Template talk:Infobox ship begin

Remove colons, add bolding

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Proposal:

1. Each field follows with a colon (:). These should be removed (as with all other infoboxes on Wikipedia).
2. Each field item should be in bold (as with all other infoboxes on Wikipedia).

--Goldsztajn (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. This would be a major change to this set of templates. Discussion is needed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The issue of bolding was raised almost two years ago, but left undiscussed. Hopefully, discussion is possible this time. --Goldsztajn (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

As long as it doesn't break anything, I'm fine with this change that would improve visual consistency. Tupsumato (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Reactivating request. I notified the Ships project of this request when I posted it two and half weeks ago. Essentially there has been no opposition to this request which was first suggested two years ago. Myself included, three editors have supported the change, would suggest a bold change now and allow for potential revert followed by discussion. Thank you, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_ship_begin/testcases

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks fine by me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Trappist the monk .--Goldsztajn (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Does that work normally with custom fields? Tupsumato (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Custom fields have always been 'fully manual'; when creating a custom field, the creator has always been required to manually format the field heading and the rendered value so that the custom parts of an infobox have the same look as the automatically rendered parts. Instead of:

|-
|Custom field: || custom value
|-

the proposed change will, if implemented, require editors to write:

|-
|'''Custom field''' || custom value
|-

If implemented, existing custom fields will retain the previous form until acted upon by an editor.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Perhaps I'll manage to get rid of some unnecessary custom fields in my older contributions as I have to go through them... Tupsumato (talk) 05:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

What happened here everyone? Can we implement it now? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DISPLAYTITLE issue

Why does Template:Infobox ship begin use the FULLPAGENAME as a parameter for DISPLAYTITLE instead of the PAGENAME? This causes draft pages like Draft:Mary Powell (steamboat) to place the "Draft:" also in italics. Gonnym (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gonnym: It's done with:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:{{#invoke:WPSHIPS_utilities|ship_name_format|sclass={{{sclass|}}}|name={{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}}

A namespace has to be in DISPLAYTITLE to be valid. Otherwise the whole DISPLAYTITLE will be ignored. It looks like it could be fixed with:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{#invoke:WPSHIPS_utilities|ship_name_format|sclass={{{sclass|}}}|name={{PAGENAME}}}}}}

A colon in front of mainspace pages is allowed but not displayed by DISPLAYTITLE so we don't need code to omit the colon. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Over a year ago so not really relevent anymore, but I'm assuming I saw the code but was wondering why it was coded badly like that. There are many ways to italic a title without also casuing the namespace to be in italics. Gonnym (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@Gonnym: The template uses Module:WPSHIPS utilities#ship_name_format with non-trivial features to automatically italicize part of a ship name, e.g. {{#invoke:WPSHIPS_utilities|ship_name_format|name=HMS Dreadnought (1906)}} to make HMS Dreadnought (1906). We don't want to reinvent the wheel here so it would be much better to just put NAMESPACE in front than trying to use other methods like {{italic title}}. It's a common error to omit the namespace when DISPLAYTITLE is used outside mainspace. I have created phab:T328198: "Namespace should be optional in DISPLAYTITLE". PrimeHunter (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Concurrent Classes

The class overview template has standard "Preceded by" and "Succeeded by" ("Class before" and "Class after") to show the development of particular classes. However, in some cases multiple classes were built concurrently for different reasons, enough that a third line for concurrent classes should be added.

The clearest modern example are the US Littoral Combat Ships. Both classes were ordered and are being built concurrently, with the Freedom-class receiving odd hull numbers and the Independence class evens. Another would be the British Type 26 and Type 31 frigates: the orders were for three Type 26s in 2017, five Type 31s in 2018, and then five more Type 26s in 2022 (Royal Navy specific), with both classes being built concurrently by different yards. The Benson-class destroyer was not succeeded by the Gleaves-class, they were ordered and built concurrently with different shipyards building different classes (primarily Bethlehem yards building the Bensons, particularly the repeat ships). US Destroyer Escorts of WWII were not ordered/produced in the Evarts->Buckley->Cannon->Edsall->Rudderow->John C. Butler order implied by the Preceded/Succeeded Bys (in turn implied by the hull number of the lead ships), they were ordered/built as follows:

1. First 50 Evarts-class ordered under a British contract in late 1941

2. Another 70 Evarts-class along with 600, Buckleys, Cannons, and Edsalls ordered and built concurrently (classes mainly distinguished by different propulsion plants) ordered in early/mid 1942

3. Rudderow and John C. Butler re-ordered from 3" designs in late 1942/early 1943 and built concurrently (followed by a short-lived order for 205 ships)

These are just particularly obvious examples for ships of the same type built at the same time by the same nation. There are more examples, particularly if you start considering ships with the same official classification but different capabilities. Germany built a few different types of U-boats concurrently, but the bulk of their production were the Type VII medium-range and the Type IX long-range submarines (with some specialized boats). This is a grey area, and I have deliberately chosen an example that in my opinion should be included as concurrent classes, but other examples would likely not be suitable (continuing the theme, the specialized Type XB and XIV classes).

These are sometimes noted by the Preceded/Succeeded Bys. For example, the Type 23 frigate lists the Types 26, 31, and 32 as ships that will succeed this frigate, but the Type 26 and Type 31 pages don't mention the others in the Class Overview template (except the in-development Type 32 that may succeed the Type 31). The three pages make it clear that the Constellation-class was preceded by the Freedom and Independence classes, but neither LCS page notes the other concurrently in the Class Overview template. Others, particularly the WWII destroyer escorts, don't mention this at all and as it currently exists gives an incorrect view of progression between the classes.

Currently the best attempts to recognize the differences would be the Type VII U-boat. The Type VII page has the Type IX listed as a succeeding class, but as "Type IX (long-range complement)" (this is not mirrored on the Type IX page). It's clunky and works if there were a handful of cases (like the Type XXI page), but it's not as useful for a larger scale.

Given the number of examples I believe we should add a third group to formalize the concurrent classes, along with rules about when this should and should not be used to clear up the grey area.

Beachedwhale1945 (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

You might want to advertise, or (perhaps better) move, this topic to WT:SHIPS; 79 editors watch this page, 349 watch WT:SHIPS.

And add links to the class articles you mention; if editors have to work for it, your proposition will surely die...

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I had drafted it to include there, but decided last minute that the template would be more appropriate (narrow scope). I'll revise and post there.

Thank you for the advice!

Beachedwhale1945 (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I had drafted this to be posted there, but decided at the last minute that narrow scope meant this was more appropriate.

I will revise and post there. Thank you for the advice, I am rather new at this.

Beachedwhale1945 (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 November 2023

DDG 118's Call Sign, now visible in San Diego Harbor, is NINO as reflected in her pennants, not NDLI. Also, the graphic corresponding to that call sign should be substituted for the erronious one. 2600:1700:EEF0:48E0:A27F:3FA8:F26C:970F (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done

Wrong place for this edit request. Please discuss at Talk:USS Daniel Inouye.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)