Talk:List of known renamed ships

1st comment

For this list, shouldn't it also have the name of the ocean on which the ship appears? -- Vorky 15:50, 10 May 2007 (PDT)

I agree. -- Thefirstdude ^(t/c) 15:51, 10 May 2007 (PDT)

I'm curious as to what use this list has in the first place, personally. --Thunderbird 16:00, 10 May 2007 (PDT)

Probably none except the vanity of the owners. -- Vorky 16:01, 10 May 2007 (PDT)

If you want a real use for it, people could see if their ship name exists on other oceans - i.e. someone came up with it before them; also if you want to give event prize a renamed ship, but want to be able to do it on any ocean, you could look here to see if the name is already taken on some ocean. Also, I just think it's kinda cool. Finally, I think the {{Greeterlang}} ^(Usage) template could be used here perfectly - just put the ship name in the Pirate field - perhaps make a new template with differently-named variables and stuff. *shrugs* -- Thefirstdude ^(t/c) 16:08, 10 May 2007 (PDT)

/vwho will always be a more accurate way to find out if a name has been used on a given ocean. This list is only useful for vanity, but since it doesn't list ship owners, it doesn't really accomplish that, either. Vanity-named ships are permitted on pirate pages, so I suggest we just encourage people to move their custom-named ships there. --Barrister 09:51, 4 June 2007 (PDT)

I agree, but this list isn't doing anyone any harm as it is, is it? -- Thefirstdude ^(t/c) 17:24, 4 June 2007 (PDT)

Non-Fish, huh? I see a lot of adj-fish ships on this list. Rename the page to 'list of renamed ships' perhaps?Dopeghoti 02:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Does this list include ships renamed by the OMs for events or by fiat, or for whatever other reason they might've been renamed without shanghais?

Can someone add ice?

Please? I have a rename there and I can't get the ice thing to work.

if "non-fish" then why include "standard rename"?

It is possible that at one time, this page had a different name. I was originally looking for a list of all-known RENAMES (regardless of whether the renames were "standard" or "custom"). I recall adding two of my STANDARD renamed ships to that previously-existing page.

Instead of finding that old page (under the name I thought it had), I find this page instead, with my two ships listed in it. Since those two ships of mine definitely have "fish" names (i.e. they were standard renames), they should not be included in this page, so I have removed them.

However, that leaves the question: If this page is specifically for those ships having a NON-FISH name, then how can there be any standard-renamed ships herein? Many of the ships listed have an asterisk tagging them, linking to the comment/label of "Standard rename"...

Just wondering... -- Franklincain 11:17, 22 May 2012 (PDT)

It was moved from List of Non-Fish Ship Name. I agree that the title of the article is misleading. Perhaps we should move it to something more descriptive such as List of known renamed ships? Chupchup 12:15, 22 May 2012 (PDT)

Sounds good to me. Unless someone speaks up and gives a good reason for this not to be done, I intend to move (i.e. rename) this article accordingly, in the next day or so... -- Franklincain ^(t/c) 00:07, 28 July 2012 (PDT)

I agree that this page would work better as a list of all renames, with non-standard renames noted as such. Also, do we want to note instances where (thanks to the ocean merge) two ships with the same name exist? (I mean, if you're checking to see if your desired rename is available, it doesn't matter if it's already taken twice-over or just the once. Then again, if you're checking for availability, /vw is much, much more accurate...) --Ladodal 07:07, 28 July 2012 (PDT)

no need for duplicates on same ocean

Because of the merge, it is possible for a ship rename to exist twice on the same (post-merge) ocean. However, as this list exists to documents names that have been used, there is no need to list such a name twice in the same column. If we decide to track those names which -have- multiple incarnations, we can do that by tagging them, like with "(x2)" for example. -- Franklincain ^(t/c) 19:50, 29 July 2012 (PDT)

re-org as one alpha list (not by ocean)

I would like to discuss having this list re-organized into a strictly alphabetical list of ship renames, with indicators for each ship rename as to which ocean that rename is in.

Currently, this list is segregated by ocean, which means the column for Meridian stretches to a ridiculous degree, while the "column" (if it can be graced with that designator) for Ice has -just one entry-...

By re-organizing into just one alphabetical list (where the columns are alphabetical stretches of the A-Z range (as is done for the various activity lists, we present this data is a consistently more-organized (and more professional-looking) format.

Here's an example of the layout I propose:

• Explanatory Examplefish (C,M)

This record shows the ship rename exists on Cerulean and Meridian, but not on Emerald or Ice (i.e. no "E" or "I"). Any footnote characters needed (such as "*" or "#") could be appended after the parentheses.

Thoughts? -- Franklincain ^(t/c) 13:46, 30 July 2012 (PDT)

This would be easily implemented by cloning or reusing {{Greeterlang}} ^(Usage). Frankly, I think we should rename that template, because it can be used for all kinds of general lists, and right now it is a single-purpose inclusion on List of greeters by language. Chupchup 17:33, 30 July 2012 (PDT)

Looking at the icons on List_of_greeters_by_language, I see we don't have an icon or sub-template (yet) for Ice. But there's only one renamed ship from Ice here, so far, so that's not a huge deal-breaker. I do think we should stick with my suggestion of a text field for the ocean display, as it would take less space than the icons, and would lend itself to allowing a "count" for the case of two ships on the same ocean sharing the same rename; for ex.: using "(C2,M)" would indicate this ship name is used twice on Cerulean in addition to once on Meridian. Appending any special footnote characters (such as "*" or "#") to the end of that text field would also be more consistent than mixing such tags with image icons; for ex.: "(C2,M)*" would indicate same data as before, plus that this ship name is a "standard" rename (as opposed to a custom rename). -- Franklincain ^(t/c) 14:52, 7 August 2012 (PDT)

(Update): I've posted a draft of this revised version into one of my sandboxes. Presuming that no one has any objections, I intend to upload this new version in place of the old list. Thanks! -- Franklincain ^(t/c) 19:30, 7 August 2012 (PDT)

splitting oceans into sub-pages/templates

To make it easier to maintain and/or correct the alphabetization of the various ocean's lists, I've split off the oceans into their own template/sub-pages.

To explain how this helps, let me describe how I quickly check the alphabetization... I copy-cut-and-paste one ocean's list worth of renamed ships into a blank worksheet in MS Excel, and then use the Sort function, and then copy-cut-and-paste back into the wiki article. (Naturally, I do -not- include the HTML comments from the beginning and ending of that list into the code I'm copying out.) This uses the computer's ability to quickly and efficiently sort the text with minimal chance of error.

I've also included specific comments into this article, advising future editors which sub-page(s) they will need to look at, for any future additional renamed ships...

Thanks. -- Franklincain ^(t/c) 13:34, 7 August 2012 (PDT)

Addendum - If (or when) we decide to re-organize this list (as per the section above this one), then that re-org would negate any need for this oceanic segregation. -- Franklincain ^(t/c) 13:52, 7 August 2012 (PDT)

I have been advised that this change may not be as helpful as I thought it would be. Therefore, I ask for the favor of your opinions on this subject, either publicly here or privately (via PM on the forums), as you prefer. If the consensus I get is opposed to this update, then I will be happy to reverse this update I made. (I would prefer to manually re-merge the data myself, instead of doing a simple "Revert", as I believe I've already made some minor changes to the actual data itself which may get lost in such a case.) My apologies in advance for any imposition. Thank you. -- Franklincain ^(t/c) 15:02, 7 August 2012 (PDT)

Denoting standard renames

I agree that the templates weren't really helpful, but I'll also add that I like this new layout the best of all the ones that have recently been implemented! I would, however, like to propose switching from denoting (*) standard renames, to denoting non-standard. They're more expensive and a good deal rarer, and the vast majority of the renames I see on this list are standard. You've done a good job of adding the star to ships with names ending in things like "fish" or "bass", but "Rainbow" "Pastry" and "Gunner" are all fish names; among many, many others.

If you wanted the ships sorted (or sortable) by ocean for reasons other than ease of mechanical alphabetization, this could be done with a wiki syntax sortable table, although we'd have to think long and hard about whether or not that would be worth the resulting code complexity that novice editors would be faced with. --Ladodal 05:16, 8 August 2012 (PDT)

IF ;-)   we all decide we want to do this switch (from flagging Standard to instead flagging Custom renames), I've already figured out the shell game find/replace logic to make this change with no errors. -- Franklincain ^(t/c) 05:26, 8 August 2012 (PDT)

(Deliberately tagging this article, just to re-prompt the "recent update" page and to ask for a vote on Ladodal's proposal.) -- Franklincain ^(t/c) 09:00, 6 May 2014 (PDT)

I think I prefer having the custom-named vessels tagged rather than the standard ones, purely because that means fewer asterisks :D. May I also venture a suggestion? I like the layout of this table and the header colors/theme, but I find the asterisks and brackets a bit clunky on the eyes. What about highlighting each custom-named ship in faint grey or faint blue to denote custom vessels (perhaps some variation on #D8D8D8 or #DEEEFF)? I don't know what has been tried already, so perhaps that would be worse :p.

Potentially there is also room for a ship template e.g. {{shiplist|name=obscure tangent|custom=yes|meridian=yes|emerald=no|cerulean=yes}} with "M, E, C" icons beside it using the ocean colors. But maybe that's beyond the scope of things for the time being! --Therobotdude 10:14, 6 May 2014 (PDT)

I know this is quite a bit off on a tangent, but would the following kind of template-based approach be a welcome improvement? Italics to denote custom (or standard, vote-dependent) renamed ships; c,e,m icons to represent cerulean/emerald/meridian respectively. Template form is roughly as above.

A-C	D-G
Absent Siren Absurd Clownfish Abusive Language Ace of Spades Acoustic Blip Acrobatic Clownfish Black Spot	Dragons Breath Dreaded Blackspot Dreaming Warrior Dreamy Clownfish Driftwood Driving Permit Droll Clownfish

To be honest i think it looks alright, but the grey might be too dark and the italics/bold might be too hard to differentiate. Edit: oh heck, I substd'd the logic in instead of just the table. fixed that now (ish). --Therobotdude 13:33, 9 May 2014 (PDT)

lists should be TEXT-BASED

I for one OPPOSE this revision of using goofy images for the oceans. This is a LIST, which should be TEXT-BASED. This new version is taking FAR TOO LONG to upload.

Unfortunately, I can not fix this myself, as there are two edits involved, so I'm appealing to an admin to reverse this change.-- Franklincain ^(t/c) 17:04, 20 May 2014 (PDT)

I kinda like it. It seems attractive. Time will tell whether it is usable by contributors who wish to add their ships to the list. Chupchup 17:12, 20 May 2014 (PDT)

On the old page, distinguishing between rename types for me was like reading fine print underwater through a cheese grater. There were brackets and asterisks everywhere and the letter density was very high. So in this experimental version all the ship's properties are visible and comprehensible from a glance - plus everything's sortable without the need for the editors to do it. (I'm also not sure why the list was ever sorted by ship name without first being sorted by rename type or ocean, but now it's up to the viewer.) It is slow to load, yes :/ it should be possible to cut out 3 of the #ifeq parser calls from the template which might help. If the time can be reduced I'm sure the tradeoff would be worth it. The cell borders need some attention too, and the ship icon may need replacing/moving... I don't think the C,E,M icons detract from the table in any way though. --Therobotdude 19:35, 20 May 2014 (PDT)

Count the number of entries in this list. Each one would have AT LEAST one image associated with it. Now, calculate the extra load time to render that web page, because of those images. That's extra time not needed. -- Franklincain ^(t/c) 20:07, 20 May 2014 (PDT)

That's true. I just averaged a few load times - 3s to render 1400 (roughly number of icons) 20x20px backgrounded table squares, and 4.6s to render the icons in the table. That's a saving of 1.6s ish by using coloured squares to represent oceans rather than icons. This said, the list loading average was 13.3s, 3-4 times as high as the icon overhead. If the total load time would get down to 5 or 6 seconds that'd probably be acceptable to me. There are about 1300*4 #ifeq statements playing out which probably accounts for a good 7-8 seconds of delay - just have to figure out an efficient way of getting rid of them. --Therobotdude 20:48, 20 May 2014 (PDT)

One option might be to have the image present by default, which can be suppressed by calling the parameter blank, same way as {{BlockadeTOC2}} ^(Usage) works. That would probably be rather counterintuitive for casual editors, though, and it hinges a little on how blank cells get sorted. --Belthazar451 04:23, 21 May 2014 (PDT)

That's a plan. I'll definitely have a look - anything that makes it more speedy :p. Two latest versions are at 10s and 6s load-ish respectively. The latter doesn't use subtemplates or parser commands at all, but the sorting suffers a bit for it (ocean-sort and renametype-sort seem to sort non-intuitively). How does the 6s version look? --Therobotdude 13:06, 21 May 2014 (PDT)

Okay, I just learned for sure that I'm never allowed to test a page for load time again. That '6s' version loaded in <200 ms for me. Jlh0605 08:45, 23 May 2014 (PDT)

Aye - I found out recently that it was my version of IE which was letting me down. For a full briefing, I'd have a read of this thread. --Therobotdude 09:15, 23 May 2014 (PDT)

I see zero reason to have any click-to-sort logic in the list. It's a list -- by definition, lists are alphabetical. -- Franklincain ^(t/c) 14:57, 21 May 2014 (PDT)

I certainly agree that we should have something to help easily distinguish, that isn't just plain text. Perhaps it could be colored letters (for the ocean), and bold vs non-bold ship names (for standard vs. not)? Would that solve the load time? Jlh0605 08:41, 23 May 2014 (PDT)

list reformat - counter-proposal

I adamantly oppose messing with the font-face for the ship names, under any circumstances...

However, in recognition that more than one person has mentioned problems distinguishing "which ocean" and/or "standard-vs-custom", I wish to offer a counter-proposal -- format the (sections of the) list as so:

"A" through "K"	"L" through "R"	"S" through "Z"
Ship Name Ocean(s) Custom? Aaaa Aaaa C E M Bbbb Bbbb C Cccc Cccc M Yes	Ship Name Ocean(s) Custom? Llll Llll C Yes Mmmm Mmmm C M Nnnn Nnnn C	Ship Name Ocean(s) Custom? Ssss Ssss C E M Tttt Tttt C Uuuu Uuuu M Yes

This alternate layout would separate the data into sub-columns (just as Robot Dude's proposed new versions), but in a slightly simplified version (i.e.: just ONE column for Oceans, instead of three columns; a simple "Yes" or Blank-Space for whether it's a custom rename).

Thoughts? -- Franklincain ^(t/c) 08:55, 23 May 2014 (PDT)

Could well do that - maybe bring it up on the relevant forum thread, where everyone can see it, and see what folk think. --Therobotdude 09:15, 23 May 2014 (PDT)

Done. -- Franklincain ^(t/c) 09:46, 23 May 2014 (PDT)

Custom vs standard renames

With this edit in mind: How are we determining whether a ship is "custom" or "standard" renamed? Is it whichever of the two the player requested at the time from the OM / rogue mark shoppe, or should we apply "standard" retrospectively to all the names which could possibly be standard renames?

Personally I think we should do the former, namely if someone paid the full "custom" fare then it should be listed here as "custom" - otherwise it's "standard" - and leave it at that. Bear in mind it may be possible that some supposedly "standard" names are actually not so; any blatantly obvious ones (e.g. Queen Mary's Revenge) could also be switched to "custom" (but the ambiguous ones could be left alone). Retrospective editing seems a bit crazy to me (goes against commonsense) and will lead to the data being inconsistent (which in turn makes the custom/standard field useless) unless editors examine every ship and perform a dictionary.com-attack on each one. --Therobotdude 02:07, 6 July 2014 (PDT)

... Ok, let's assume for a brief minute that "Jolly Roger" isn't a well-known title that has nothing to do with fish - just what manner of fish is a "roger"? --Belthazar451 04:59, 6 July 2014 (PDT)

Can't speak for others, but *my* purpose in identifying standard-vs-custom is to advise other ship owners of the potential less-expensive renames available to them (on other oceans, if nothing else). Reading through this list has given me several ideas in the past; so I want to enable others to have the same chance. (And, to answer Belthazar, Fishbase.org lists two separate species whose common name is "roger".) Fair winds! -- Franklincain ^(t/c) 06:28, 6 July 2014 (PDT)

Perhaps a compromise would be an additional column stating whether or not the vessel would have been eligible for a "standard" rename? That way all the original data is preserved and players can be informed at the same time. I don't like the idea of overwriting the original data though - a "custom" renamed sloop cannot just suddenly become a "standard" renamed sloop. The renaming is an action that happened in the past. If I were to own the "Dark Angel" ship for instance; "dark" is an adjective and "Angel" is a type of fish, thus it would be eligible for a standard-rename. But then if I opted to pay the custom-rename fare, it would still be a custom renamed ship regardless - both in my eyes and those of the majority of players - and that's what I'd expect to see reflected in this article. --Therobotdude 07:32, 6 July 2014 (PDT)

We need to adhere to the latter criterion in the OP. There is absolutely no verifiable way we can apply the former. By looking up words in dictionary.com and fishbase.org we have a sure guide as to whether the components were permissible as a standard rename and therefore we should be able to apply this knowledge to the chart. How in the world are we going to verify how much someone paid for a rename? Chupchup 11:32, 6 July 2014 (PDT)

Belthazar: Roger is the Catalan name for mullus barbatus barbatus, which can be known by searching fishbase.org. Chupchup 11:34, 6 July 2014 (PDT)

How much someone did pay for a rename is unverifiable, aye, but I see no reason why people should have lied about it. Sure, there'll always be a small error where people get their standard and their custom mixed up the wrong way, but the majority of entires are probably quite accurate. The activity lists are based around the same kind of good-faith approach as well.

I'm all for verifiable data, and I can't make an exception here I suppose. I do feel some sections of the page ought to be reworded to make it quite clear that these states do not represent the type of renamed ship (because that is what I feel the majority of viewers would expect the list to be about). Perhaps a note to the effect of "Ships marked standard indicate that the shipname would have been eligible for a standard rename when it was named. Note: it is possible that some vessel owners purchased a custom-rename for their vessels when a standard rename would have sufficed.". For this to work, the entire list should be brought up-to-date (checked for adjective-fish eligibility) - as I mentioned above - otherwise it won't be possible to tell which convention an entry is using. --Therobotdude 12:25, 6 July 2014 (PDT)

How much do we know about the rename procedure as performed by OMs? Do they really charge people more as an "ignorance tax" when they request and pay for a custom rename, when a standard would have sufficed? Granted, this is almost completely automated now by the Rogue Mark system, so the answer may be different from when Shanghais were used. But it's an interesting question: did the buyer of "Jolly Roger" really not know s/he could get a discount? Honestly, that's one of my favorite pastimes finding really witty, unique standard renames. You'll see all of my renamed ships are standards. Chupchup 13:05, 6 July 2014 (PDT)

Another thing to bear in mind -- rules evolve over time.

Case in point -- Once upon a time, there was a "spy/espionage"-themed contest on the forums, where the prize was a ship renamed (standard) to "Hidden Base". This was before the rules on renaming forbade otherwise-standard letters having funky accent marks. If you look up "base" today on Fishbase, you'll see it exists, but with a funky accent mark on the "E" at the end. So, when that contest was running, that ship rename was legal (then) for standard renaming. These days, however, it isn't. (You have no idea how sad I was that I didn't get Lunar Base and/or Rebel Base renamed in time...)

I believe it is reasonable to presume that every ship listed here shares the same caveat on standard-vs-custom -- This info was accurate as of the last time an editor checked it.

This is the principle that I have been using, whenever I re-read this list. If I see a name or two that looks "off" to me, I'll check them, and (re)confirm their status (re: custom-vs-standard), and if necessary, I'll update the list accordingly. But unless Three Rings makes a revision to their rules, or unless Fishbase adds several new fish-names that double as "regular" words, I don't see a need to check -every- entry any time we intend to check just a few specific entries or add some new ones...

Thanks. -- Franklincain ^(t/c) 09:34, 7 July 2014 (PDT)

I agree - it's a bit daft to check all entries everytime an editor updates just one or two. The rules have been stable for a while though, so why not bring all entries up to date now and then forget about it until the rules change again? That's what I was getting at. Making this data consistent doesn't really matter in the big scheme of things, but checking every entry now and then forgetting about it will be quicker (and more efficient) for you and other editors in the long run than doing piecewise checks. --Therobotdude 10:21, 8 July 2014 (PDT)

Data pretty much ruined

There were several edits made by Therobotdude to overhaul this page and use templates, such as this one. Unfortunately, he also completely mistranslated many renames as "custom" for no good reason: I owned some of those ships and I know they are standard renames!!! So yes, it would not be difficult for me to write a script that queries fishbase.org and checks to see if the name is exactly two words, and suggest stripping it of "custom" status. This is necessary, because the data was entered properly, years ago, and it's been tampered with. Chupchup 21:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I have finished scouring the list (manually; it wasn't immediately apparent to me how to script the queries.) Takeaways: pirates are expert linguists and punny people, and have taken advantage of a really broad range of fish names to create interesting vessels. Never underestimate the creativity in here! Chupchup 21:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)