Template talk:Ship index

This template was nominated for deletion on 2006-12-13. The result of the discussion was keep.

WP:Disambig link

I added a link in the verbage to Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Lists of ships because I think it's a good idea to make it easy for Wikipedians to find out what lists of ships are and how they relate to standard disambiguation pages. I suppose the link could be directly to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships#Index Pages, but it seems better to go to the short explanation on the disambig page first, especially for newbies who might not know what disambig pages or projects are. —Tox 09:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of ships

Hmm, with all the ship name articles being added from {{shipindex}} the actual contents of that category are being lost. How about making the template autocategorize into some new category underneath Category:Lists of ships? — MrDolomite | Talk 15:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reformatting the template to aim to Category:Disambiguation lists of ships. -- saberwyn 09:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent. Turned one massive bloat cat into two useful ones. Gotta love WP, there is always another brain willing to help out. ;) — MrDolomite | Talk 14:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting

Since the recent change [1] to this template changed the default sort to #, I am going to go ahead and revert it back. At least with the prior {{pagename}} sort, we have the ability to sort by first word which is often the naval prefix ("HMS", "USS", "French", etc.). --Kralizec! (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ship index page icon

To differentiate ship index pages from disambiguation pages, I propose placing a ship icon before the disambig icon, as follows:

This article includes a list of ships with the same or similar names. If an internal link for a specific ship referred you to this page, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended ship article, if one exists.

Any comments or concerns? Accurizer (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly making change based on 5+ days with no comments or objections. Accurizer (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have put the ship in front of the disambig image, instead of on top of it. Per suggestion by User:Bellhalla and agreement by several users at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Shipindex template.

--David Göthberg (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:All disambiguation pages

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This template should populate Category:All disambiguation pages. Not really sure how the templates needs to be updated to make it happen however. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A set index article is not a disambiguation page. The template already populates the Category:Set indices on ships. Benea (talk) 06:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should it go in Category:All set index articles then? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Category:All set index articles, it already should have been. I've added code for that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Category:Article Feedback Blacklist

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi. Please undo this edit. The article feedback tool is now opt-in per-article. The blacklist category is no longer necessary. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 10:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use of template on disambiguation pages

Is is appropriate to use this template on disambiguation pages? Should there perhaps be a parameter for {{disambiguation}} to include a category for disambiguation pages that also include the names of multiple ships with the name? older ≠ wiser 14:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, I'd say not appropriate. The way to handle this is to link from the dab page to the shipindex page. Thus the "Foo (disambiguation)" page would link to "HMS Foo", "SS Foo" and "MV Foo" etc, which would be dedicated shipindex pages. Mjroots (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it should not be used on disambiguation pages; articles (including ship indexes) are not non-articles (including disambiguation pages). The disambiguation page (if one is needed) would list all of the WP-ambiguous topics directly, though, not rely on the ship index (which puts another click-and-load between the reader and their sought article). The ship index(es) could be linked from the See also section. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed also on the addition of a ship parameter for {{tl:disambiguation}}. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, agree that this template does not belong on the disambiguation pages, as well as with Mjroots' suggestion that linking to shipindex pages from the dabs is the most sensible and practical solution. Not sure on whether having a parameter for the dab template is worth the hassle: what would be the practical use for it? To mark pages which contain entries on ships but for which no corresponding shipindex exists?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 1, 2013; 15:36 (UTC)

Some background. I noticed edits to two pages Nova Scotia (disambiguation) and Newfoundland where a user added the shipindex template and even re-added it after I removed it. While I was reasonably sure the two templates were not intended to be used together, I didn't see any explicit instructions in this regard (as there is, for instance, on {{surname}} or {{given name}}. I then looked at Category:Set indices on ships and What links to shipindex and used Anomie's linkclassifier to highlight disambiguation pages. Turns out there are more than a few dab pages in both.
@ Mjroots, most of these pages do not have any prefix, but appear to include ships where the base name is the same but may be from different fleets with various prefixes.
@ Ezhiki, I'm also not sure if a parameter is worthwhile, but then I don't find much value in most of the parameters. But apparently some editors do find such categorization useful, hence my question if there some alternate categorization might be desired rather than simply removing the shipindex template. older ≠ wiser 16:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few more examples with both disambiguation and shipindex templates:

Some disambiguation pages have been manually added to Category:Set indices on ships, but do not have shipindex template:

Many of both types above are obviously mistaken (and may be in need of other cleanup as well). A few questions about what to do in various situations come to mind:

1) There is a valid dab page containing heterogeneous types of ambiguous subjects

1a) There is also a ship index page. Should the dab page simply link to the index or duplicate the ambiguous entries?

1b) There is no ship index page, but there are multiple ships with the name (e.g., HMS Foo, USS Foo, and Foo (yacht)). Should the dab page list all of these? Should the dab page be categorized in some way for the multiple ship names? Should there be a ship index at Foo (ship) that contains all of the entries?

2) The page is mostly a shipindex but there is one other ambiguous use. Should this be a shipindex with the other uses in a hatnote or in a See also section?

In any case, I think the instructions for this template could include some clear instructions that it should not be used on the same pages with the disambiguation template. older ≠ wiser 16:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are probably multiple ways of taking care of these, depending on exact circumstances, but I, for one, have always been strongly against duplicating the entries on both dabs and set indices. The mess such an approach often leads to is simply unbelievable. WikiProject Ships participants tend to update the set indices, WikiProject Disambiguation participants tend to update the dabs, and casual editors might end up updating either. Hardly anyone ever bothers to update both simultaneously. In the end, we end up with something like Enterprise (disambiguation), where the dab and the set indices are awfully out of sync, finding a specific entry becomes rather difficult, and chances of a reader not finding an existing entry (or at least some further information to work with, if it's a red link) are high. I've seen this happen with other projects as well.

As for whether it's worth having separate shipindex pages for various USSs, HMSs, etc. or have just one page (titled "Shipname (ship)", for example), that, I believe, is something WikiProject Ships needs to decide. I'd say if no one bothered to create a shipindex, the entries can be included on a dab page per usual guidelines. If one or several shipindex pages already exist, then simply linking to them from the dab is far more practical than duplicating all of the individual entries on the dab page, and reduces maintenance in the long run. What are your thoughts on this?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 1, 2013; 17:24 (UTC)

If it can be made into a base-name ship index with a hatnote to one or two non-ship topics, that's workable. There's no good reason to send any reader from a dab through a set index to find the link to the ambiguous topic they were originally seeking; all ambiguous topics should be disambiguated on the disambiguation page. The dab is the navigational aid; it should aid navigation first. Not all redundancy is bad redundancy. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A hatnote on a shipindex page for one or even two unrelated topics is indeed a good solution with which I wholeheartedly agree. As for the rest, I couldn't disagree more. How's the mess happening on Enterprise (disambiguation) not a "good reason", is a "good redundancy", and/or helps navigate anything at all? We certainly don't need more of the same, and I just don't see how encouraging duplication with no mechanisms in place to keep the entities properly synced can lead to anything good in the long run. The empirical evidence most certainly does not support the theory that the problem of keeping the pages synchronized would magically work itself out; I myself have cleaned up a good number of such messes, some of which stayed untouched for years and only got worse over time. If anything, linking to set indices from the dab pages is a perfect example of when that extra click actually makes finding things easier, not harder. To paraphrase, not all extra clicks are bad clicks :) What's more, when a dab directs a reader to a well-organized set index with the entries only the topic the reader actually seeks and with a plethora of other metadata (helpful perhaps only in this particular context but not when included on the dab page), it accomplishes its goal of "aiding navigation" in spades.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 1, 2013; 18:34 (UTC)

Then we can't disagree more. Linking the ship indexes from the dab (in the see also section, or perhaps beneath the list of ambiguous ships) will serve those hypothetical (not empirical) readers who like to click through multiple levels of navigation before reaching the article they were seeking. What empirical evidence are you talking about? I made no claims about magical sync. All disambiguation pages require manual effort to keep in sync with the encyclopedia, whether they overlap with other dabs/lists/SIAs/etc. Long disambiguation pages for ambiguous titles that have long lists of topics are addressed by sectioning and TOCs; the existence of a SIA doesn't change that. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not imply that you are a believer in magical sync but merely pointed out that out-of-sync dabs/sets are a common problem which negatively affects the readers' experience and ultimately stands in the way of "aiding navigation" (which, as we all agree, is indeed the primary goal of disambiguation pages). And of course all pages, dabs and set indices alike, require some degree of maintenance, but it doesn't mean we should be adopting practices which purposefully increase the maintenance workload (for handling which there are few if any takers as it is). Keeping a set index, to which a dab links, up-to-date is much more practical and realistic than updating two pages with nearly identical information every time there is a change; I think that much is patently obvious. Also obvious is the fact that the cleaner and shorter dabs/sets are, the easier it is for readers to find what they are looking for. Yes, duplication can sometimes be a good thing, but I am not convinced it's the case here. I'd love to hear what others think, however.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 1, 2013; 19:40 (UTC)

To sum up: the empirical evidence you mentioned above doesn't exist, and the decision is between maximizing the benefit to the readership vs. minimizing the effort for the editorship. If the dab is "nearly identical" to the ship index, the ship index should be moved to the base name and the slight difference handled in a hatnote, we agree; if it can't be handled in a hatnote, then the dab is not "nearly identical" to the ship index. Short dabs are useful when the list of topics ambiguous with a title is short; long dabs are useful when the list of topics ambiguous with a title is long. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that there has been no further constructive comments or criticism in the last two weeks. At any rate, the nonsensical statement about "no evidence" that a problem exists aside, we already put set indices at the base name when there are few or no other (non-ship) entries. That's not saying anything new. As for duplicating or not duplicating the contents of set index pages on disambiguation pages with more than a few entries of other types, we really need more input from the WikiProjects which actually work with those set indices. One thing is obvious from this thread—there is neither the basis in policy nor consensus to categorically prohibit such practice, just as there is no basis in policy nor consensus to categorically mandate it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 15, 2013; 12:09 (UTC)

I have reworked California Star as there is only 1 notable ship by that name. Now it and several other former DAB pages are now redirects to MV California Star (1945). California Star (disambiguation) remains in place due to a newspaper with the same name and the likelyhood of additional ship articles being written in the future. See Talk:California Star (disambiguation) for details. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found four MV California Stars, of which one has an article. They all struck me of probably working out to have similar level of notability given the similar size and use of three and the other being sunk during WWII. So I recreated the shipindex. And then found this discussion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but please create the articles or remove the redlinks in the coming weeks. I put a "show by date" template on the dab page you restored which will recommend merging to California Star (disambiguation) after May 13, 2013. Please remove it when the 2nd ship-related article is created. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On what justification? It is not a dab page, as WP:SETINDEX states quite clearly - A set index article is not a disambiguation page (bold text in the original). And indeed this difference is part of the reason why this discussion exists. The template should be removed now. Benea (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I learned something new today. I fixed up both the page and talk page to make it look more list-like and less DAB-like. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move request

I think this page should be moved to "Ship index" to match all other SIAs and new fashion to have all words separated. I leave this message because this page has many transclusions so I think a warning before moving is appropriate. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 4 May 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The short description generated by this template should begin with a capital letter, per WP:SDFORMAT. — Goszei (talk) 06:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]