User talk:Pedant/2005-01-14

In archiving my Talk page I have apparently created an uneditable redirect to my archive. I don't know how to fix it. If you know what needs to be done to fix this or how it happened I could use some help. If you are here to comment on the ships issue, use this page for now.Pedant 04:50, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC) A major problem It has come to my attention that Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships has defined some guidelines that are apparently not being followed by participants in that project. Regardless of the project guidelines, the articles on ships, particularly disambiguation pages, do not follow wikipedia guidelines.

I have had some recent interactions with editors on that project which shows me that they are adamant in continuing to add false information to the wikipedia. This is a very far-reaching and dramatic bit of damage which will take quite some time to resolve. I am currently devoting most of my time on wikipedia to gathering information to present to the community with regard to this problem which I consider quite serious. From what I've seen so far it seems that this problem is systemic within the entire scope of wikipedia's "ship constellation".

If you are part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships, and are aware of these problems, I am interested in your viewpoint on these matters. Pedant 23:12, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

Ships problem:

Archived Talk

Archive 1 Archive 2

This is the agreed-on policy wikipedia-wide for naming articles about ships:Naming_conventions#Ship_names; and here, under 'scope' are the "new policies" of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships#Scope

For information regarding the other stated policies of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships, see:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships#Categorization;

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships#Index Pages;

neither set of policies are being adhered to, and as far as I can tell this affects a constantly growing group of hundreds of articles, dozens of which (at a minimum) are titled incorrectly, and contain false information which is being continually added to by cut-and-paste methods, but will require careful scrutiny on an article-by-article basis to correct by hand.

I would consider this a red alert situation, that needs immediate attention. At the very least, these articles need to stop being created while this situation is discussed. I do not consider any custom or policy to be valid if it includes adding false information to the wikipedia. Of course, my bringing this up will not make me very popular, but I am committed to accuracy.

I don't know who to talk to about this... comments requested.

Nautilus

The text was from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships which is online at 1. They did indeed use OCR to scan the data in. Thanks for catching that one.

As for the category, please check the other ship categories and notice that typically index pages are used for ships with the same names, rather than categories. After all, how many "ships named Enterprise" would there be? Jinian 18:01, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nautilus

Nice additions to the Nautilus article, 2 things though, please don't remove this article from Category:Ships named Nautilus, as it was a ship named Nautilus. Also did you use Optical character recognition to scan this data in? Would you check this phrase: "arid after provisioning" is that not supposed to be "and after provisioning"? Anyway, good job de-stubbifying the article. Looks great.Pedant 17:57, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

sorry, I think I'm not understanding your comment on index pages, categories. Would you really explain that? It seems like you're saying, well it seems like you are saying several different things and I'd rather ask you what you mean than try to interpret it, since you're online now. Would you mind explaining it as if I am an idiot, so I'm sure I understand? thanksPedant

Okay, and I'll do it here so that we can have the conversation in one place.

Most information about the style of ships' pages can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships. Index pages are discussed in section 2.1, but for brevity, it says Index articles about ships should include in their titles only the standard prefix used by that ship. Other identification should be omitted, so that a reader can easily locate the material sought; eg, name an index article simply "USS Enterprise." So, instead of an article entitled "Ships named Nautilus", to be in line with what every other ship article in Wikipedia looks like, it would be "USS Nautilus" (Moving the current page to one with this title is now on my list of things to do, after I noticed the problem.) See USS Enterprise for an example of what a ship index page looks like. Then each ship goes into the proper category based on the type of ship it was/is (destroyer/sloop/aircraft carrier/gunboat/tug, whatever).

Hope this helps. Jinian 18:50, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships needs some discussion, however, Ships named Nautilus is not a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships, and I think that Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships needs some attention regarding systemic American-centric bias, if every ship is supposed to be listed under the designation "USS". Pedant.

One, Ships named Nautilus is not intended to be an index page, it is about all ships named Nautilus. Pedant

Fine, but it's pretty redundant with the individual ships' pages.[unsigned comment User:Jinian]

No, it is not redundant. Several of those ships pages are merely copied from Ships named Nautilus. USS Nautilus is not a likely page for me to look for HMS Nautilus or Nautilus (Fulton) -- neither of which are or ever were referred to as "USS Nautilus", or or USS O-12 (SS-73) which was USS Nautilus, but was not originally named Nautilus. Pedant

Two, not all ships named Nautilus were US ships. Pedant

Your point? [unsigned comment User:Jinian]

My point is that USS is a designation for United States ships. USS is not the designation for other nation's ships, nor for merchant ships, nor fictional ships. Pedant

Three, not all ships named Nautilus that were US ships were Navy ships. Pedant

Yes? [unsigned comment User:Jinian]

No. USS is a US naval designation, generally. Pedant

Four, not all ships that were Navy ships with the name Nautilus were named USS Nautilus. Please do not move Ships named Nautilus to USS Nautilus. Pedant

I was planning to break it into several pages, to properly disambig it. Obviously it's not as easy as just moving it, which is why I didn't just do it. [unsigned comment User:Jinian]

You "didn't do it because it wasn't easy". You actually said that? Then you say, 'to properly disambig it', but there is no ambiguity in the article whatsoever. Ships named Nautilus is not a disambiguation article, but it serves the function of one far better than USS Nautilus, as it has a broader scope, and disambiguation articles should have the broadest scope possible. Pedant

USS Enterprise is not the name of HMS Enterprise, however, HMS Enterprise is a "Ship named Enterprise. Pedant

And therefore has it's own page. [unsigned comment User:Jinian]

Lots of pages actually, the point of categorisation is to simplify searching and cross referencing... how would you navigate from HMS Enterprize (1709) to USS Enterprise (1799)? Pedant

Five, Ships named Nautilus is not as you term it, a problem. It was written by 2 experts on the name Nautilus, the Officer-in-charge of the Historic ship Nautilus, and the curator of the United States Naval Submarine Force Museum, Groton, Connecticut.Pedant

It's completely different format and structure than every other page about ships on Wikipedia. That's the problem, not the text. [unsigned comment User:Jinian]

It's not about ships. Its about the naval history of the name Nautilus in fiction and the real world. Pedant

Six, There are however problems with USS Nautilus, it contains innaccurate data and weasel words as presently written.Pedant

Fix it then. [unsigned comment User:Jinian]

I don't intend to. I had 'fixed' it by changing it to a redirect. However, you pointed out that the structure that is in common use at this point is to have an article with that title. So I reverted to the earlier version. It doesn't however serve the purpose of, or have the scope of the article Ships named Nautilus. It links to less pages. I don't think the article serves the purpose it's intended to, as disambiguation pages should have the broadest scope possible.Pedant

Seven, These two articles are separate articles each of whose existence does not depend on the other's.Pedant

Huh? [unsigned comment User:Jinian]

Ships named Nautilus is a good article and is accurate, NPOV, has room for expansion and serves a purpose. USS Nautilus does not adequately serve the purpose it is intended to, and because of its name, is limited in scope, and can never adequately replace Ships named Nautilus. Except for it being as you say: "in line with what every other ship article in Wikipedia looks like" USS Nautilus is an inferior article, in terms of scope only, ie, every fact in USS Nautilus, can be (and probably is) in Ships named Nautilus, but the same does not hold true in reverse. HMS Nautilus, Captain Nemo's Nautilus, and USS O-12 (SS-73) are not likely to be looked for at USS Nautilus

Eight, there are more than one ways to categorize articles: articles and categories may be part of more than one categorization scheme. If you were going to look up for example the Nautilus whose keel was laid down in 1916, you can go to Category:Ships>Category:Ships by name>Category:Ships named Nautilus>Ships named Nautilus Pedant 21:36, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

This is the only category in the "ships by name" category. Look for my request to delete it and make your case to the community on that page. Jinian 19:50, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) [unsigned comment User:Jinian]

It is not the only category in Category:Ships by name. You listed it for deletion while I was still populating it. I won't be doing any work on any categories until we get this straightened out.Pedant 21:36, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification

Thanks. So the Lady Washington wasn't ever the USS Lady Washington? Did you find some reference where she was referred to as the USS Lady Washington? That's the one question I asked several times. If you did, where was that reference? Thanks again.Pedant 16:41, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)

No, there is no reference for her as "USS Lady Washington". The article is titled that to be in line with the naming conventions of ships in Wikipedia, which I thought I had referred you to earlier. The prefix clarifies that she was a ship of the United States (even though it was before there was a United States). US ships didn't carry the appellation of "USS" until 1909. However, in Wikipedia, we use "USS" in the title of any ship that served in the United States Navy or Continental Navy. Jinian 16:58, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I disagree that "in Wikipedia, we use "USS" in the title of any ship that served in the United States Navy or Continental Navy" I think you are mistaken as to the convention: using your reference: Naming conventions#Ship names "Convention: Articles about ships that have standard prefixes should include them in the article title; for example, HMS Ark Royal, USS Enterprise."

It does not say ships that don't have standard prefixes should have them added whether or not that is accurate. This is about the article title of an article about a ship.

That reference also points to this reference reference as being for "Rationale and specifics:" (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)) includes"

"Some authors use invented prefixes for consistency with "USS", "HMS" etc. It's not a mistake to do that, but at Wikipedia we choose not."

It says at wikipedia we choose not to use invented prefixes. (like calling a ship USS Something when it was never USS anything)

and

"Make an index page that lists all the ships with a name:

USS Enterprise lists eight Enterprises
HMS Vanguard lists ten Vanguards"

It says that an index page should "list all ships with the same name", not "all ships from one navy listed under an invented prefix", it says all ships.

So what I get from that is that

There should be a list of all ships with the same name.
Invented prefixes are not used by those following the ship article naming conventions.
There is no mention that "an article about the naval history of an oft-used ship's name is a bad thing". (or anything close to that)

comments welcome. Pedant 17:36, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)

(You have to interpret the naming convention in the light of its practical application, and not in a legalistic fashion. I didn't write it for interpretation by a court, but by sensible people.) Re "USS Lady Washington": We have a convention at Wikipedia of putting ship prefixes in article titles for ships that historically weren't always referred to with that prefix. For example, "HMS" was first used in the late 18th century, but we still have articles like HMS Royal Charles (1655). This is because (1) it makes it simple to title the article; (2) avoids the many disputes that would arise when there is doubt over how the ship was named by its contemporaries; (3) Royal Charles was His Majesty's Ship, so the title is right. In the case of Lady Washington if we disallowed "USS" because of the anachronism we would probably call the article "United States Ship Lady Washington". But then why not abbreviate that rather cumbersome name to "USS Lady Washington"? Gdr 20:30, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)

I am a sensible person, and my reading of the project page in no way led me to an understanding that using the misnomer prefix was the standard way of doing things, in any case. If it has become the custom to do so, it should be discussed on the project page to avoid misunderstandings, and also to allow a real consensus process to occur, as I am sure the wikipedia community at large would like to know why one project has taken it on itself to subvert the established policies of the wikipedia in general. (in other words it looks to be a contravention of the clearly stated wikipedia conventions regarding disambiguation, that has been done in secret, by a subset of editors) Pedant

Remember, Lady Washington was thrown in my face as being proof that the category "Ships named Nautilus" was bad, because there "was only ever one" Lady Washington which is demonstrably untrue, at a mere glance. And so we use USS Lady Washington as a disambiguation for all the other ships also not named USS Lady Washington as well? Including ships that are not and never were United States ships? Why is this better than Lady Washington or Lady Washington (disambiguation?... but then I didn't bring up the subject of Lady Washington. Pedant

And my point is not to remove or to replace USS Nautilus. Regarding USS Nautilus, I'm not trying to delete or complain about USS Nautilus at all! I just don't think redirecting Ships named Nautilus to USS Nautilus is appropriate or defensible, Ships named Nautilus has more content than and is more accurate than USS Nautilus, and I'm quite certain the convention is not to delete information in this way. And as I have said before, Ships named Nautilusis not a disambiguation page, and does not duplicate any other page. Pedant

...regarding the Category:Ships named Nautilus, I just noted how very difficult it was to find the other articles in the Nautilus series, while reading one of the articles. (try looking at the wikipedia from an end-user perspective)...Pedant

I think I'm responsible for at least one generation of the "list all ships" phrase, and at the time it seemed so obvious that it meant ships of a particular navy that I didn't even think to state that specifically. In practice, the most common situation needing disambiguation is an "HMS Enterprise" reference; the next most common might be Enterprise, which you can see is already a disambig that includes HMS and USS forms as "sub-disambiguators". In any case, we now have hundreds if not thousands of articles following the per-navy convention; anybody who wants us to change conventions should at the very least sign up to change them all, so things continue to be consistent. As to whether ships named Enterprise is a worthwhile article in its own right, that is to some extent a matter of taste. Having read thousands of ship histories now, it seems pretty rare that there's any real significance to the reuse of names; it would be like having a narrative article for people named John Smith. Stan 23:24, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

regardless of who said 'list all ships', think about the case of someone knowing the name of the Nautilus, but not knowing what navy it was in. And besides, the general wikipedia convention is to disambiguate -- on one page -- all occurences of an ambiguity. What reasoning is there to contravene this policy? How is it helpful to the reader? Pedant

"Having read thousands of ship histories now, it seems pretty rare that there's any real significance to the reuse of names; it would be like having a narrative article for people named John Smith"

I agree that it is rare to have a name that has a long tradition associated with it. However, Nautilus is one of those rarities, a ship of that name is visited by a quarter million people each year, and the name is associated with Napoleon Bonaparte, Robert Fulton, Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Jules Verne, Edward Preble, the first submarine, the first fictional submarine, the first nuclear submarine, the first submerged traversal of the polar icecap, the Notrh Pole and polar exploration, Ancient Greece War of 1812, Battle of Midway, Nuclear power, a ship with that name won Presidential Unit Citation, the highest decoration for a US naval vessel, and the first to be awarded in peace time... etc. I disagree that this is like people named John Smith". Pedant

and the microcategory Ships by name is intended ONLY for ships whose name is so common as to have a dozen articles with similar names, such as Enterprise and other exceptions to the "John Smith is not notable rule" Pedant

The use of "USS" for Continental ships has been troubling me for some time. There was a statute (turn-of-the-century?) that changed the old USF etc to USS for all vessels; it's possible that the fine print made "USS" officially retroactive for Continental Navy vessels. Many sources don't even use prefixes, but they also don't do hyperlinking on our scale, which makes it a problem unique to WP. I'm certainly interested in the evidence for and against using "USS", and how alternatives would handle the existing body of articles, plus how to inform future editors what they should do. In any case, we should continue on the project and/or naming conventions talk pages, that's why they exist (individual users clean up their talk pages, so not the best place to have an on-the-record debate). Stan 23:39, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Changing things

I see you're pretty new here, but have already gotten embroiled in a bit of a fight. Sorry about that! In the couple of years that WP has been around, we've evolved a number of conventions intended to facilitate construction of the encyclopedia, and to reduce the number of disputes. Almost no one is totally happy with the body of standards and policy, but they support it as an alternative to incessant arguing about the same old things. So if you wade in, tell the oldtimers how they're all wrong, and start doing things in a completely different way, you're not going to get a positive reaction. It would work better to spend your time asking people why things are the way they are first, and fixing existing articles rather than leaving them with mistakes, and creating new articles that duplicate much content. I welcome your ideas and am pleased to have another person interested in naval things, so let's see if we can get started off on the right foot. Stan 02:45, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, I see, you have been around WP for awhile. In that case I'm puzzled by your behavior with respect to ship articles; you're presumably familiar with the existing consensus for naming and content, and proposed changes are worked on at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships - in fact there are several ongoing debates there, for which I and others have been doing library research before committing to changing lots of articles - but yet you silently chose to work at cross-purposes to that consensus. You see from the recent edit history of ships named Nautilus that it's going to be hard to defend the article from random editors who simply follow the guidelines that they see written down somewhere. That for me is the real underlying reason to develop consensus and rationale for an idea; while you're working on water heater and I'm pruning shrubs, we want other editors to agree with our additions and improve on them, rather than messing them up. Stan 04:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"categories deleted before they could even be populated" - heh, that's happened to me a couple times, it is very annoying! I think one thing that gets a bad reaction is that you do things like characterize "USS Nautilus" as "flawed at it's premise" - the dozen-odd people who've worked a lot on naval articles pride themselves on seeking for accuracy, and you come off as dissing them en masse. When I've done research on ship prefixes and their usage, I've found that it's been very inconsistent - authors are all over the place, navies report their current usage and profess ignorance that it was different in the past, etc. That's why it would have been better to bring it up at the project page first; while you make some good points, I think other editors are apprehensive of the potential for chaos, especially if you're not signing up to fix the hundreds of articles and thousands of links that would be affected. Stan 05:31, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

When I see an article that seem drastically wrong in some way, or inconsistent project rules, but the edit histories shows that a number of people active in the topic must have reviewed and accepted them in that form, I assume that there's a underlying reason and ask on talk pages first. Frequently my questions get other people to realize their mistakes, and they jump to fix the problem - everybody wins. Stan 17:00, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

again, I didn't set out to get embroiled in a debate on disambiguation, I just added an article and a couple of useful categories. All I'm really interested in discussing along these lines is:

As long as we're talking about what you've done. As I recall, and as the history page shows, you redirected the disambig page USS Nautilus to Ships named Nautilus. Otherwise I would have never even stumbled upon your work. Thanks for changing it back, by the way. Not trying to by nasty or rude, just trying to ensure that we're all clear that I don't troll the 'pedia for people to attack. Jinian 00:35, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What is wrong with adding an article on the history of a name?
How do the new categories harm or impede the wikipedia.

as these reflect on things that I have done.

I specifically am not inclined to be interested in Lady Washington or The name John Smith any other red herrings thrown in my path that distract from the present discussion on the above two topics. Telling me that Ships named Nautilus is bad because Ships named Lady Washington would be bad is a non sequitur, I didn't create Ships named Lady Washington. Bringing up Lady Washington or John Smith is like saying "Dogs on a leash is a bad idea because there are so many ducks that won't tolerate wearing a collar". Pedant

I am only peripherally interested in USS Something and the ship project's apparently different-from-wikipedia-in-general policy on disambiguation pages, and only because it slightly relates to the above two topics. Pedant

Anything that doesn't bear on articles I've written, proposed or edited, or categories I've added, populated, proposed or deleted, really doesn't bear on me personally and should be discussed as you suggest, on the talk page of the article in question. There's only so much I can do. Once topics directly bearing on me have been resolved, perhaps I will have some time to suggest improvements in other areas.Pedant

I'll leave this full discussion here, until the issues above are resolved, or there is no discussion, and anyone is welcome to copy text to or from this page that bears on the discussion, no matter how cluttered the page gets.Pedant

If any one editor who is a participant listed on the Ships Project page tells me to just stop adding anything that relates to seagoing vessels at all, to just entirely butt out, I'll do so. I have other things to work on. However, if any of the participants do tell me to butt out, I will require a group consensus and invitation before I add anything more to anything that might impinge on the project.Pedant 17:58, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I don't want you to butt out, I just want you to work with the rest of us. Stan 07:08, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't want you to butt out either, but I'd prefer we discuss relevant issues. If you don't like the way we've done things, recommend a change on the projects page. I'm going to stop discussing abuptly again, since I don't care to spend me time on this types of interactions. Jinian 11:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I didn't even know that we were doing things like putting false information into articles, until you told me that was the way "we" do it. The project page says nothing near the way you say that we do things. I don't think discussing it on the project page is going to do any good, since no matter how many times I refer you to the pertinent part of the project page, you persist in saying that the Ships Project does things differently from the entire rest of the wikipedia, although I see no evidence to that effect. The Ships Project page has what seems to me to be correct instructions on classifying ships, but apparently you and perhaps several others have developed your own custom of doing things your own way, without any reference to either the Ships Project page or wikipedia guidelines. I think that this maybe needs to be brought out into the open, in the community at large, as it seems to be a dirty little secret some subset of the community has foisted upon the wikipedia. You have never pointed me to anything on that page that says that ships that are not USS ships are to be called "USS" or that disambiguation pages for ships should start with "USS". If that's the way "we" do things, I can't in good consciensce participate in it. I'm intend to gather more information and submit this for a Request for Comments.

Pedant 22:38, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

This type of comment verges on threat

You might not want to call too much attention to your complaints about the ships project - others will look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships and see that you've made exactly two additions to it so far, and that a number of your remarks there and elsewhere are bordering on personal attacks, which can get you in trouble. If you're going to keep making claims of false information, I expect to start seeing some citations to published literature, not unverifiable references to some conversation you might have had. BTW, I'm putting my note because you've totally scrambled your talk page with redirs and such. Stan 18:21, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I wonder why it is you think I want to keep this a secret. Your insinuations above have no merit. I have never in any way borderline or otherwise personally attacked anyone on wikipedia. Nor would I. If you think that I have done so, point it out. Pedant

I am merely bringing to the community's attention a pervasive problem that is growing fast. I have never made reference to any conversation I might have had in as you say "making claims" of false information. By your saying so it seems that there is a deliberate lack of clarity in your remarks: your comment above could lead someone to believe that I am the one adding false information and that I have cited a conversation as my proof, or some similar claim which is demonstrably not true. Pedant

What I have said is true: many of the ship articles contain false information; many of the articles entitled USS something are titled contrary to both wikipedia naming conventions, and to the stated conventions of the ships project; and I have cited the conventions which they are contrary to. Pedant

But just so you have it right here where you can see it, here is an example of false information, for which I cite two articles from within the Ships Project itself:

USS Nautilus says "The first Nautilus, was a schooner that served against the Tripolitan pirates and into the War of 1812"

and

Nautilus (1800) says "Nautilus was the first practical submarine, commissioned by Napoleon and designed by the American inventor Robert Fulton, then living in France. Launched in 1800...".

Obviously it cannot be true that the first Nautilus was both a schooner and a submarine. One of these articles must be incorrect. I chose this example because it was the very first ship listed in the very first "USS Something" article I encountered, of a very large set of articles, every one of which I have encountered contains at least one blatant error that a cursory examination by even a slightly diligent editor would readily discover. Pedant

It concerns me that only you and one other editor have expressed a resistance to my expressing this to the community, and that you make allegations of personal attacks (but only on my talk page). Even more intriguing to me is that you feel the need to make vaguely threatening innuendos such as "You might not want to call too much attention to your complaints about the ships project". I have not yet completed my documentation of this problem as it is so widespread that I may need help to even begin to describe the scope and nature of the problem. I am devoting all of my wikipedia time to this situation at present. Pedant

You have made it quite clear that you do not wish to have this matter discussed. It is not my job to judge your motivations. I will not waste my time with you any further if you wish to conceal this matter. I don't intend to drag anyone into this personally, barring evidence of bad intent. I do however intend that this matter be resolved in the best interests of the wikipedia, and that all false information be removed, and that if there are valid reasons for flouting wikipedia conventions and wikproject conventions, that those conventions be rewritten to reflect the actual practice, so that this issue does not get worse. At present, the problem is growing faster than I can research it, and I would welcome assistance from any editors with principles who are able to understand what the problem is.Pedant 04:50, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)

Please don't put words into my mouth - I'm happy to discuss all this at length, anywhere, anytime. Believe it or not, I'm trying to give you my best advice as to how to address your complaints. My original advice was to discuss it at the project page, which you've not done (two postings is not a discussion), and now having failed to convince anyone there, you're making exaggerated claims of a "red alert situation" in which editors are "adamant in continuing to add false information", most definitely a direct attack on those editors. Who's going to take you seriously after all that? Even worse, who's going to give credence to a self-admitted dilettante who's worked on a couple ship articles, versus the 20-odd people who've collectively built and organized hundreds? So if you want to put a lot of time and energy into this, feel free, but I just don't see how it's going to get you anything that you want. Stan 06:26, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On your "first Nautilus" claim of error, it's easily explained - by definition, USS Nautilus primarily disambiguates only commissioned USN ships, and so in that context "first Nautilus" clearly means "first USS Nautilus"; we could include the "USS" with every ship reference, but there is also a general rule to only include the "USS" with the first use of the name. In the nearly two years that I've been working steadily on WP, you're the first person who's complained about this tiny bit of ambiguity; everybody else seems to understand what is meant. Even so, had you brought that specific point up on the project page, I don't think it would have been that hard to get support for the change; I've waffled about it myself more than once, and also contemplated just whacking the "first", "second", etc, because the numbering gets complicated for 17th century RN rebuilds and the like, plus it invites pointless debate about who was "first". Stan 06:45, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Confusing issues

I'm confused about what the problems are. It seems to be that there are several issues that need discussing:

Is it OK to have pages like Ships named Nautilus that list all ships with a name, irrespective of navy? (discussion here)
Is it OK to have categories like Category:Ships named Nautilus similarly? (discussion here)
Do ship articles properly follow the conventions at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)? (discussion here)
Are those naming conventions in accord with general Wikipedia naming policies? (discussion here)
Is it OK to backdate ship prefixes when naming articles? (discussion here)
Is it OK in USS Nautilus to write "The first Nautilus" when "in the Continental Navy or US Navy" is to be understood?

I find much of the discussion above difficult to follow because it keeps slipping from one issue to another. I also think it would be best if this whole discussion continued in the relevant sections of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships where participants are more likely to read it. Gdr 13:03, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)