Template talk:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Multiplication symbol between number and type of guns

Hello all- In the infobox of USS Providence (1775), I removed the "×" symbol from between the number of guns and gun type. @Trappist_the_monk reverted my edit, citing this user guide in the edit summary. Though the guide does mention the "times" symbol, it does not call for it to be used in this manner. Even if the guide did call for such use, I would disagree with it as unnecessary and awkward. If we don't write 6 × officers, why would we write 6 × guns? I have noticed that other ship articles employ the "×" symbol, so I thought it best to bring up the question here rather than limiting it to the USS Providence article. Any thoughts? Eric ^talk 20:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generally we don't write 6 × officers but we do very often write 12 × 4-pounder (1.8 kg) guns especially where the first character of the thing that we're enumerating is a digit. It then carries on to the other items in the list for consistency. In this particular case, one might write:

|Ship armament=12 × {{convert|4|pdr|adj=on}} and 14 railside swivel guns

Generally, we don't connect items in a list with 'and', but instead, we separate the list items with <br />:

|Ship armament=12 × {{convert|4|pdr|adj=on}} guns<br />14 railside swivel guns

or, more properly, enclose the list of items in a {{plainlist}} template.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have noted how the "×" is used in the infobox gun counts and I understand the motivation; the style just strikes me as a tad awkward. I don't think there would be any confusion omitting it in the case of enumerated items that commence with a digit when the term is hyphenated, e.g. 12 4-pound guns, though I might tend to write 12 four-pound guns for extra clarity. Eric ^talk 01:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fifteen months later, I still find the use of both the multiplication symbol × and -pounder guns instead of -pound guns to be awkward style for an encyclopedia. In conversational style, twelve 36-pound guns might be replaced by twelve 36-pounders, but not twelve 36-pounder guns. Anyone else have input? Eric ^talk 15:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take this conversation to WT:SHIPS where there are 290 watchers. There are only 10 editors watching this page.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Trappist, good idea. I'll copy the section over. Eric ^talk 17:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the year range ends in present time, use the word "present"

No, don't do that; that is a WP:RELTIME violation. I don't edit enough in this topic area to suggest what is best here, but the other suggestion given, namely: "YYYY – " with no end date seems better, though not ideal. If the body content handles it properly and avoids the RELTIME problem (either via explanation in inline text or an explanatory note, e.g., "...as of November 2023...") then the year with no end date after the en dash seems sufficient. Although footnotes in Infoboxes are not required if the main assertion is cited in the body, this might be a case where including a reused named ref in the Infobox reprising the full citation in the body might be advisable, if only to demonstrate that the missing year is intentional, why it is that way, and what the date of flatest info is. Mathglot (talk) 09:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with modifying the usage guide as per above and over time weeding out "presents" from the ship articles. Tupsumato (talk) 09:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. No rush on this, we can wait to see if there will be any objections or other feedback. As far as weeding out "presents", that's a good idea. One thing I've learned over time, is that there are gnoming editors who love doing just that sort of thing, and probably would do all of it and save you the trouble. I have one editor in mind for whom several hundred or a few thousand of them might be just up their alley, and if they feel like taking it on, they might just do all of them. Remind me, if and when there appears to be consensus to go ahead with the weeding task, and I'll ping them, to see if they're interested. But there's no hurry, so let's wait a couple of weeks, at least. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 11:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DIY combo table-infobox for ship article

Your feedback would be welcome at WT:WikiProject Infoboxes#DIY combo table-infobox for ship article. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Career: Ship Master?

Looking at the infobox for Mayflower there used to be a "ship master" field in the Ship Career Infobox, where a captain or commander could be mentioned. I'm wondering if there is an approved spot to put a Shipmaster or Captain within this set of complicated infoboxes. StevePrutz (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{infobox ship career}} has never supported a |Ship master= parameter. Yeah, at Mayflower, Editor Mugginsx (no longer with us) changed |Ship operator= to |Ship master= (this edit) but because {{infobox ship career}} never supported that parameter, it was, and still is, ignored.

You might want to raise the issue of ship captain/master at WT:SHIPS; there are 357 page-watchers there, only 20 here.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]