Günther Debiscop
I agree with you.

scalemates
Hi Vince,

Agreed this is frustrating!

The GOOD news is that nothing is "lost".... it is just a matter of reenforcing (or rethinking) the rules and moving all entries in the same direction again (=a lot bulk updating)

There are currently 78* (could be just 72, but you get the point) different approaches for entering the exact same decal options for 1 specific ship (and including sci-fi vessels)

And all of them are used by the 100s of contributors! (despite that the rules are(should be) simple, => also SCM to blame for not making them clear)

Some of these variations are autocorrected! Many not. (eg. "U.S.S. Nimitz CVN-68" is autocorrected to "USS Nimitz (CVN-68)"😢

How it SHOULD be, and it is a fairly simple rule. The bare minimum information for ships is (and this is since 10 years) and which is required for the database to work properly

-- Ship class = Topic
-- Ship name = Subject (shipname should include the code!!!)
-- Organisation = US Navy, US Coast Guard, ....
-- Country = Belgium, Germany,....(also reused for empires)

Aircraft carrier Nimitz-class
Subjects:
-- USS Nimitz (CVN-68)
-- USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69)
-- USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70)
-- USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71)
-- USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72)
-- USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74)

Battleship New York-class
Subjects:
-- USS New York (BB-34)
-- USS Texas (BB-35)

Guided missile cruiser Virginia-class
Subjects:
-- USS Texas (CGN-39)
-- USS Arkansas (CGN-41)
-- ...

If for ships(!!) you ALSO want to include the code (eg. CVN-68) under the "number" field => perfect and makes sense. But it should not be removed from the subject field.

On scalemates there are plenty of locations (eg. filters, related products) where the combo of Topic/Subject is used.

If we put the topic name (ship class) into the subject => we lose a lot of functionality

Everybody has their own preference, but the above basic rules are a must. (if something needs to be changed to make it more clear, eg. label change in the edit section or displaying things differently in the page itself => let me know)

(if for star trek the naming convention is U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701 or NCC-1701 U.S.S. Enterprise => we can arrange.)

Torsten
I'm following the discussion at the other place on scm, your way is more slim and I think, it's worth to discuss this to compare both systems😉

scalemates
that said...I'm open to revisit the approach.

Option 1, would be to keep data rules as is, and have a different "display" when looking at ship decal options.

The current grouping (=heading are created)
Topic > Subject > Organisation

Now for ships, I could flip this to
Topic > Organisation > Subject

(As organisation for ships is typically the same for a certain class, no need to repeat the info)

scalemates
Here is a refererence product
U.S.S. Enterprise (AMT/ERTL 6676, 1:650)

Torsten
I like this example

Günther Debiscop
To be honest, I don't like this one... The NCC-number is a registration, much like e.g. the US Navy ones. It is not linked to the ship's name. Take e.g. the USS Enterprise, it was SP-790, AK-5059, CV-6, CVN-65 and CVN70, all times a different class. Some goes for the Star Trek version, also different classes.

I would therefore restrain from using the number within the Subject. And even, I would put it in the "Nickname" as sometimes ship's do change in name, but not in registration...

Just my 2 cents

Vince Jackson
I have been looking at this for a while now and think there are 2 possible explanations/ solutions for this. The first I will suggest now because I think it is the simplest. Science fiction programs like Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica use the naval model of organization because it fits best into the narrative of "the vast ocean of space". Therefore I suggest treating Sci-Fi the same as naval entries. I may be opening a can of worms with this but here are four examples from my stash that I think show the markings correctly. Granted, I have not changed them since entering them months ago so they have passed the autocorrection process.

USS Porter DDG-78 (Pit-Road M-15, 1:700)

USS Arleigh Burke DDG-51 (Panda Models 10001, 1:350)

Battle of Midway Carrier (Revell 05014, 1:542)

U.S.S. Bunker Hill (DML 1004, 1:350)

If this will not suffice I then think it is a display issue and we can discuss it in a later thread.

scalemates
@Vince: what does "Destroyer Arleigh Burke-class Flt. II" mean? Is it a subtype of the class?

Or like a F-14A, F-14B, F-14D tomcat, an evolution...

Vince Jackson
yes. Flt II or Flight 2 is a subclass and design change in the Arleigh Burkes. Flight 2 have different control and the ability to launch updated weapons. Flt. IIA or flight 2A have the addition of two helicopter bays that the earlier Burkes didn't have. Soon the newest DDG-51 class will have Flight 3 ships beginning with DDG-125.

Vince Jackson
From what I can tell by looking at the entry procedure, you are making the subject a primary database entry and an important sorting tool. I understand the need for this. The problem may be in my own ignorance in that I am monolinguistic. I was taught that topic and subject are the same thing. Taking a deeper look into your organization I realized you are using topic as an organizational tool of the subject and the subject as what's actually in the kit. If that is true then you really don't need to list the subject information in the markings section since it is covered by the title of the page.
In the example, the way you are suggesting to enter, you put the ship and the hull number in the subject and re-enter the hull number in the number field. This will create a redundant listing of the hull number. And as show in the example, Starfleet is repeated for each ship listed even though they all fall under the authority of Starfleet.
This problem (I believe) is the different definitions of the subject between land, sea and air. Land subjects (tanks, artillery, vehicles, etc.) and aircraft are sold by the kit manufacturers by model (F-15, B-17, M1A1, M4A3E8, etc.) while ships are sold by name primarily with options of other ships of the class. Very rarely is this not the case and is usually done with subjects of historical significance. The examples of the B-17 Memphis Belle and B-29 Enola Gay come to mind.
So as I see it, the problem lays out like this (with examples):
Land Air Sea
Topic Tank: (M1A1) Fighter (F-15) Carrier (Nimitz-class)
Subject: What the kit is
Country: For illustrative purposes I will use United States
Organization: USA/ USMC USAF/ USN/ USMC US Navy
Unit*: Co./ Bn./ Regt./ Div. Squadron/ Wing/ Group/ Air Force ??
Number: Serial No. Serial No. (USAF)/ Bureau No. (USN) Hull No. (CVN-68)

*This is where it gets wonky. Technically you can list carrier battle groups, destroyer squadron or even fleets as naval units. But I have yet to meet someone who builds a model based specifically on DESRON 23 (Little Beavers) or any other unit of that type. I'm not saying they aren't out there. But those people have researched their subject deeper than what is needed here and for the most part those units are not identifiable on the model. That is why I suggest using the ship name in the unit field because organizationally it equals an Army company or an Air Force squadron.
So for display purposes only for markings, may I suggest that the subject be used for internal purposes only. Put on the unit box a note for ships to list the ship name. I know it will require more work in the data entry process, but I am willing to do so for a more streamlined result. And I am sure my fellow modelers will feel the same way. This will only apply to ships as they are the only outlier in the organizational process.

Vince Jackson
I tried to create a table for the example and it got overwritten by the format. Sorry for the confusion.

scalemates
Suppose we follow the 'keep subject' empty rule...

Wouldn't the "name" field be more appropriate for the Name of the ship than hijacking the "Unit" field for the name, and keeping that one empty (or be able to fill it in in the rare case of a kit specifying DESRON 23 (Little Beavers) )

for me seeing "USS Enterprise" as the unit and in the unit filters feels odd (that might be a pure personal feeling)
Also, wouldn't the identifier of the unit need to include the Hull?
Unit: "USS Arleigh Burke (DDG-51)" vs "USS Arleigh Burke"

Vince Jackson
When assigning ships to naval units they are done by ship. A carrier battle group consists of a carrier (CVN), a cruiser (CG), then a number of destroyers for a particular destroyer squadron usually aligned with the particular battle group (DESRON) and a carrier air wing (CVW) made up of 4 squadrons (VFA) and smaller detachments of support aircraft. These are usually done to fit the desired mission using units available. This changes frequently due to training/ maintenance requirements. In the rare case of a naval squadron being assigned to a kit, it can be expanded much the same as a bomber squadron ie: 9 BS 28 BW. Putting it in the nickname field will work but it will appear as a black bar. And ships have nicknames as well, ie USS Enterprise (CV-6) is the Grey Ghost and USS Lexington (CV-16) is known as the Blue Ghost. The number field seems appropriate for the hull number.

Günther Debiscop
Just have a look here as an example for the US Navy ORBAT: en.wikipedia.org/wik..e_United_States_Navy

Vince Jackson
These are not set in stone. CSG-3 was just assigned to CVN-72 after her RICOH. Last year it was assigned to CVN-74 before Stennis went in for her RICOH. In 2013 VFA-151 was part of CVW-2 and was reassigned to CVW-9. Naval unit assignments are fluid unlike land (USA/ USMC) and air units (USAF). You will also note that there are 5 destroyers listed in DESRON 23 under CSG-9. But there are 6 DDGs in the squadron. One is always not deployable due to training/ maintenance needs. What is listed in Wikipedia today may not be accurate tomorrow.

Günther Debiscop
That's why I wrote "example". Also Air Force, Army and Marine units are sometimes re-assigned...
Unfortunatly there is 'as far as I know, not yet a complete list of when an unit was part of which orbat...
I got one for several USAF units, but also not for all of them and only until 2000/2010...