Re: Design dates vs. possible commissioning dates of Never-weres.
Well, my personal preference was, and remains, more in line with what Hood wrote. But I am aware that some other Users (not only Acelanceloet) seem to prefer the other option, so I would be happy if we could find (and rather quickly!
) some solution acceptable to all sides.
One idea I got - although bit inconsistent (and I don't like inconsistencies) - is to accept two parallel ways of applying dates to Never-weres:
1) Date given in "Depiction Date" being the "date of the design" - in such cases no further info is needed (and it would be considered a "default" way of dating never-weres).
2) Date given in "Depiction Date" being the "possible date of commissioning/further modernization etc.", but in the title the "date of the design" would be in such cases always
clearly and explicitly stated (for example: "CVA-58 United States (1947 design)" - or something like that).
Re: Modified classes, license-built derivatives and other stuff in brackets.
I would like to once again reiterate my idea:
If the single ship is converted to some entirely different set of tasks (that completely fall outside the original role, like minesweeper converted to survey ship) on a one-off basis, I suggest adding (modified) to original class name (and new role).
Examples: Jaskółka class minesweeper converted to survey ship or one of Daring class destroyers converted into sonar trials ship.
If the whole group of ships from a given class is converted to some other tasks, according to more-or-less standardized design, then I suggest giving new class name and adding (modified "original class).
Examples: Casco class of Coast Guard cutters modified from Barnegat seaplane tenders, WW2-era APD's converted from DE's.
Re: Courageous - carriers kept both the class and individual ship names of battlecruisers, so I guess that adding brackets in such situation would be superfluous
If the ship is built under license (even with serious local modifications), or is otherwise direct "relative" of some other vessel (except for use of just the hull, like Ticonderoga
), or is part of a known "family" of designs (like MEKO), then the name of "original class" would be added in brackets)
- Van Speijk (Type-12I Leander)
- Brisbane (Oliver Hazard Perry)
- Hydra (MEKO-200)
- Shishumar (Type-209/1500)
Note, that if the names are part of the same sequence, there's no point in adding the brackets, like for example no point in adding to "original" Type-12M Leander that it's descendant of Type-12 Whitby and Type-12M Rothesay, as their relation is somewhat self-explanatory through the Type designation (same with Russian Project numbers).
To me, purpose of all of this is to make the database as searchable as possible, even - or maybe especially - for those that may not be necessarily aware of all the local names, renamings etc. etc.
Drawings themselves were generally salvaged from the wipe-out, but if You have Your own backup copy, that could be used for verification, I'd be happy to use it.
I just looked into the Archive.
"Tribal" or "Type-15" are NOT sub-types of destroyers or frigates, they are classes.
And one more thing: anyone remembers what we were doing with Destroyer Escorts - were they under Destroyers or Frigates (my preference)?