[Post Reply] [*]  Page 3 of 12  [ 117 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 4 512 »
Author Message
ALVAMA
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: September 20th, 2018, 8:58 pm
Haha amazing. Like always, shipbucket has to be the ship with a crew of captains. People can leave suggestions but what about let one person do the job? Just let the talkers talk less and make the people who work, just work.

Some people among here should join the Olympics for cockfights...

I honestly believe that eswube can do the best and most proper job here.


Top
[Quote]
eswube
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: September 20th, 2018, 9:50 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 8839
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 8:31 am
Contact: Website
Uploaded (all known to me) content for Albania, Algeria, Azerbaijan (which is not much, but I had to deal with other things too, including rather random creativity of one of Uploaders :( - and tomorrow most likely I will have to deal with again, since although I wrote him a PM, he hasn't read it yet).

By the way...
Dear Mates - since most of You haven't created so far Your own accounts on the mainsite, uploaders are creating them from Admin level (so they can be chosen as Authors during upload). But that means, that the nominal users may have, euphemistically speaking, problems with accessing what is ostensibly their own accounts on Mainsite.
Unfortunately, that group includes, among others, Gollevainen and MihoshiK... :>

P.S. All diacritics (like that dot over "e" in "Béarn" for example) should be included... ;)

_________________
My very neglected Deviantart page


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Hood
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: September 21st, 2018, 8:45 am
Offline
Posts: 6124
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am
Destroyer escorts should probably be in with frigates. The term is largely American anyway, though they did also have frigates just to confuse things!

One suggestion. When we do reach a consensus can we have a simple crib sheet of all the uploading regs. When I mean simple I mean a one line and one example per naming rule.

I don't mind taking care of the RN, RAN and RCN again. Might have to dig out some of the older drawings again from their obscure hiding places, thank god the Photobucket plague has been restored or it might have been impossible to salvage many older works.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: September 21st, 2018, 10:12 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7179
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
Destroyer escorts were in the frigates folder before, indeed.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
eswube
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: September 21st, 2018, 7:31 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 8839
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 8:31 am
Contact: Website
I can write such short entry about the naming rules. Just give me several hours.
Can I assume that we actually reached the consensus on the raised issues (especially the "brackets", but also "wether to include military-owned research vessels in naval auxiliaries or with civilian research vessels" etc. etc.)?

Thanks about confirmation on the DE's being with frigates.
I was thinking so - it's rather logical, after all, but wasn't entirely sure.

_________________
My very neglected Deviantart page


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Colosseum
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: September 21st, 2018, 8:59 pm
Offline
Posts: 4973
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 9:38 pm
Location: Austin, TX
Contact: Website
DEs should be classified as Frigates (indeed I categorized my one DE submission this way a few days ago).

Military-owned research vessels should be Naval Auxiliaries.

For never builds, keep the design date in the title and enter the depiction date into the field (this is why it's called "date depicted")...

But, as stated before, eswube has the final say on all these things and whatever he decides on is how it will be. Make sense?

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
eswube
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: September 21st, 2018, 11:22 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 8839
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 8:31 am
Contact: Website
Hood wrote: *
One suggestion. When we do reach a consensus can we have a simple crib sheet of all the uploading regs. When I mean simple I mean a one line and one example per naming rule.
Created a draft guidelines. They are in the New Site Data Load Project sub-forum:
http://shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=8940

Please express Your thoughts and opinions (preferably positive ;) ).

_________________
My very neglected Deviantart page


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Novice
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: September 21st, 2018, 11:31 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 4003
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:25 am
Location: Vrijstaat
Well this one will help to upload correctly most of the archive.
Thank you very much for your effort and time.

_________________
[ img ] Thank you Kim for the crest

"Never fear to try on something new. Remember that the Titanic was built by professionals, and the Ark by an amateur"


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Hood
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: September 22nd, 2018, 8:20 am
Offline
Posts: 6124
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am
eswube wrote: *

Created a draft guidelines. They are in the New Site Data Load Project sub-forum:
http://shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=8940

Please express Your thoughts and opinions (preferably positive ;) ).
That is exactly what I had in mind. Nice and clear and spells it all out concisely with good examples to follow.

One thing regarding Leanders, they never actually received a Type designation. Type 12M is often used but I think that is unofficial. I'm not sure why that is the case, perhaps the brass hats forgot or some civil servant overlooked it? For our purposes though I think we should use Type 12M as a good distinguisher from the original Type 12 design (itself composed of two-subclasses, Whitbys and Rothesays - which I tend to keep both under the same Type 12 CLASS).

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
eswube
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: September 22nd, 2018, 9:24 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 8839
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 8:31 am
Contact: Website
Thanks for kind words!
If there will be any further alterations resulting from discussion - either in this thread or in the comments below Guidelines, I'll be entering them directly there, so please check these threads occassionaly during the next 2-3 days.

@Hood

Lack of Type designation for Leander is a surprise to me. I saw it used in multiple sources (though it seems that alternatively either Type-12I or Type-12M is sometimes used, but I also saw Type-12M applied to Rothesay?).
Could You just "choose" for us the "proper" Type designation for Whitby, Rothesay and Leander respectively?

_________________
My very neglected Deviantart page


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 3 of 12  [ 117 posts ]  Return to “General Discussion” | Go to page « 1 2 3 4 512 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]