User talk:Stunteltje/Sandbox/Ships

In Category:Ships by name you can find ships by their name in alphabetical sequence. That is not always directly via the name of a certain category, as we have a | tool for that. So if we have a category that starts with a pennant number or fishing license, in the name-category you can always find her by name.

I have to explain that in my opinion the first thing is, that Commons is no Wikipedia, but a database for images for all Wikipedias. So the search system can differ - and has to differ - fron a certain Wikipedia, as the Wikipedia naming systems for ships differ per language.

From the start of the category Category:Ships by name it is clear that we have many ships with the same name and we found a solution for that problem by adding the year of completion and for military ships the year of first commissioning. (I work on a description of that new naming system to feed the discussion and make it possible to end that discussion. Hope to present it when we reach the moment of the 20.000 th ship by name.)

Another problem arises when a shipname is changed. Ships can be found via the name painted on the ship. You don't have to be an expert to find the ship that way. In Commons no problem, the ship gets a new category for images with her new name. Ships built after 1948 or so have in many cases an IMO number, so the connection for all images of those ships is via the IMO number.

Military ships in fact don't differ from commercial ships, when someone wants to write an article, available images of the ship can be found in many cases in Commons. I am not happy with the fact that military ships up till now cannot always be directly found in a category by the indication painted on the ship. Experts know excactly all possibilities, but we don't have a database for experts, but for everybody who wants to write an article on a certain Wikipedia. So in my opinion also for military ships the category-name has to be the indication (pennant number in many cases, I learned Russian ships have no real pennant number), painted on the ship, followed by her name and the year of completion or first commissioning.

Unfortunately there is no such IMO number system for military ships, as far as I know. So when the number on the hull is changed - we don't have a coupling mechanism.

I strongly feel that we have to leave ou the prefixes, as long as they are not painted on the ships. My problem is, that we don't have consensus reached about leaving them out completely for all USS ships. You yourself gave a good reason not to use them in a category name, they can differ from time to time. No problem at all to do it in a certain Wikipedia, but not in Commons. Ships of the Royal Dutch Navy are always known here as "Hare majesteit's" followed by the name. Not a way the Dutch naval ships should be categorised in Commons. We also had "French ship" categories. Category names have to be language independant as much as possible. Even for ships of English speaking countries. But sometimes I categorise in line with the rest of a category, although I don't agree with the system used. :=((

For the LSTs we have two other problems. (1) In the fifties a lot of them got a name, not all. I choose to mention these names in the LST categories, according the mentioned system. (2) Many of them have painted US with a pennant number on the hull and not LST. I categorised LST, but after all for these ships US was better and more in line. We can alway recategorise. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Ships categorising is difficult, as worldwide Wikipedia's differ in the date of start. Some Wikipedia's use the date of launching of ships, some the date of completion of ships. Have a look at the digfference in e.g. French, German, English and Dutch Wikipedia. On Commons, as it is a worldwide working database, it is important and accepted to use just one system for any item. One has to make a choise. The date of completion can be found on the certificates of the ships, on contracts and publications in the media, even for old ships, not described in full on the internet. In that case the date of completion is the best choise if we want to find start dates. Unfortunately naval shiplovers here on Commons want to continue the system of their local Wikipedia for their naval ships. As the content of USS naval ships is the biggest of naval ships on Commons, you'll find the English Wikipedia system here on a lot of USS naval ships. That's why. But have a look at the en:Category:HMS Dreadnought (1875) and de:Category:HMS Dreadnought (1879), same ship. Here on Commons we have more than 15.000 ships in Category:Ships by name, in just one system: without any prefix and by date of completion. Without prefixes, as each language has its own prefix system. The only exeptions are a lot of naval ships. Sometimes it is impossible to avoid prefixes, as ships are just numbered and during a vast period only the pennant number is painted on the ship. E.g. Category:LST-325 (ship, 1943). Please realise that Commons is just a database for images and it is important to find these images. It is not a Wikipedia. --Stunteltje (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

A few general comments:

1. The list "ship, tugboat, submarine" is likely to be insufficient. For instance, it wouldn't be appropriate to call Torpedo boats "ships"; it would be better to leave the list open-ended.

• I prefer just a very restricted number of items, because otherwise only specialists can use the system.
  • That's reasonable. The addition of "boat" (when the subject is called a boat, not a ship) should suffice?. That said, one use for more precise terms is for disambiguation. If there are two ships called "foo" in the same year and one's a "container ship", the other a "cruise ship" then those should be substituted for "ship" in the category name.

1. Some thought may be needed with respect to pleasure craft: As in privately owned, small yachts. Do they have IMO numbers?

• They don't have, but most are boats, not ships. Realise that I have to make a remark when a fishing vessel is a boat or a ship on Commons. I used the deviation made by The United Kingdom fishing vessel list (excluding islands), contains registered and licensed vessels of over 10 metres overall length. So under 10 meter boat, over 10 meter ship. Also, when not mentioned or other countries: when she has a bun a boat, a hold a ship.

1. Naval and fishing vessels are two different classes - should be seperated. If anything, fishing vessels should be a sub-heading of commercial vessels (because they are).

• Correct. Only mentioned her together with naval ships because of the letters/numbers before the name.

1. Some consideration needs to be given for non-Latin alphabets. For instance File:38MoskvaoffMoroccoJan1970.jpg is the "Москва" not "Moskva" to its owners. Use of the Latin alphabet is fine (its more universal - other alphabets are specific to one language) but should be mentioned.

• Correct

1. It would be sensible to rework the text to be NPOV as opposed to following one POV, then another, in the discussion elements.

• I'll give it a try. There is already a working text already given in the header of category:Ships by name. My intension was first to finish the discussion and after that to use the tekst under the discusssion tab as further explanation why.

As for the content of the conclusions:

1. "letters/numbers as painted on the hull, followed by her name" is not appropriate. The category-name should reflect the name of the ship, with any necessary clarification in parentheses. The addition of the number makes it harder for people with knowledge to find the ship's category (as they will know the name, but will not know to look for it at <number> <name>). It makes it no easier for people with no knowledge - they have to search regardless and just knowing the number on the hull is insufficient. Their needs are best met by going through Category:Ships by pennant number.

   In addition, in certain navies (eg the US Navy) the number on the hull doesn't match the ship's code. The full code, with the hull classification symbol, is much more useful, excluding it is inaccurate as ships like the USS Cole are never referred to as "67" but often referred to as "DDG-67" (on caps, badges, press releases etc).

   Also, many images of ships will not show the number - because its small and/or not visible from that angle. Finding out the number to correctly categorise may be hard in those cases.

   Conclusion of all that - its better to not use the marking on the side of the hull; instead just reflect the name of the ship.

1. With regard to prefixes, this would be better discussed in a separate section covering all prefixes, not split between "commercial" and "naval" sections. Basic principles on this:
   1. The name of the ship should reflect how the ship is commonly known in as many languages as possible.
   2. Some prefixes are may be dependent on the language used - such as "SS". These shouldn't be used, as they may be different between languages.
   3. Some prefixes are not dependent on the language used, though they are only used for ships of one nation. For instance if the ship is "RMS" or "USS" - this isn't translated when discussed in a different language. They are either used in the new language, or not used at all. Call these prefixes "language-static".
   4. Some language-static prefixes are infrequently used, for example "RMS". RMS is specific to British shipping, and all the RMS ships listed here are typically referred to in English as the plain name without RMS. The same situation occurs in other languages, RMS may be mentioned on occasion, but is generally not used. The Titanic is prime example of this.
   5. Some language-static prefixes are much more frequently used, for example "USS" and "HMS". These are specific to their respective nations, but when these ships are discussed in English, the prefix is almost universally included. The ships are still recognisable without it, but the prefix gets dropped only after the context that its a US/UK naval ship is established (a category-name has no time to establish context).

      This usage is reflected in other languages too, and these ships are generally referred to with the prefix. HMS Victory is called "HMS Victory" in every European language, not just English.

• In conclusion: If we started from scratch we would try to reflect usage (that has to be the starting point - how is the subject commonly known to people?), as well as aiming for a language-independent form. Those prefixes that do vary with language are used, but often infrequently, even in the language of the ship's owner. In contrast there are a few, specifically those of the English-speaking navies, which are generally referred to with the prefix, and in all languages, not just English. This suggests a different approach including the prefix in the category name, for these ships - as this is both language-independent and reflects usage.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• • Unfortunately here we disagree. However, I can live very well with a conclusion that we just stick for every ship -commercial and military - to the name as mentioned on ship's certificate and in the registers. But I am afraid that a lot of people still want to use the names with USS and RMS according their local Wikipedia.
    • I think you are missing my point here. The reason I'd prefer to use HMS/USS is not because that is what WP does. It is because ships with those prefixes are primarily known by the name with the prefix in all languages, not just English. This doesn't apply to eg SS and RMS so I have no feelings either way about those. There are two options really to use prefixes or not. Any thoughts about the number issue?--Nilfanion (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions!! --Stunteltje (talk) 20:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think we should stick to the current (ship/submarine/tugboat) suffixes. If we start expanding them, it will just become more complex.

As far as possible, we should attempt to build a categorization system that make it easy to find the current category within Commons. The general guide to start with what is painted on the ships seems easy to understand and implement.

Users from a specific Wikipedia will always have the possibility to find a category by starting from Wikipedia and using "Commons category" links. --  Docu  at 06:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Prefix table

It might aid discussion to have a tabular format listing the advantages of two approaches. This is considering three desirable traits for category names, and IMO these are in the order of importance:

1. Independent of language
2. Reflecting normal usage (in country of origin and elsewhere)
3. Consistency

Prefix type	Examples	Skipping prefix	Using prefix
<no prefix>		(applies to most ships)	N/A
Language-dependent, prefix not normally used	SS	Language-independent, reflects normal usage, more consistent	Language-specific, doesn't reflect normal usage, less consistent
Language-dependent, prefix normally used	Hr. Ms. (Dutch); HMNLS (English)	Language-independent, doesn't reflect normal usage, more consistent	Language-specific, reflects normal usage, less consistent
Language-independent, prefix not normally used	RMS	Language-independent, reflects normal usage, more consistent	Language-independent, doesn't reflect normal usage, less consistent
Language-independent, prefix normally used	USS	Language-independent, doesn't reflect normal usage, more consistent	Language-independent, reflects normal usage, less consistent

The bolded items are the preferable traits. My analysis of the table suggests:

1. Do not use prefix when its not normally used, whether it varies with language or not.
2. Do not use prefix when it varies with language, but is normally used (language-independence trumps normal usage)
3. Do use prefix when it is both the same in all languages, and normally used in the majority of languages (usage trumps consistency)

This is why ones like HMS and USS are qualitatively different to one like SS and MV: If I had to choose, I'd favour what the ship is actually known as over consistency. Either option is completely workable of course - the (ship, year) bit isn't problematic.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Have to go out, come back later this weekend. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if some of the USS and HMS weren't retrofitted to some of the ships by English language Wikipedia. e.g. for US ones, NARA images don't use them in general.

Personally, I think it's much easier to look at an image with "J102" on it and add it to Category:J102 ''whatever'' (ship, year). --  Docu  at 06:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

There are multiple problem using with the number on the side. One is it not the name of the ship. Two is the ships are not called "<number> <name>" in any sources (find me one that does?). This means we would be using something that isn't the ships name, isn't used by anyone, is less stable than the ships name, and makes it no easier to work out the category name from a photo than just if it was just the plain name (the number on the side may be "easy", but in general you don't know the name of the ship - and therefore its category - from that number alone, you still need the name). If your image doesn't show the number, which is quite likely, its even harder to find the number out than the name. What number for this image?

You also get the complication in some navies - especially the US Navy - that the number on the hull doesn't match the ship's code. USS Nimitz is CVN-68, not 68. All that means I strongly oppose using the number, it doesn't make things easier (though it may appear to do so).

The usage of HMS and USS was hardly retrofitted by en.wp either - I'm surprised you are making that assertion. en.wp may influence other Wikipedia's but it won't impact on primary sources (written before WP existed) or secondary sources (which follow primary sources). You can refer to the ships without using the prefix, and as a rule the prefix has become more prevalent with time. It is used to discuss ships of the early 19th Century [1], and that isn't because of en.wp's influence. As for modern ships, they are very commonly used. For example, they are used by the news organisations CNN (en), the BBC (en), Le Monde (fr); the navies who own these ships [2] (en), their allies [3] (nl), and their enemies [4] (es); books discussing the actions the ships are involved in... We can legitimately decide to use the prefixes for these ships, or to skip the prefixes for these ships, but it would be best to get a clear consensus on the issue as opposed to a few users pushing ahead and ignoring a few users against, when both options are "OK" and I can't see a clear majority either way to be honest.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

No trace of it at the Navy Vessel Register or at NARA. --  Docu  at 08:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Not "no trace" at NARA - [5] is typical. That article reflects how prefixes are used in prose: Nearly always mentioned at first use, optional after that. (Which compares to RMS or SS which are often not used at all in prose).--Nilfanion (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh and can we please disentangle the use-of-prefix from use-of-hull-number issues - they are separate points?--Nilfanion (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

In service again. I wonder how to continue the discussion aboutships by name. I assume we now have the pro and contra arguments and have to make the discussion wider. My idea is to summarize both discussions here and in the User talk:Stunteltje/Sandbox and to continue on Category talk:Ships by name. No comment = tranfer the discussion. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we could find a solution that fits non US Navy vessels. --  Docu  at 08:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest the non-English NATO navies are a good place to start. Unlike the US Navy, the number on the hull is code normally associated with the ship, and prefix usage is clearly rarer and inconsistent.

It may be useful to consider examples like Category:HMS Cavalier (R73). Its pointless to have two categories for the ship (R73 and D73), when it didn't change function or ownership, merely got repainted in c 1950. Even if 2 categories were useful for both periods, it would still need a parent category. Both Category:HMS Cavalier (ship, 1944) and Category:Cavalier (ship, 1944) are workable, as they are unambiguous and correctly apply to that ship - question is which form is best? We need a wider audience to get an answer to that I think?--Nilfanion (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, because we already found that there are many opinions and to find consensus is the best way to solve this item. BTW, you gave a very good example. --Stunteltje (talk) 10:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)