Talk:Oliver Hazard Perry-class

Catalogs

I've started inputting the individual ships in the Catalog tab. I have the details from 2006 showing all (then) active vessels, but since that time there have undoubtedly been decommissions, so I aim to input (if I can find them) the details for every ship built before noting in the 'In service' column if they are still in service, decommissioned or sold. If there are any ideas for improvement or modification please let me know. I'll probably spread the work over a few days as these tables can be slightly monotonous to edit. David Finn 08:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Catalog dates

I'm easy about the dates being there or not. Without them the table may look slightly sparse though. I really don't have a preference - less work for me if they are too much, but I don't mind putting them in if it adds anything. David Finn 16:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The other thing is that I only have the dates for laying down, completion and commissioning, so any of those are easy to input. I was leaving the "in service" bit blank for now as I'll have to research each vessel for that, although I see you've made a start. David Finn 16:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It's an improvement. I wonder, at the level of the catalog rather than individual ship article, a single in-service date (years only) is adequate.

Part of the reason is that some vessels have other significant dates, such as conversion from the "short hull" to the "long hull". As far as I know, all unconverted short hull versions have been scrapped. Also, the USN ships have had the medium range RIM-66 Standard SM-1 and long range RIM-67 Standard SM-1 missile launchers removed, to make the declining supplies of SM-1 air defense missiles available to allies. Maybe there should be an asterisk or some other indication of original short hull, short hull conversion, or original long hull. Another item, perhaps for notes, is assignment/homeport for USN vessels and nation using (and new name) for those sold/given to allies. Howard C. Berkowitz 13:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, hows this. The most important thing to you as a military author is the in-service dates so I kept those as you suggested. The most important thing to me as a boats author is when it was launched and when it was scrapped. The launch dates I have put in full, but it is the only place on CZ where the information will be collated on the same page and I find it useful myself so I don't mind that extra detail. Since so few have been scrapped having the year only is fine for that in the notes section I think, like you have already shown.

There is still space for another column about the hull conversion, or the asterisk works fine also. What do you think? I can change it around again in a jiffy if needs be. David Finn 14:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Rather than boats author, think sea history (superset of naval). Good observation about different viewpoints, although there really are several points in ship ceremonies. Incidentally, I'm involved in a complete rebuild of a recreational boat to a small commercial fishing vessel -- I'm mostly doing the electronics, but will be doing step-by-step photographs now that the wheelhouse is glassed-in (the fishermen call it a doghouse). Howard C. Berkowitz 14:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)