different part of the page (and will get only the single bizarrely out-of-place link at the bottom, in your design). For example, the Standard skin, Nostalgia skin, and CologneBlue skin all place categories at the top of the page. Kirill Lokshin 22:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I see that. I would recommend only programming for standard Wikipedia. If people choose to use skins, then there is nothing you can do. That is their choice. The important thing is to present the correct information above all else. Making sure the proper ship names are listed in their proper categories is the most important. Until we have a category option that allows the changing of the name as it appears in the category, this is a best choice to do that. Do you know of another other way to make the ship names appear as that countries ship names without hardcoding the categories? If so I'm all for it. --71Demon 01:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, as I said before, I don't think it's an issue. Categories exist to navigate among articles, not topics; it's expected that things will be listed in them according to the actual name of the article, and that lists will be used if people want to navigate among things that aren't actual article titles. (To provide a similar—and much more contentious—example: Gdańsk is listed as "Gdańsk", not "Danzig", even in the German-related categories.) Kirill Lokshin 02:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, unless anyone has anything else to say, I'm going to categorize according to option 1 and revert uses of option 3. TomTheHand 14:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit war on Ironclad warship

There's a long, slow-burning edit-war going on over ironclad warship: about whether turtle ships need to be included in the article on ironclads. Could some uninvolved and level-headed people take a look? The Land 21:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ernest King

King is often stated to have been an Anglophobe, several Wiki articles repeat this. Certainly this ties in with some of his wartime decisions (and Churchill did go over his head to Roosevelt on occasions), but it's in danger of being an "accepted truth". Are there any solid references for or against it or for why he was so? Folks at 137 11:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

UK naval ship stub types

The UK naval ships stub type has become very large; I've made a proposal here to create a number of more specific stub types to help bleed off some of them... Please comment there if you have any thoughts. (Duplicate of message to WP:SHIP.) Alai 21:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

USS Worden (CG-18)

I'd like a second opinion on new information being added by a user citing themselves as a source. See [[3] and most recent edits to USS Worden (CG-18) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Thanks. -Dual Freq 23:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for HMS Royal Oak (1914)

There's a new peer review request for HMS Royal Oak (1914) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 02:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

G/A-Class review for Battleship

The Battleship article is up for a G/A-Class review. Any input is welcomed as always! --MoRsE 17:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance; how do I access the discussion page? The above link takes me only to the list of candidates. Please reply here; I have added this page to my watchlist. Regards to all, John Moore 309 18:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, GA doesn't use per-article nomination pages, so any discussion would take place direclty on Talk:Battleship. Kirill Lokshin 18:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
That would explain it. I'll know for next time. Thanks. John Moore 309 21:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

New Virtual C-in-C for Maritime Task Force

Commodore Wikipe-tan reporting for duty!!

Template Organization

The system of requesting articles is being doled out to the task forces now. That means no massive communal list of requests any more, and much larger/longer lists within the task force templates. This task force already has a substantial list of requested articles, and they do not appear to be in any particular order. It would be a great help if anyone who was so inclined could take it upon themselves to put these into an order (preferrably some variation on alphabetical). Those of us who are moving the request list into the task forces (and you all are welcome to help with that as well) will of course do our part to aid in this process. Thank you. LordAmeth 13:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

List of World War II ships

The list is v big. I've put up some suggestions on the talk page. Comments are sought. Folks at 137 21:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Third Battle of the Atlantic?

I am a bit confused on this requested article are we asked to create a article about an event that never happened? I am assuming this would be a WWIII WP/Nato type thing and what are we supposed to say about something that never happened? Tirronan 20:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the term used to refer to the US/Soviet submarine operations in the Atlantic during the Cold War, so that may be what the request is about. Otherwise, it'd be acceptable to simply create a redirect to whatever the most appropriate existing article is. Kirill Lokshin 21:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed restructure of Bismarck Chase and Operation Rheinübung articles

I have posted, at Talk:Bismarck Chase, a proposal to restructure the Bismarck Chase and Operation Rheinübung articles. In brief, the idea is that Bismarck Chase will become an article on the battle of 26-27 March 1941, while the Operation Rheinübung article becomes a "miliary conflict" article, headed by the appropriate {{Infobox Military Conflict}} template, and scoped as follows:

  • A description of the planning and objectives of the operation,
  • A narrative of the operations conducted by the opposing sides in the course of the operation, and referencing the more detailed articles on the two battles.
  • An assessment of the impact of the operation on the subsequent course of the war.
  • A historical appraisal, addressing areas of ongoing debate and uncertainty.

I am placing a similar post on the Talk:Operation Rheinübung page, but I suggest that it would be best to consolidate discussion on the Talk:Bismarck Chase page.

Regards to all, John Moore 309 14:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Replied on Talk:Bismarck Chase. Kirill Lokshin 17:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Last call for comments

Thanks to all who have commented. Unless anyone expresses strong dissent, I will rename Bismarck Chase as Last battle of the "Bismarck" in the next couple of days. Regards to all, John Moore 309 19:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Done

I have renamed Bismarck Chase as Last battle of the battleship Bismarck and made the appropriate redirects. In its new form, this article needs a lot of work, and contributions will be very welcome. Thanks to all for your time. Regards, John Moore 309 12:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Need some help with categorization of USCG cutters

Category:Famous class cutters came up in Categories for discussion on 25 April 2007. The problem, obviously, is that people look at this and think, "famous truants?" I think I've managed to convince them of the ship category conventions, but it would be good to try for something a little clearer, such as Category:Famous class USCG cutters or something like that. Please discuss and visit the CfD. Mangoe 01:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "Famous class naval cutters"? Or maybe "Famous class cutters (ships)"? (But, admittedly, the coincidence of this particular name coming out bizarre is something that we can't work fully around.) Kirill Lokshin 14:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

CfD for cruiser category

There is a CfD ongoing for Category:United States Navy heavy cruisers that may be of some interest to members of this task force - input from knowledgeable editors has been requested, and any comments would be welcome. You can find the discussion here. Carom 05:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Please also check out the umbrella CFD for the rest of the newly-created US cruiser subdivisions here. TomTheHand 12:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Use of US Naval Jacks

Some articles are using [[Image:US Naval Jack 48 stars.svg]] and others are using [[Image:Naval Jack of the United States.svg]] in the infobox. Can someone clarify which is being used when? I presume currently commissioned ships are using the latter and decommissioned (older) ships are using the former? --Daysleeper47 12:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:US Naval Jack 48 stars.svg is for ships that were decommissioned when the U.S. flag had 48 stars. That's July 4, 1912–July 3, 1959, which is a substantial period of time that covers both world wars. Image:Naval Jack of the United States.svg is the current flag, and it's for ships that are currently in commission or that decommissioned since September 11, 2002. It is also for very early ships (January 8, 1776–June 14, 1777). Instead of hardcoding an image, please use Template:USN flag. It will allow you to get the right image for the year, allows us to control the appearance of all jacks at the same time, and looks cleaner on pages. TomTheHand 13:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Please note that the use of naval jacks instead of ensigns was debated a while ago. The consensus was to use the ensign in infoboxes, not the jack, except in exceptional circumstances. The US Naval Jack was not one of these. Folks at 137 04:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, let me go ahead and change the template now. I'm sorry, I've been less than willing to do this because it's been a contentious issue in the past, but last time we discussed this you did point me to a discussion that appeared to show consensus for ensigns. Please continue to use the template in all cases, and I will change the template to show ensigns instead of jacks. TomTheHand 12:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Done. Again, use the template; the template can reflect consensus on what flag should be used and will ensure that you always have the right one for the year. TomTheHand 12:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Views wanted - forking off sections of battleship

Battleship was a long article when it became an FA a few months ago. It has since become longer. There are two sections which are not currently written as summaries and which could be forked off: dreadnoughts and World War I to dreadnought, and rearmament and World war II to Battleships in World War II. Either of those could become an FA in its own right - dreadnought would be particularly close. I'm posting here looking for more people to contribute to the discussion on Talk:Battleship, and to help improve any forked articles ;) The Land 10:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Free French flag

There may be a difference of opinion about whether to show the Free French naval ensign as well as the French ensign, where appropriate, in ship boxes. I think it should be done to display allegiance, but I would like to establish a consensus, for or against. Any views? Folks at 137 17:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

A little bit more precisely, the point is that French legal texts define "Free French" as the men who joined De Gaulle before the liberation of North Africa (the critera varies depending on the case, but typically until 1943).
Several important units, like the Richelieu, joined the Allies afterwards. While they did fight with the Allies, they were not "Free French" under the rigourous acceptance of the term, and it seems that they did not fly the FNFL flag, but the tricolour flag of the Republic. Rama 12:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest only showing the flag(s) the ships in question actually used. If the Richelieu didn't consider itself to be "Free French", for example, using that ensign for it because it "fought on the same side" seems a bit ORish. Kirill 16:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
D'accord! Obviously! The point here is the formal French distinction between "Free French" and the "army of the Liberation". I hadn't appreciated the distinction or realised the legal formality of it. Have to be more careful. BTW, should I be offended by "ORish"? Folks at 137 19:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
ORish? I would hope you wouldn't be offended at my use of the term. ;-) Kirill 19:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Table of current naval strengths

The page Table of current naval strengths is currently completely broken and needs some expert attention! Not my field but others may be able to help. tia--mervyn 09:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Fleet Sonar School

Have created this stub as it had loads of red links to it. Please improve, thanks Willy turner

Naval battle naming convention

Is there some convention for how naval battles are capitalized (i.e. "Battle of Midway" vs. "battle of Midway") in article text? I haven't been able to find any reference on this. Thanks for your help! Rem01 17:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The general convention (for all battles) that I've seen used is to capitalize leading nouns; thus, "the Battle of Midway" would be the variant used. Kirill 18:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Rank Conventions

I'm wondering whether there is a convention on Naval (or Military) ranks here on Wikipedia. Generally, articles tend to use either the American rank forms (Rear Admiral, Vice Admiral etc.) or the British (Rear-Admiral, Vice-Admiral &c.), regardless of the nationality of the sailor in question. A book I have, Warships of the World - Victory Edition published in 1947, managed to differentiate between the various forms of the same rank. Perhaps we should do the same?

Apologies if this has already been brought up. --Harlsbottom 17:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

MaritimeQuest external links

There are a lot (as in, over 500) of external links to [www.maritimequest.com MaritimeQuest.com] in Wikipedia warship articles. Some of them - example - are photo-galleries of a type which I haven't seen anywhere else on the wb. Others are less useful (links to class specs pages, where the details are largely alredy in Wikipedia). User:Beetstra, after a modicum of discussion at WT:WPSPAM, has begun a mass removal of all of these links. I wanted to hear your views on whether they count as valid external links or as spam... Regards, The Land 11:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I want to clarify here, that it is not the link or the content that is defined as spam here, but the way they were added (see our spam guideline). --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The way they were added should have triggered alarm bells and resulted in a discussion in the appropriate place - this project - before there was wholesale removal. Personally I don't watch the Spam discussion page - I am too busy concentrating on project pages and articles that I contribute to. The modicum of discussion on the Spam page seems to have been between just two editors and on one day. I have put a response on the Spam talk page to support The Land, so as there are now two of us MILHIST editors against wholesale removal (at least until there has been consensus here) it can't be argued that there was consensus on that page. Viv Hamilton 15:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

On the point in question, rather than the method of removal - the ones I have seen are to photos of the vessel in question and I believe add to the article. Of course it makes the article look nice if an image is uploaded to WP and embedded in the article, but if the copyright owner doesn't want to GPL the image, then an external link that is pretty much as good for a researcher - provided it goes direct. I think it should be for the article editors to make the judgment about which links to remove Viv Hamilton 15:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The links added, for example to each of the British C class submarine articles which I have editted, contribute to the knowledge base in that the images can be viewed though the GPL policy makes wholesale uploading difficult. In fact any pictures of some of these vessels are scarce on the Internet. So until suitable freely uploadable images are forthcoming I vote we keep the links where they add value. Welsh 16:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I have offered some observations and suggestions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#3rd opinion request. --A. B. (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

There now appears to be a consensus that any of us editors, who do not have a confliuct of interest (i.e. as the owner of maritimequest) are free to restore any of the deleted links that we think add value to the article concerned. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#3rd opinion request Viv Hamilton 07:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have left an explanation and suggestion on Michael Pocock's talkpage in order to move on. I am sorry that so much aggravation has been caused by these edits. I hope things are settled now. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Which set of categories?

This may need to head over to CfD for final resolution, but I noticed the existence of two separate and not particularly coordinated sets of categories for navy ships starting off with Category:Ships by navy and Category:Naval ships by country, the latter of which has references back to this Wikiproject. Is there supposed to be this apparent parallelism, and if not, which set should be preferred? Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an issue that's had a significant amount of debate over the course of the past few years, as each set has its own proponents. Any attempt to take it over to CfD has resulted in no consensus. Currently the compromise consensus is that both should exist, as both country names and navy names come and go. TomTheHand 17:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Citations and ISBNs

This was originally posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, but moved here after the first comment.

The article HNoMS Norge and some 30 other pages [1] cite Norwegian naval ships 1939-1945 (1986) with a bad ISBN 82-7046-050-9 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum. The correct one should be ISBN 82-7046-050-8. I could go through them and correct the ISBN, but perhaps something else needs to be checked as well? Is this a good book and edition to cite? How do you typically handle errors of this kind in this WikiProject? Do you maintain a list of standard literature, and would this book be on that list? After all, it's cited in 30 articles. --LA2 09:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ HNoMS Norge, HNoMS Eidsvold, HNoMS Fridtjof Nansen OPV, HNoMS Trygg, HNoMS Tordenskjold, HNoMS Harald Haarfagre, Draug class destroyer, Norwegian B class submarine, HNoMS Draug, HNoMS Troll, HNoMS Garm, Sleipner class destroyer, HNoMS Nor (1878-1949), HNoMS Uller (1876-1940), HNoMS Gor (1884-1945), HNoMS Tyr (1887-1945), HNoMS Frøya, HNoMS Olav Tryggvason, HNoMS Kong Haakon VII, HNoMS Æger (destroyer), HNoMS Sleipner (1937-1959), HNoMS Gyller, HNoMS Odin, HNoMS Rauma (1940-1963), HNoMS Otra (1939-1963), HNoMS Stegg, HNoMS Nordkapp OPV (1937), HNoMS Hitra, Trygg class torpedo boat, HNoMS Heimdal OPV (1892), Norwegian A class submarine
Each task force within the project maintain their own resources list. This particular reference is located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force and Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Sources which is a closely affiliated project. I think this is a typo that should be corrected. The reference is a well regarded one and we should check that all of the other details are correct. Woodym555 10:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I have fixed all of those and cannot find anymore through the search function. Thanks for pointing it out. Woodym555 20:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Can someone upload a file to commons for me please?

Sorry to bother you folks. But for some reason, I am unable to upload files to wp:commons. When I type into the "destination filename" gadget, this weird red light icon flashes next to the gadget, and when I hit the "upload" button, nothing whatever happens. I've tried uploading files from external websites and my own PC, makes no difference. The image copyright selection box is set to "US federal government" so that isn't the problem. Left messages at wp:images and wp:commons village pump but got no response, so it seems my only alternative is to ask someone else to do the uploading for me!

The image I'm currently trying to upload is of the USS Clay (APA-39) from navsource online. The image is originally from the US Naval Historical Centre and is the first image on this page. Would someone be willing to upload it for me? I want to put it into the article of the same name. Gatoclass 04:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I've got it. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Here you go. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Royal Yachts of the United Kingdom

I've added the MilHist assessment banner to List of Royal Yachts of the United Kingdom, I'm not sure whether it should belong to the project or not - except that people here are most likely to have the information about the yachts Viv Hamilton 09:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ship class template sort order

I just happened to notice that the 117 ships in the Haskell class attack transport template were not in alphabetical order. They were originally in order of class number, but since class numbers aren't listed in the template display, I figured there was no reason not to put them in alphabetical order, so I did just that.

After doing so however, I realized that you can actually access the class number by hovering the mouse over individual entries, but I wasn't inclined to change back because I figure most people would be looking for a name rather than a particular number anyhow. But I thought maybe I would canvas the issue here to see what other people think.

Also, I thought I'd take a look through some other class templates to see in what order ships are listed, and from what I saw, most of them seem to have no discernable order at all. Is there a policy regarding the sort order of ships in templates, or is it just something no-one got around to thinking about yet? I think we ought to have some sort of consistent policy regarding sort order, because a random sort order is of no use to anyone. Gatoclass 09:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Update: It seems a lot of them actually are listed by hull classification number, but I'm not sure if this due to policy, or just because people have been cutting and pasting lists from elsewhere that list the ships like that. Is there a formal policy on this? And if ships are listed by hull classification numbers, what do you do about classes of ships that have no such numbers? Gatoclass 09:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

While I am not aware of any policy on this issue, I follow two rules of thumb. If the number of ships is "small" I list them by build order, which is often -but not always!- the same as by hull/pennant number. If the number of ships is "large" I list them alphabetically in order to make it easier to find individual ships. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I figure alphabetical is probably better, because most people would be looking for a particular ship name and if they know the HC No. they probably know the name as well. So I think I'll keep listing them that way. Gatoclass 10:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Messed up Royal Navy categories

Just looking at the categories under Category:Auxiliary ships. We have a bunch of auxiliary subcats listed by country, ie "Auxiliary ships of Russia", Auxiliary ships of Poland" etc. No problem there. However, for the UK, we have both "Auxiliary ships of the United Kingdom", which fits with all the other subcats, but then there is also "Fleet auxiliaries of the United Kingdom". Unless I have missed something, this appears to naming the same thing as the other UK cat, only in a nonstandard way.

Additionally, there is nothing at all listed under Category:Auxiliary ships of the United Kingdom and only one subcat and a couple of ships under Category:Fleet auxiliaries of the United Kingdom. On the latter page however, we find another cat called Category:Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships and opening this we find a whole bunch of subcats and ships.

It appears to me this whole structure is screwed, there is no need for either the "Fleet auxiliaries of the United Kingdom" cat (which is a nonstandard name) or the "Royal Fleet auxiliary ships" cat. It looks to me as though all the ships and subcats in these categories should be listed directly in the "Auxiliary ships of the United Kingdom" cat.

I'd list these cats for deletion myself without further ado, but I just want to be sure there is nothing I've missed here that justifies the existence of these two nonstandard cats - which is to say, is there a difference in the UK navy between "auxiliaries", "fleet auxiliaries" and "royal fleet auxiliaries"? If not, I will reorganize these cats and list the latter two for deletion. Gatoclass 13:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Update: It appears that auxiliaries for the RN are divided into two categories, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and the Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service. So I guess there *is* a good reason to have a category called "Royal Fleet auxiliary ships". So it looks like the only problem is the "Fleet auxiliaries of the United Kingdom" parent cat. This cat should be merged into "Auxiliary ships of the United Kingdom" for consistency with the other country cats, and it should have two separate subcats, one for Royal Fleet auxiliary ships (already extant) and another called Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service ships. If there are no objections, I will go ahead with this reorganization sometime over the next few days. Gatoclass 14:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

More messed up categorizations

I've just noticed that there are two major categories existing side by side, Category:Ships by navy and Category:Ships by country. these two categories appear not only to be duplicating either in intent, but they have spawned a wide array of subcategories in similar vein. So, under Category:Ships by navy we find Category:Destroyers of the United States Navy and in Category:Ships by country we find Category:Destroyers of the United States.

This kind of duplication not only messes the whole tree up and makes it hard to find what you're looking for, but it has also effectively split the entries into two separate universes as some users are putting their cats into one parent cat and some are putting them into the other. Thus, you will search in vain for Category:United States Navy battleships because the battleships are in Category:Battleships of the United States. Conversely, you shouldn't bother looking for Category:Seaplane tenders of the United States because they are in Category:United States Navy seaplane tenders.

It looks to me as though one entire tree has to go and my suggestion would be the Category:Ships by navy tree. This one seems to be more messed up than the other one, and to contain a lot more nonstandard names. It's also a less useful name - ships by country includes ships of all types, such as categories for "Naval ships of country X", "Merchant ships of country X", "Passenger ships of country X" and so on. Whereas Category:Ships by navy doesn't share this advantage. Gatoclass 18:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

these cats have been discussed in the past (archived discussion?). one thing the two cat trees does do is cover different builder and operator nations - hence a battleship of the japanese navy that was built in the uk appears in battleships of the UK. GraemeLeggett 20:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. A battleship of the Japanese Navy that was built in the UK appears in Battleships of Japan, with potentially a cat indicating the yard where it was built, like Category:Barrow-built ships. TomTheHand 10:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That seems a very minor point compared to the major mess that having two master categories on essentially the same subject is causing. (Apart from which, Category:ships by country already includes a subcat called Category:Ships by country of construction).

Anyhow, I've checked the earlier discussion and although it didn't discuss the issue raised here directly, it appeared to tacitly recognize that there's a problem with the Category:Ships by navy cat and that there's a lot of duplication going on. The consensus appeared to be that categorization under "Ships by country" made more sense, which I obviously agree with. Gatoclass 04:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to give a further idea of how farcical this situation has become, just compare Category:United States Navy ships (a subcat of Category:Ships by navy) to Category:Naval ships of the United States (the equivalent subcat of Category:Ships by country).

Category:United States Navy shipsCategory:Naval ships of the United States
Category:United States Navy amphibious assault ships Category:Amphibious warfare vessels of the United States
Category:United States Navy patrol boatsCategory:Patrol vessels of the United States
Category:United States Navy sloopsCategory:Sloops of the United States
Category:United States Navy monitorsCategory:Monitors of the United States
Category:Frigates and destroyer escorts of the United States NavyCategory:Frigates and destroyer escorts of the United States
Category:Destroyers of the United States NavyCategory:Destroyers of the United States
Category:United States Navy submarinesCategory:Submarines of the United States
Category:United States Navy mine warfare shipsCategory:Mine warfare vessels of the United States

...and so on. And in fact if you open these cats, you find many subcats that are also duplicating subcats in the other master cat.

On top of that, there is also the problem I mentioned before about missing cats in one or another master category. So for example, there are no listings for Battleships, Battlecruisers or Cruisers listed in Category:United States Navy ships, similarly, there are a bunch of subcats missing from Category:Naval ships of the United States, like brigs, barques, seaplane tenders and so on. And these are just the duplicated/missing listings for one country! Gatoclass 06:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to sum up

So to sum up the problem as I see it, the basic problem is that Category:Ships by navy has been made a separate category when it should really be a subcategory of Category:Ships by country. Ships by country of course, already has its own subcat for "ships by navy", which is the Category:Naval ships by country cat. So what ultimately needs to happen IMO is that Category:Ships by navy gets merged into Category:Naval ships by country. Before we do that, we may need to merge and reorganize a number of smaller cats - or maybe we can do that afterwards, I'm not sure. But as the ultimate goal, I think a merger of these two cats is what we should be aiming for. Gatoclass 06:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, but the number of people opposed to getting rid of the navy cats is great enough that no CFD succeeds. The dual structure is a little bit useful when the country name or navy name changed... for example, the Royal Navy predates the United Kingdom by hundreds of years, while Canada's navy was the Royal Canadian Navy from 1911 to 1968 when it became the Canadian Forces Maritime Command. TomTheHand 10:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but England/Britain/UK obviously share the same political history. One is never going to get cats that fit every possible situation, the Royal Navy is the navy of the UK so it's obviously the cat you go to in order to find ships in the RN.
There are always going to be a few minor quibbles, but the issue here is that one has two major cats side by side that are pursuing completely separate development paths. Gatoclass 11:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, for example, HMS Vanguard (1678) was launched in 1678 and wrecked in 1703, nearly a century before the formation of the United Kingdom, so she wasn't a ship of the United Kingdom and many people (including myself) would be opposed to categorizing her as such. Either she needs to be categorized as a ship of Great Britain, or we need a big, nasty cat name like Category:Ships of England, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom. TomTheHand 12:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that's taking the whole thing too literally. And it's not as though there are not precedents for "fudging" to some degree. For example, all English Naval vessels are preceded by convention with "HMS" even though many of them existed prior to the adoption of "HMS" as an RN identifier. So why not apply the same "backdating" principle in relation to the name "UK"? The bottom line is that categories are for ease of navigating, not for technical exactitude. The question one should ask is, how many people are unlikely to understand that "Naval ships of the UK" is not the category to find ships of the RN? I would submit, few if any.

But if it's really going to be an issue for some folks, then I don't see what's wrong with just dropping a note at the top of the "Naval Ships of the United Kingdom" category which simply says something along the lines of "This category lists ships of the Royal Navy, which began as the Navy of England and later in history became the Navy of Great Britain and subsequently of the United Kingdom". Gatoclass 13:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That's one way of doing it. I was going to suggest using a scheme similar to how the corresponding operational categories are organized:
  • Naval history of the UK
    • Ships of the UK
      • Ships of the UK RN
    • Ships of GB
      • Ships of the GB RN
    • Ships of England
      • Ships of the E RN
But that doesn't really work since the RN spans all the periods in question. Perhaps a truncated double-categorization system might work:
  • Naval history of the UK
    • Ships of the UK
      • No further sub-categories for naval ships
    • Ships of GB
      • No further sub-categories for naval ships
    • Ships of England
      • No further sub-categories for naval ships
    • Ships of the RN
      • Further categories here
Each ship would then have a set of categories like "Battlecruisers of the Royal Navy | Ships of the United Kingdom" or "Frigates of the Royal Navy | Ships of Great Britain"; the sub-categories would only descend along the navy path, eliminating the bulk of the redundant categories. Kirill 14:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't like "Naval history of the UK" because it is nonstandard and confusing. If people feel that "Naval ships of the United Kingdom" should not include ships of England or Great Britain, then I would suggest just having three separate cats for those three political entities. I don't see the point in having a category for the RN, because the RN is obviously not a country. No-one seems to know exactly when it started as an institution anyhow. Gatoclass 15:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here's another suggestion. Instead of "Ships by country", why don't we make it "ships by region"? Then we can have, for example, "Ships of the British Isles", which would have separate subcategories for ships of England, Britain and the UK as well as subcats for ships of Scotland, Ireland and Wales (assuming those nations have or have had some ships). Likewise, we could have "Ships of North America", which would have subcats for ships of the US, the CSA (Confederacy) and Canada. "Ships of South America" and "Ships of Asia" could be a couple of the other regions.
This would enable us to group ships of the UK, Britain and England together so they'd be easy to find, without artificially placing all ships of the RN under the "Ships of the UK" category. It would also get around the problem of where to put ships of the CSA, which are not strictly speaking ships of the USA. Gatoclass 00:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hang on, I think I've got it. We don't actually need to have a "Ships by region" master cat, we can leave it as "Ships by country" and have all the countries listed separately directly under that cat. ALL we then need to do is add some subcats dealing with regions, so we have a subcat called "Ships of the British Isles" which has the separate subcats of "Ships of England" "Ships of Britain" "Ships of the UK" etc. We can add as many or as few regions as we need. I think that should solve the problem. Gatoclass 01:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Help me understand how this would work for ships like the County-class cruisers that are in Category:County class cruisers. Currently this category is a member of both Category:Cruisers of the United Kingdom (which is itself in Category:Naval ships of the United Kingdom and Category:Cruisers by country) and Category:Royal Navy cruisers (which is a member of Category:Royal Navy ships and Category:Cruisers by navy). --Kralizec! (talk) 13:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That's another issue. The point I'm trying to address here is how best to represent RN ships under the "Ships by country" master cat. Since some people have objected to having them all placed under the "Naval ships of the UK" cat we have to list them some other way. I was simply replying to Kirill's suggestion that we could list all the English/British/UK ships in a "Naval history of the UK" cat. We need to find a more suitable heading than that so I have suggested "Ships of the British Isles" as an alternative.

Taking a "regional" approach would also enable us to list other countries' ships by region, for example we could have a cat called "Ships of North America" which listed ships of both the United States and the Confederacy (as well as the ships of Canada). That would get around the problem of listing Confederacy ships incorrectly in the "Ships of the United States" cat, but still allow users to find ships of the Confederacy quickly and easily. Gatoclass 07:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Peer review for Pre-dreadnought now open

The peer review for Pre-dreadnought is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 17:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes indeedyy. The Land 17:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:LSMR-401 class landing ship mediums

Two categories for US military ship classes are being considered for merging/renaming here. Assistance with determining at which title the categories should be located would be most appreciated. – Black Falcon (Talk) 07:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Watseka (YT-387)

Are commissioned naval vessels, including ocean-going tugs, inherently notable? --A. B. (talk) 13:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Important correction: the Watseka was a harbour tug. --A. B. (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
They can be under certain circumstances.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStar81 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 14 November 2007

Follow-up

This article survived its AfD but I think it's worth having a more general discussion here as to the notability of small noncombatant auxiliaries such as harbour tugs. I opposed deletion in that AfD on grounds of precedent and consistency but going forward, I think it would be better to list these small auxiliaries with all their basic data in the article for their ship-class. If one turns out to have more of a story, it can still have its own article -- for example, see the USS Hoga (YT-146) article.

One advantage is that is easier to watch one larger article than dozens of stubs.

I'll also note that I don't think the U.S. Navy still considers its harbour craft as commissioned vessels, so do we keep articles for now-retired, formerly commissioned tugs but not for new tugs?

Others' thoughts? --A. B. (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Start with the class article and only expand later if possible.GraemeLeggett 17:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be useful to have all these vessels in Wikipedia. Some of the time I deal with historical data for work. It is genuinely useful if people can look at Wikipedia, type in the name of a vessel and find a link to it. This is because when people see references to vessels, they probably don't know much about them - on Monday a client was looking at drafts of a document asked what type of vessel HMAS Tobruk was in an operation in 2000.

I agree that in some cases there is not enough information to make worthwhile articles about some individual ships. A perfectly reasonable solution would be to write a class article, and do redirect pages for individual ships.--Toddy1 17:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the solution of class articles plus redirects. If you look at the List of auxiliaries of the United States Navy there are 5 harbour tugs listed with articles (all from DANFS) and none of these says anything notable. Viv Hamilton 18:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
My view is that ships of certain types below a certain size best belong in class articles, unless there is anything otherwise notable about them. We can't have the perfect article on Japanese submarine chaser Cha 98, not on the thousands of other tugs, patrol boats, merchantmen acting as storeships, and other miscellaneous vessels. We can't have the perfect article on every small boat that evacuated servicemen from Dunkirk. Often, only very basic information is ever recorded in any published source. We can have the information presented in an informative and comprehensible manner in articles about classes. Regards, The Land 18:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
While I feel that the act of being officially commissioned into a nation's navy is inherently notable for any ship, I whole-heartedly agree with having ships listed on their class articles and not forking them unless they have enough verifiable info to be a non-stub article. USCG 95 foot Cape class patrol boat is a good example of this in practice. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

Bouncing off an idea from MBK004 (talk · contribs), would there be any interest in treating featured topics for ship classes by updating the class page and ship pages to FA status? It could help expand our featured topic selection, which would be beneficial to both the Military history Project and the Ships project. Comments? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me chime in before I head off to school this morning on this: Featured topic status currently encompasses only a limited number of articles (218), yet within the scope of this project and the ship's project there are multiple topics which could and should strive for this status. The criteria is a little different than what Tom has stated. While a majority of the articles in the topic must be featured, the remainder need only be GA. I believe that all the articles relating to the Iowa class battleships should be our first Featured Topic. By checking this bulleted status list in my sandbox: Checklist here, we can see that this topic is close to meeting the criteria currently, and we should strive to meet the special distinction associated with the Featured Topics where all the articles in the topic are Featured.-MBK004 14:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. In due course I hope to see a featured topic on the history of the battleship ;) The Land 14:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a good plan to me! --Kralizec! (talk) 15:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Will A-class review count towards Featured Topics? It would be very irritating to have to submit articles for GA status just so they can get into a featured topic ;) The Land 15:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the Featured Topic people have already rejected A-class here under the auspices that if an article is A-class worthy, it should be brought up to FA, and if it isn't worthy of being a GA, it shouldn't be A-class.-MBK004 16:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
But A-class is a tougher test to pass than Good Article! Ludicrous. The Land 16:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Most projects don't have any formal review for A-Class articles, though. The folks at FT may be willing to make an exception for us, given that we have one. Kirill 16:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess it doesn't hurt to ask. I still say we should strive to bring every article we intend as part of a FT to FA status before nominating for FT. That might make that process easier.-MBK004 (talk) 04:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

In my mind's eye I see this as us bringing every ship in a class up to FA status, along with the class page itself and an armament of or aircraft of the XXXXX-class if the article requires one. Since ship classes are by definition governed by the number of ships produced for the class we can set up work groups for the featured topics and run them in a style similar to the contest. Thats how I see this (although other opinions are as always welcome). TomStar81 (Talk) 07:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I've compiled a quite detailed list of most of the US battleship classes that saw combat in WWII and their status towards FT in my sandbox. I also think Tom's above idea has merit and would also like other opinions/suggestions. -MBK004 02:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Maritime_warfare_task_force/Archive_1&oldid=1085480587"