Template talk:Infobox ship begin/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

small tweak needed, and question

In the full code version, at least one field (Troops) is displaying without a colon—see USS Essex (LHD-2). As to the question: am I missing it, or do we have a field for aircraft carried but no field for land/amphibious craft carried? Maralia (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the "Troops:" thing. The existing field "Ship boats" displays as "Boats and landing craft carried:"; is that sufficient? TomTheHand (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That works, thanks. Maralia (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Field: Auto Deck Clearance

For use on ferry articles, could a field for "Auto Deck Clearance" be added? I suppose this would fit in best somewhere after the capacity field. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we come up with a term that can be used for both ferries and aircraft carriers (for hangar deck clearance)? Would "Deck clearance" be sufficiently clear? TomTheHand (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think "Deck clearance" would work fine. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think deck clearance was a big deal for early aircraft carriers. If a carrier was built in the 1930s with deck clearances meant specifically for the aircraft of that era, they were at a disadvantage ten years later when aircraft had grown considerably.

I've added a field called "Ship deck clearance" that displays as "Deck clearance:". It goes just after "Decks:". I added it to the commercial vessel code, but not the warship code yet... maybe I'll fork the warship code to have separate aircraft carrier code. If you want to fork the commercial vessel code into separate code for ferries, cruise ships, etc, please feel free; I'll help you if you need it. TomTheHand (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The code (at least for commercial ships) is missing the = sign. Forking the commercial code might be an interesting idea... although the only difference I can think of at the moment between cruise ship & ferry code is the deck clearance field - not sure if that really warrants a forked version. -- Kjet (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, thanks for the heads-up. TomTheHand (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kjet ... forking the commercial code might be something to consider down the road as the template evolves further; but at this point, I don't think it's needed for the few variances that exist. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Call me a fan of standardized templates, but I feel that having one central template sure makes maintenance and updates a lot easier. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting forking the template itself - I'm strongly against that. What I'm suggesting is coming up with more specialized copy-and-paste code. TomTheHand (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Field: Maximum Speed?

Continuing to bother Tom with ideas for new fields... For several commercial vessels (this might be the same for navy ships, I've no clue), the ship data given by the owner/builder usually displays the ship's service speed, but further research reveals that she has sailed faster (sometimes a lot faster) during her sea trials - case point being M/S Oscar Wilde with the company reported service speed at 21,5 knots but reported top speed at 26 knots. So, I was wondering if it would be prodent to have separate fields for "service speed" and "maximum speed"? Or if both figures should be entered in the current speed field along the lines of "21,5 knots (service)/26 knots (maximum)"?`-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjet (talk • contribs) 16:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

All the various kinds of speed (service, cruising, design, actual, maximum, submerged, surfaced, etc) are posted in the single speed field, with a little note explaining what they are. TomTheHand (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would be inclined to just have one speed field, with other notations listed there. At least when it comes to most military ships, most speeds from "cruising" to flank speed are classified. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the speed figures for most modern military ships are classified. However, we have good detail for ships from WWII and before, and we've put all speeds into one field in the past. TomTheHand (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No reason to change it then. I always presumed there would be just one reported speed for warships, hence the question. -- Kjet (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge in two Ferry templates?

I brought up deprecating two ferry templates at Template_talk:Infobox_Ferry#Proceed_with_Merge? and Template talk:WAFerry. There are very few articles that link to either, but one concern was raised with the Searoad article. There needs to be some cleanup (splitting the ships out of the company article and into their own articles); but the ships currently display some values currently not available in {{tl:Template:Infobox Ship Example}}, from what I can see the missing ones are mainly Gearbox, ramp dimensions, and load. Any opinions on adding these fields? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Deprecating both templates is definately a good idea, the more standardization we have the better. As for the fields not existing in this template... I'm extremely ignorant on the technical issues, but could Gearbox be be placed under Propulsion? It's a part of the propulsion system anyway. For the ramp dimensions, my initial thought was to simply eliminate the field. But that said, many companies provide that data, so maybe we could add a Ramp dimensions field, in which all relevant ramp info could be added (it should be noted that a ship can have ramps other than just the ones leading to and from the car deck). No idea on the Load field(s). -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 20:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It also seems to me that Gearbox could go under Propulsion. What is Load, exactly? Could it go under Capacity, or is that not really what it is? TomTheHand (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

After looking closer at the Searoad article, in the context used, it appears that axle load and point load could be listed under capacity. I also agree that gearbox could go under propulsion. That just leaves the two entries for "Bow ramp" and "Stern ramp". To be honest, I have mixed feelings on adding this field - I suppose it could be merged with capacity, but I'm not sure it's really a good fit in that section. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Would one "Ramps:" field get the job done? I wonder if a Ramps field would also be useful for LSTs. TomTheHand (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

A single field for both ramps should work fine. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 22:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I was the one with concerns with the Searoad article, and don't have any concerns with what you propose. I just need to split the ships from the company. Wongm (talk) 07:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have a preference on where the "Ramps" field should be sequenced? I'm thinking just after "Deck clearance", does that seem reasonable? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

After "Deck clearance" is the most logical place, I (too) think. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 16:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. TomTheHand (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added the field. So far, I've only documented it under the full code and commercial. There was a suggestion of using it for LSTs, but I wasn't certain if that was decided as yet. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sequence of fields

In the displayed template in articles, would anyone object to moving the "Port of Registry" field to show immediately after "Ship name"? Or at least up to being just after "Operator"? It seems far more relevant to those pieces of information than it does to the status related fields where it currently displays. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If no objections, should I go ahead and make this change? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say "I agree" before but apparently forgot. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 16:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fine with me. Guys, I'm sorry, I've been having a really rough time off-wiki lately and I haven't had time for much editing. I know I should have made these changes should have been made weeks ago. TomTheHand (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the field, per the discussion above. Tom, sorry to hear about off-wiki issues, but those always take priority - so understood. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: no one specified if there was a preference for after ship name or after ship operator (both had been suggested), so I went the more conservative route and only moved it up to being after the operator for now. If it should be moved up to after name, that could be done later. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The current way (after "operator") is preferrable IMO - placing it above the operator would again signify the registry nation over the owner (on commercial ships anyway), and I think we agree that we don't want that. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 18:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding Conversion of Units of Measurement

Wondering if conversion of units of measurement could be added to the Infobox ... length in feet to metres, speed in knots to km/h, etc. I've tried to do so in HMS Warrior (1860) using the convert template and selecting what I thought were appropriate units. A few other Infoboxes I've seen (for example Template:Infobox_settlement) seem to use automatic conversion. Does it make sense here? What fields should be converted? What units of measurement should be used? As an alternative to automatic conversion, editors could be encouraged to use the convert template in the Infobox with suggestions for where and using which units, like used with Template:Infobox River. I have to admit that the coding for automatic conversion is beyond my WP skill. papageno (talk) 01:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've done conversions on all recent infoboxes I've created. The biggest problem with putting in built-in conversions (apart from the possibility of people not knowing how to use them) is which units we should put in first, imperial or metric? And can we really make a common rule on which should be put first, when some sources provide only metric figures while others provide only imperial ones. As to knots to km/h conversion, I've always found them a bit silly - and shouldn't they also include a miles per hour figure (as knot = nautical miles per hour ≠ miles per hour)? Plus I don't think the "kn" abbreviation for knot in the current conversion table is recognisable enough (althought that is a subject to a different discussion). Encouraging people to use the conversions is definately a good idea. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 10:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

My problem with the convert template is that it will only accept one input value. So you would have to enter 168.5 ft instead of the more useful 168 ft 6 in, so I have not been using it so far. Martocticvs (talk) 12:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I see the challenges with autoconversion, and with selecting the most appropriate units. Perhaps we can encourage people to use the convert template with at least one metric and one non-metric measurement of their choice, which seems to be the most common arrangement elsewhere, and leave it up to them to decide which one they'd prefer to put first; I have no preference for one or the other being first. As for suggested units, my votes would be for (no-metric and metric respectively): feet&inches and metres for lengths; knots and km/h for speed; long tons and tonnes for displacement; inches and centimetres for small lengths (like gun barrel diameters?); square feet and square metres for areas (useful for deck size/ sail area?). I would suggest normal style guidelines (I think this is normal): use full spelling and linking (latter using the lk=on parameter of the convert template) the first mention of a unit of measurement in an Infobox, and the first mention in the body text; thereafter, abbreviations (using the abbr=on parameter of the convert template) and no linking.
I take Martocticvs' point too about feet and inches, and did not see any way to address it, until accidentally stumbling onto this section of the convert template talk page. Turns out there is now a solution using convert (and was one previously using another template). The discussion was started by someone interested in editing articles about ships! This is an exmaple of using the convert template to do what you request just above: 168 ft 6 in (51.4 m). papageno (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well in that case, I may as well start using it then! Thanks for showing me that. Martocticvs (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, conversions from feet & inches are now working. I've also got conversions the other way running, e.g. {{convert|12.45|m|ftin}} will give you "12.45 metres (40 ft 10 in)". What I would like to see, though, would be {{convert}}'s being built into this template. So, for example, ...

instead of typing in	Ship height=	{{convert|20.45|m}}	you'll just type	Ship height m=	20.45
instead of typing in	Ship height=	{{convert|124.5|ft}}	you'll just type	Ship height ft=	124.5
instead of typing in	Ship height=	{{convert|124|ft|6|in}}	you'll just type	Ship height ft=	124
and				Ship height in=	6

... and this template will convert automatically (using {{convert}}). Jɪmp 16:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Official numbers and letters

How come we don't add IMO numbers, official numbers, maritime mobile service identities and call signs as fields to the ship infobox? For example, the BC ferry "Spirit of British Columbia": IMO number 9015668, official number 815277, MMSI 316001268 and call sign VOSM.

I attempted to implement these fields myself, but that was reverted. --  Denelson83  22:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Those are all such similar pieces of information, it doesn't seem like a good idea to me to add four separate fields. We try to condense similar information into single fields. TomTheHand (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

So then how about we add one field that says "identification"? --  Denelson83  23:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. I'd like to wait until tomorrow to see if anyone has any further suggestions before adding the field. TomTheHand (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Identification sound fine for me. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 08:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but what would be the benefit of adding this? The ship infobox is already getting pretty big, and when its fully filled out it often dominates the text of the article. Are there databases of these numbers which are available? - I doubt that they'd be of interest or use to many people, though maybe I'm wrong. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Official numbers can be used to search for further vessel histories. An IMO number stays with a hull throughout its entire life, so searching the 'Net for a specific IMO number has potential for getting quite a lot of info.

Also, MMSIs are used in the Automatic Vessel Identification System, or AIS. There are several AIS tracking sites on the Web, such as siitech.net, and some ships only show up on AIS tracking maps under their MMSIs. --  Denelson83  18:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I support adding a single "Identification" field to be shared for these codes. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added a "Ship identification" field. Sorry for the delay. I haven't been on-wiki very consistently lately. TomTheHand (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding anchors

I would like to add the anchor specs to the infobox at USS Constitution from the "specs" section so as to clean the article up. I've experimented with trying to add the line myself but with no luck. Ideas? --Brad (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, we can do it as a one-off, custom field for that article only, or we can add it to the infobox. Is it a piece of information that's often talked about for Age of Sail ships? I'd rather not permanently add it to the infobox if it's rare. TomTheHand (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know if it's often talked about with age of sail ships but in particular to Constitution, her kedge anchors were used as one means of escape from a British squadron in 1812 so they're worth listing if the information is there. Otherwise I would leave the information out. I used the full code box on Constitution because there were so many specs worth putting in. Whether or not you want to make anchor permanent I will leave up to you but it would definitely help get Constitution up to FA. --Brad (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I finally did this by using a single custom field on Constitution :-/ That was a heck of a delay. Please feel free to harass me on my talk page when I do this in the future. TomTheHand (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge together instead - Template:Infobox Ship & Template:Infobox Ship Begin

Why created a new template. -- Fernvale (talk) 05:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Refit Armament Layout

Again this template cannot split up the sections for the years that each refit was on the ship. The previous ship table like USS Iowa (BB-61) looked neated than current one USS Missouri (BB-63). The USS Missouri armament info looked messy now. -- ~~

In response to both your concerns raised above:

• I'm not sure why you suggest merging {{Infobox Ship}} and {{Infobox Ship Begin}}. Infobox Ship Begin was based on Infobox Ship, but has superior utility in that its modular format allows inclusion of multiple careers with different navies, as well as offering formats for warships, commercial ships, and ship classes.
• I agree that the row span function in the table at USS Iowa (BB-61) looks nice. I'd be interested in exploring modifying {{Infobox Ship Begin}} to support armament by year. From a coding standpoint, though, it's gonna be a pain in the neck. Maralia (talk) 05:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it can be done by using multiple "Infobox Ship Characteristics" sections, the same way that multiple carreer sections are done. I'll correct the coding on the USS Missouri article to demonstrate. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the USS Missouri article. In this version, I've hidden the second "characteristics" header, but it's also possible to add text so one characteristics header could read "General characteristics (1943)" and the second header reads "General characteristics (1984)". --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about using the header caption; that's a much better solution. I've modified USS Missouri (BB-63) to use the headers to indicate the relevant years for the armament. Fernvale, do you see how it's done? Maralia (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Another option, that I've used in some commercial ships, is to list the first characteristics caption "(as built)", and the second one "(1984 refit)" or "(1984 modernization)". --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Barek, for working on the Missouri article! Fernvale, USS Iowa (BB-61) doesn't use {{Infobox Ship}}, the previous ship template. It uses a totally custom table for that article only. I like the way it looks, but I'm not at all sure how to add that kind of capability to a template infobox. I'll see if I can figure something out. Infobox Ship has no advantages over {{Infobox Ship Begin}}, and lacks many of its capabilities. TomTheHand (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hull material

Hi. Should there be a field that specifies the hull material? I am working on adding this infobox to a couple tall ship articles and in some cases they have steel hulls (where you might expect to find wood). —Noah 07:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe by using |Ship type= Steel Hulled Tall Ship ? or something in that manner? --Brad (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with using the "ship type" field for those articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with using "ship type" as well. If the ship is a member of a class, the "ship class" field displays as "Class and type:" and you can type "Something-class steel-hulled tall ship". TomTheHand (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 19:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that will work. I appreciate the help. Also, is there a list of "ship types"? —Noah 18:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There isn't a formal list, but we have Category:Ship types, which contains all of our articles on ship types. TomTheHand (talk) 19:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Request default image

One easy thing we could do to standardize appearance is provide a default along the lines of [[Image:No Photo Available.svg|300px|No photograph is currently available.]] when "Ship image" is not specified. There are currently several different "Insert Image Here" image/alt-text combinations being used. If an editor has a strong conviction that [[Image:IIH.png|300px|Please contribute an image!!!]] should be used on a particular page, the default can always be overridden. Cheers. Haus^Talk 13:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I had trouble with that. The template does provide No Photo Available.svg by default when there's no Ship image= present, but when you supply Ship image= and leave it blank it overrides the default. Not sure how to avoid that. TomTheHand (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Two issues

I would like to see two tweaks to the template:

A tweak allowing for mutiple recomissionings (when aplicable); something like
|commision_1=<confict>
|commission date=
|decomission date=
|commission_2=conflict
...and so forth. This would help for articles wherin the ships concerned were reactivated and deactivates multiple times. At present we lack a system of this nature, and for articles like USS New Jersey (BB-62) the various dates for re/de commissioning make the template look cluttered, all the more so becuase they do not give the context of the reactivations, only the date for the reactivations.

The other thing I would like to see is additional fields for the preceeded by and proceeded by tabs. Some ships and classes were cancelled, and others ships (notably subs) would benifit from mutilple listings: in the case of sub classes, mutiple listings based on type and chronology would help keep the preceeded by and succsedded by tabs stable; at present they fluacte becuase some feel the tabs should only represent the class type while other beleive the tabs should only represent the chronology) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStar81 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 7 April 2008

I'm up for adding a recommission reason field; what should its display text be? I also see what you're saying about design predecessor vs. chronological predecessor, but I'm not sure what display text should be used to make its meaning clear without being worded awkwardly. TomTheHand (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for my long delay, I had forgetten that I posted a question here until revisiting New Jersey's infobox. For a recomissioning I would propose doing this one of two ways: either have the field on the left give the cause for recomissioning like

World War II

Commisioned

Decommissioned

Korean War

Commisioned

Decomissioned

and so forth. Alternatively, we could add the conflict to the side of the dates, like

Commissioned <date> (WWII)

Decomissioned <date>

Commissioned <date> (Korean War)

Decomissioned <date>

As to the issue of how to address the design vs chronoligical sucessor/predecessor, why not split the field up by adopting "design predecessor" as a field in the template. I'm not sure how to reword chronology though, perhaps we should seek input from SHIPS and MILHIST and see if anyone suggests something that works. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)