Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Categorization

One note re articles on ship classes

One point I'd like to make; i feel that there should also be an article on each ship class, in addition to a category for each ship class. There is an article on Nimitz class aircraft carrier which I consider to be extremely informative and helpful. So I hope that can also be implemented. --Sm8900 19:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is already done for most ship classes. Please browse through the Category:Ship classes structure for examples. Another way is through Category:Aircraft carriers by country; to get from there to here, the path is Category:Aircraft carriers of the United States -> Category:Nimitz class aircraft carriers, where you'll see the class article and articles for every ship in the class. TomTheHand 19:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your edit summary:

I appreciate your supportive note to me elsewhere. however, I do feel that articles like this should be part of 1 umbrella category, along w/specific one. that is a benefit of categories.

The Nimitz class article is part of the Category:Aircraft carrier classes umbrella category. In addition, the specific category, Category:Nimitz class aircraft carriers, is a member of the Category:Aircraft carriers of the United States umbrella category. If we add the class article to a bunch of other categories, they will turn into messes; right now cats like Aircraft carriers of the United States are very clean and easy to navigate. TomTheHand 19:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom. Ok, I see your point. I have browsed through some of the class articles, and as you said I do see some of the benefits of the current structures. So I appreciate the information. Thanks.

--Steve --Sm8900 22:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double category membership

My impression is that if an article is a member of a sub cat it should not be a member of the main category. For Example, USS Spruance (DD-963) is a member of Category:Spruance class destroyers and Category:Destroyers of the United States Navy, I believe it should only be a member of Category:Spruance class destroyers since it is a sub cat of Category:Destroyers of the United States Navy. Is this correct or is the existing dual membership correct? If not, I plan on doing an AWB run to remove a bunch from dual membership, but I wanted to check here first. I'm basing this on: "Articles should not usually be in both a category and its subcategory. For example Golden Gate Bridge is in Category:Suspension bridges, so it should not also be in Category:Bridges."(Wikipedia:Categorization#Some general guidelines) --Dual Freq 01:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The dual categorization is correct. Though there is a general guideline that if an article is a member of a subcat it shouldn't be a member of the main cat, duplication is appropriate when it makes it easier to find articles instead of harder (by making the category structure more complicated). In the case you mention, Category:Destroyers of the United States Navy can be used by people who don't know or don't want to bother with class names and just want to see all American destroyers. Category:Spruance class destroyers can be used by people who specifically want to see all the ships in the Spruance class. When you look at Category:Destroyers of the United States Navy you can clearly see class names at the top and specific ships at the bottom, so it's easy to use. TomTheHand 03:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I can respect that, it just seems that it would clutter the main category to put ships in both. I've probably moved some others in the past few months to conform with normal categorization guidelines and with the idea that if someone is reading the Spruance article and clicks the class category that cat will link them to the destroyer cat via the link at the bottom and they can surf backwards through the category system. Category:Destroyers of the United States Navy contains over 200 articles and wraps to a second page making it a pretty decent example of overcrowding. If someone has a specific ship name in mind, but doesn't know the class they might be looking a long time. Especially if they don't know a cruiser from a destroyer or frigate. Seems like the best bet would be for them to type the name into the search rather than scroll through several categories looking for the ship name. It makes even less sense to load the main category when you look at the List of United States Navy destroyers article, it provides the same capability dual category membership provides. I envisioned each ship in a single category and the Category:Destroyers of the United States Navy showing only sub cats and only the destroyer names that didn't fit into the sub cats. I was scolded on double cat membership a while back, maybe over on Commons, but I was informed it was a no-no to have an article in the same category twice via a sub cat. Anyway, I guess I'll leave things be if that's what this wikiproject is doing.

Maybe it could be clarified on this page, the line "A subcategory of Category:Ships by country" seems to indicate that since Category:Spruance class destroyers is a sub-cat of Category:United States Navy ships Category:Destroyers of the United States Navy is unneeded. The example is USS Enterprise (CVN-65), but it is a ship that is not a member of a class so that didn't help me understand that WP:SHIPS was looking for dual category membership. Sorry to bug you on this. --Dual Freq 04:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships to get further opinions on this; I don't know how many people watch this page. I don't actually think that someone who was looking for the name of a ship would be looking for a long time. The ship articles are in alphabetical order, and there are only two pages of them.

I think it's useful to dual list the articles, but if the consensus on the main talk is to stop doing this, I'll stop. TomTheHand 13:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put more thought into it and what you're saying makes a lot of sense; it might be better to use list articles to put all ships in one place. Still, it's hard for me to change my mind because I've spent so long thinking this way and categorizing articles like this. I'm pasting this to the main WP:SHIPS talk to get more input. TomTheHand 14:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Mythological Ships

I've noticed there are a number of mythological ships in the Category:Fictional ships category. Noah's Ark has also transiently been included in that category. Should there be a seperate Category:Mythological ships rather than lumping them all into fictional ships? Titanium Dragon 14:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Mythological ships would make a good subcategory of Fictional ships. It'd be a good idea to separate Argo from Enterprise. However, do you think it would solve disputes? That is, do you think the people who are against calling Noah's Ark "fictional" will accept calling it a myth? TomTheHand 21:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "literary" would be more broadly accepted? "mythic" might also be more welcome than "mythological"LeadSongDog 15:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ship Class Categories

Ship class categories violate WP:OC#SMALL pretty often. Could someone please explain why they are useful if an article about the class exists? Thanks. --Yooden ☮

Incorporation of ships by navy categories

Given that the dual scheme of ships-by-country and ships-by-navy are the consensus, I think we should address categorization guidelines for the ships-by-navy categories. Here are some suggestions:

Individual ship articles: sub-cats of Category:Ships by navy for secondary operators, as with Category:Ships by country subcats currently; none otherwise

For ship class articles: No Navy categories (as with Country articles presently)

For ship class categories: Place a sub-cat of Category:Ships by navy (with the same caveats as listed for Category:Ships by country)

What does everyone else think? — Bellhalla (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, on a related note, I think its appropriate for cats like "Ships of the Foowegian Navy" to be placed themselves into both "Ships of Foobia" and "Naval ships of Foobia" categories. Right now the "Ships of the Foowegian Navy" style cats are handled several different ways. Any thoughts? — Bellhalla (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions for mechant ships

While some of the given instructions can be applied for mechants ships, all examples are of naval vessels and classes. I think there should be something about categorization of commercial ships as well, perhaps under a separate title.Tupsumato (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]