Talk:COVID-19 pandemic on naval ships

Ship photos

IMHO the details of the official photographs should not state any location as it may be misleading as to where the ship was at such time of first contracted case or otherwise it isn't indicated as to the photos date taken.

1. Add a date taken, or
2. Remove the non-relevant location.

--GSMC(Chief Mike) Kouklis U.S.NAVY Ret. ⛮🇺🇸 / 🇵🇭🌴 09:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

good point. i will try to remember to add a date to the caption of a photo if the picture was taken before the pandemic to make it clear that the location of the ship may not be relevant to the pandemic.

by the way, one reason why i had previously left dates out of the captions is because i wanted the captions to be concise and relevant to the average user. for example, the average user is not going to care about the hull number of a frigate (or even that a ship is a frigate), and if a user was interested in such details, the text of the article explains what type of ship it is, and generally links to a page about the ship that includes the ship's hull number. in addition, having concise captions also allows me to add more pictures to the page without looking like i'm cluttering up the page.

originally, i had thought about only using the name of the ship (and possibly a prefix) for the caption, but ended up adding the location as well when it looked too bare. taking your suggestion into account, i can simply mention the date instead of the location where the picture was taken. dying (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed - but with the exception of USNS Comfort - I'd rather left the caption as is, as her photo was taken in March 2020 in the New York Harbor, so the location actually is relevant for the current pandemic. --Algernon (p.s.) 12:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

yes, i had the same thought. i remember deliberately picking that photo due to its relevance. dying (talk) 13:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Not all ships have photos or have been hidden (<!-- like this -->) because they stretch the page? Seems to me that all ships should have photos, despite their placement or page disruption. It saves having to navigate away from the page to see the ship size. Wyliepedia @ 03:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

initially, i wanted to at least have one photo displayed for each type of ship affected. so, for example, i had one photo for an amphibious assault ship, one photo for a landing helicopter deck, one photo for a destroyer, one photo for a littoral combat ship, and one photo for a hospital ship, but only one photo for an aircraft carrier, even though it appeared that four had been affected at the time. eventually, when there was space for another, i added the photo of usns mercy. i see that you've since added a photo of uss kidd. the main reason why i hadn't done it myself is that i hadn't noticed at the time that more space had opened up, so i thank you for that edit.

i think there's more space for an additional photo now, if you'd like to add another. i think the only ones that haven't been pictured yet are all aircraft carriers at this point. i would probably refrain from selecting a photo of uss carl vinson since only one crew member is reported to have been affected, and that crew member apparently was not on board the vessel anyway. (one can argue against posting a photo of uss essex on similar grounds, though i did so at the time because it was the only landing helicopter deck publicly known to have been affected.)

i would currently be against posting photos of all ships at the moment, as it does make the page look awkward. you're welcome to remove all the code commenting out the additional photos and preview the page to see what i mean. also, the effect was a lot more striking before uss kidd was reported to have been affected.

i am not sure that saving the user from "having to navigate away from the page to see the ship size" is a good argument, since (1) the only ships not currently depicted are aircraft carriers, one of which is already displayed and all of which are simply huge; (2) this argument could apply not just to the ship's size, but also to any attribute of a ship that is not currently displayed on this page (such as the ship's age or top speed); and (3) if this alone was a valid reason for displaying a photo, the page on affected cruise ships would be absolutely cluttered with photos.

however, i am happy with your addition of the photo of uss kidd since, even though there was already another photo of a similarly-sized destroyer displayed (uss ralph johnson), uss kidd has been much more significantly affected by the virus.

by the way, space doesn't seem to be an issue currently with the sections on non-american ships. dying (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

You can't expect nor assume a non-naval page visitor (me) to know what a ship from each class looks like. The Nimitz, for example, is the lead ship of her class, and I was about to un-hide the photo, but she has completed quarantine and resumed duties. Also, comparing this page to the cruise ship page is not a valid argument. However, unless more US Navy ships are affected (which none currently are), I won't return here. Wyliepedia @ 03:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)