Before we start re-uploading the content to the Archive, there are several things I would like to raise, regarding the standards and commonality of the names and classification. I noticed certain discrepancies between standards of these applied by various Uploaders, and apparently wasn't the only person who though that perhaps we could try to avoid such situation now, and got some encouragement to raise these issues.
One thing is that I'd like to remind that we shouldn't use prefixes such as USS, HMS, m/s, s/s and the like (neither CV, AHTS etc. unless they are part of the pennant number "US Navy-style").
"Title" of the drawing should be composed only of the pennant number (if applicable, of course), ships's own name (like Ark Royal, Saratoga, Bismarck) and - if needed - date of depiction (but only if there are multiple drawings of said ship at different times or there's some other particular reason to include it in the name - otherwise there's the "date depicted" window elsewhere for it) and/or extra information ("as built", "battle of Jutland" etc.).
I know that it's basic, but I remember that during previous upload some uploaders were occasionaly doing these titles differently (and someone else had to modify it).
For the most part, these things were explained here: http://shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=7680
Few notes - previously the convention has emerged, that anything that's from pre-steam era is, by default, classified as "Sailing Vessel" (even though there were several ships there that actually had no sail at all!
). Also, any submersibles go under "Submarines".
In "Riverine Warfare" only the "shooting ships" were added (monitors, gunboats, patrol boats and the like), but riverine mine-warfare and auxiliaries were in other, relevant categories.
Generally, when the drawing was made to represent whole class (generically), let's name it as lead ship of the class (unless something on the drawing - like pennant number on hull, for example, clearly contradicts it).
(That said, in some cases - usually from countries historically rather discreet about their military, like PRC or North Korea - individual ship names might not be known at all, therefore the "generic class name" may simply have
to be used as a "title")
Also (as there were also several cases like that), when there are multiple drawings of a ship, at different times, we created only one SHIP entry and multiple DRAWING entries - there's completely no need to create separate SHIP drawings for every year.
And we mustn't upload multiple literally identical
(down to a single pixel) drawings to represent all ships in the class (it happened before!)
Oh... and when creating a CLASS, there's no need to write "class" in the name (like "Bismarck class" - "Bismarck" will suffice).
One important thing I'd like to stress, is checking if someone else hasn't already created a CLASS (especially) or SHIP entry for a given vessel (for example when it was used in different country and/or drawing was made by someone else).
That leads to another matter - consistency in writing standardized naming sequences, like, for example Soviet/Eastern-Bloc "Project Numbers" (which can be written, for example - "Project 1143" or "Pr.1143" - last time it was with full word "Project" and I'm going to do it same way this time), or Royal Navy's post-war "Type-XX" etc. etc. Point is, that during the upload, the suggestions appear, based on the names already created, but if somebody would starty typing "T-...", then "Type..." might not appear, and vice versa, also the use of diacritics from some languages might be an issue ("Huáscar" vs. "Huascar" for example), so IMHO it would be good to keep it in mind.
Also, I'd like to call for consistency when writing pennant numbers and the like. While in the USN it's XX-000 (with hyphen), some other navies don't have it always so clear, but regardless of what way is used (A00, A.00, A-00), it would be great if it was always the same way (for a particular navy).
Some things I would like to put for discussion.
Some ship classes, besides their country of origin, were also built under license in other countries, very often with some noticeable local modifications and under different name. For example Dutch Van Speijk frigates, which were license-built British Leanders. Generally, such classes were mentioned in the CLASS list separately, although some Uploaders would only give the local name, and some (including me) would also add the "source name" in brackets - for example "Van Speijk (Type-12M Leander)".
Also, some ships, during their service lives, were converted into entirely different tasks then originally intented - for example, some of the Polish Jaskółka-class minesweepers, were also converted into patrol ships and hydrographical survey ships. My suggestion is (as I was doing it previously) to create in such cases separate CLASS entry/entries, with "original class name" and word "(modified)" added, and of course with appropriately changed role.
So for example, for original Jaskółka the CLASS/TYPE entry would be:
"Jaskółka - Mine Warfare"
and for conversion
"Jaskółka (modified) - Naval Auxiliary"
, while the above format I used for "one-off conversions", for more standardized conversions (applied uniformly to a group of ships) I would suggest adding the "original" class name in the brackets - for example:
"Casco (modified Barnegat) - ...
"Date Depicted" in regards to Never-Weres
For the most part, it seems that in the drawings of the unbuilt ships, Uploaders tended to give there (literally following the name of this function) the year they considered a likely date when given ship would be built if it was built.
But for me it's bit awkward, since actually these dates are actually quite arbitrary (and we don't know if they would be true), but we do know when the given project was made
, which is IMHO more sensible option to enter in the "date window".
"Research Ship" vs. "Naval Auxiliary"
There are several categories that quite overlap (like the example above). Personally, In the above case (which, IMHO is most striking) I would suggest to put all "research ships" into this category, regardless if they are civilian or military (oceanographic research, satellite tracking, whatever), while in the "naval auxiliary" put emphasis on ships like AOR's, tenders and so on.
Similar situation can be encountered, for example with Sailing Vessels and Icebreakers.
Any suggestions? Or other problems You believe should be solved beforehand?