Template talk:Infobox ship begin

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)

Spurious space when no parameters

I just fixed some spurious newlines by removing a blank subbox. could we add some tracking for the case when one of these submodules is used with no parameters? Frietjes (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

That usage is certainly peculiar but {{Infobox ship career}} template was not 'empty' because |Hide header.

How many of these peculiar uses have you seen? For only one, I don't see the need for a tracking cat.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Trappist the monk, I have fixed the ones that I have seen (three so far). the tracking would be for ones that I haven't seen. once those are fixed, the tracking could be removed. Frietjes (talk) 14:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

just fixed seven more, so it seems like there are more out there: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Frietjes (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Added code to {{Infobox ship career}}, {{Infobox ship characteristics}} and {{infobox ship class overview}} to populate Category:WPSHIPS: articles with empty infobox templates when any of these templates are empty. When the only parameter with an assigned value is |Hide header=, the template is declared to be empty.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

thanks! Frietjes (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Ampersand standardization

Ship EW seems to render as "Electronic warfare & decoys" but the Ship sensors parameter renders as "Sensors and processing systems". Can this be standardized per WP:&? Mbdfar (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

In Module:WPSHIPS utilities/data I find these:

|Ship honours=, line 396: Honours and<br />awards

|Ship honors=, line 397: Honors and<br />awards

|Ship class=, line 406: Class and type

|Ship boats=, line 429: Boats & landing <br /> craft carried

|Ship sensors=, line 435: Sensors and <br /> processing systems

|Ship EW=, line 436: Electronic warfare <br /> & decoys

Which of and or & to standardize on; or, are there better labels for these items?

One obvious fix to be made is to delete the space character that precede and follow <br /> in the last three code snippets in my list; those characters are ignored in the rendering of the infobox.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

MOS:& seems to prefer standardizing on the word 'and'. Mbdfar (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps, but with a cutout: Elsewhere, ampersands may be used with consistency and discretion where space is extremely limited (e.g., tables and infoboxes). So what does the WP:SHIPS community prefer for their infobox? You might want to notify WT:SHIPS about this discussion because there are about 4× more page watchers there than here.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

The WP has been notified. Mbdfar (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2025 (UTC)