Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Proposed rename for Category:Richmond, California ships

There is a proposal to rename Category:Richmond, California ships to Category:Ships built in Richmond, California. All editors are welcome to comment here. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Pennsylvania class steamship articles

Pennsylvania (1872), Ohio (1872), Indiana (1873) and Illinois (1873) are all great articles which met B-class right away but I'm wondering if they should carry the SS prefix? Seems like they should. --Brad (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to it since the majority of steamship articles use the SS prefix. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

this 1945 publication says "The PENNSYLVANIA was one of the first four iron trans-Atlantic liners built in the US Her three sister ships were: SS OHIO, SS ILLINOIS, and SS INDIANA". I'd call that a verifiable source which supports the proposal. One question of protocol, should anything be put on the talk pages of theses articles prior to renaming them? --Petecarney (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think these moves are particularly controversial, but it wouldn't hurt to post a notice on the talk pages and/or notify the creator(s) of the articles. — Bellhalla (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I created those articles. I have never much liked adding the "SS" prefix to ship articles, and adding the launch dates was enough to differentiate them. I checked our naming conventions before naming the articles and there is nothing there to indicate that the ships should be differentiated by both prefix and launch date. Also, if you take a look at Category:Victorian era passenger ships of the United States, for example, or similar passenger ship categories, you will find plenty of other ships that don't carry the prefix. Gatoclass (talk) 04:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The SS, MV/MS prefixes can provide a means of disambiguation between ships, such as SS Angelina Lauro and MS Angelina Lauro. Mjroots (talk) 06:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

*Sigh* I moved them. I did have the impression from earlier discussion at wikiships that prefixes are best avoided because there are often different ones and they are often added incorrectly. But re-reading our guidelines here, it seems there is support for naming ship articles according to their most commonly employed name, and when you have ships with names as generic as these, I think one can probably safely assume that the prefix was very commonly used. I must admit that I too had a gut feeling that the names I originally gave the articles just didn't look quite right somehow.

I wouldn't like to think this is going to be used as some sort of precedent however. I still think there are good reasons to avoid prefixes in many cases, it's only in the case of these particular ships that I am conceding the practicality of it. Gatoclass (talk) 06:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move for Bounty (ship)

I have requested that the name of this article be changed to use an historically attested short form of one or other of the ship's titles, either HM Armed Vessel Bounty or HMS Bounty. Comments are solicited here. --Petecarney (talk) 13:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

SS Quinalt Victory or Quinault Victory?

Spelling question: authoritative sources spell the ill-fated ship's name both ways. See discussion at Talk:Port Chicago disaster#Quinalt or Quinault?. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Maralia found the ship's spelling to be Quinault Victory via Lloyd's Register. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 03:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Article notability

Would anyone here be interested in assessing the notability of article Theodore Too? I just discovered it is flagged under WP:TUGS, although i'm not sure how relevant the article itself is. Thanks. ^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 02:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Quick assessment would be that I think the boat is different enough to be notable, although the article itself could probably use a couple more indepedent refs. Gatoclass (talk) 04:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

is a large-scale imitation tugboat based on the fictional tugboat Does this really fit our project scope? Apparently this ship can make parades but not much more. We had some conversation not long ago about "ships" operated by Di$neyworld and how they were really entertainment pieces. --Brad (talk) 13:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It floats, it carries people, it is self propelled. If it looks like a ship, smells like a ship and tastes like a ship, it's probably a ship! Mjroots (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

cool, i'll have a look at adding references.
You've tasted it? Is that what you people do round here? --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 03:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You've not heard of the Duck test? Mjroots (talk) 07:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for article on ship

Firefly. - Kittybrewster ☎ 10:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You need to be a little more specific, please. -- saberwyn 10:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I've assumed it was HMT Firefly. Benea (talk) 11:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD discussion of Beramba (ship)

Can one or more of you fine sailors take a look at this article and the AfD discussion? I've launched into wild speculation that the "Beramba" is a mistaken transciption of "the Omrah". Expertise might be helpful, and I think the Omrah might make a nice article in any case. Happy Holidays! An extra round of hard tack for all of ye.ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

PROD and notability concerns

Just happened upon this: USS Stingray (SS-161). This is a fictional submarine that appeared in a movie. It appears to have been nom'd for CSD but was declined and then PRODed. Is this a candiadate for AfD or should we let it go? -MBK₀₀₄ 05:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought fictional ships were not in the project scope? --Brad (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

???, I've been kind-of out of the loop for the past month dealing with school (an unannounced semi-wikibreak) Did something change? -MBK₀₀₄ 05:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was tag them but Low importance. This helped restore my memory. But yes, redirect the one in question. --Brad (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd just redirect it to the film and forget about it; it's not as though much can be said about the fictional ship beyond what's said in the film's article. Shimgray | talk | 19:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Shimgray; it's not likely notable enough for its own article. Probably best to just redirect it to the film in question. Parsecboy (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Southern Railway (UK)

The article makes no mention of the various ships owned and/or operated by the Southern Railway. Assistance from WP:SHIPS members in addressing this would be appreciated. Mjroots (talk) 09:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

New template

I created (with help) a new template for use with shipwreck lists. It could be modified for use with ship articles as well. An example of it in use is at User:Shinerunner/Sandbox2. The link for the template itself is Template:Shipwreck list if anyone wishes to take a look.Shinerunner (talk) 22:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Scanner suggestions

I am thinking of purchasing a scanner so I can scan in images from books and use them on the wiki. Does anyone have a suggestion as to how much scanner I would need? I can get an all-in-one printer/scanner locally very cheap, but dedicated scanners start at almost twice the price, that's with a 2400 x 4800 optical resolution. Gatoclass (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I use an Epson SX405 scanner. Not sure if it fits your requirements, but check up the postcards I've uploaded to Commons for examples of what it can do. Cost was about £65. Mjroots (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, it's a little hard to tell when you don't have the originals to compare to, but it certainly seems to give very nice, sharp results, on some of the images at least. I see it has a resolution of 1200 x 2400. This reassures me that if I get a 2400 x 4800 or a 4800 x 4800 it will be more than adequate for my needs.

I am probably going to go with a new entry-level standalone scanner from Epson called the Perfection V30. I guess it's a little risky since it's apparently too new to have any reviews yet, but the model above it, the Perfection V200, has been around for a while and got excellent reviews. From reading a little about it, it seems the V30 is a similar product but with no transparency capability and less sophisticated software. My other choice is a Canon LIDE-100 or LIDE-200 but these have both been around for a year or two now, and the software that comes with them is described as "basic".

Nice little collection of postcards you have there, BTW :) Gatoclass (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to check out the SX405 on the net to get the full details of its capabilities. It's most likely running on the factory settings and may well be capable of better. Pictures produced are adequate for my needs as it is. Mjroots (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It certainly does produce very nice pictures. I guess from my POV I just feel that it's better to be safe than sorry. If I buy more scanning power than I need, I'm never going to know about it. But if I buy something and then find out there's something I really need it to do that it won't, then I'm going to feel like I wasted my money. Gatoclass (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

How old does the book have to be (might vary by country) for the image to be not a copyright violation? Edison (talk) 18:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

SS Timothy Bloodworth

Article has been AfD'd for second time. Mjroots (talk) 07:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I've had this reply from an editor who voted to delete the article after I pointed out to him that ships are generally notable enough to have an article.

You say "The vast majority if ships are considered notable enough to have articles by WP:SHIPS," but I cannot find on that project page where they seek to draw a bright line between notable and nonnotable ships. Ship just says one is a "large vessel that floats on water," and that they are larger than boats. I cannot agree that every large vessel that floats on water is inherently notable. Perhaps there is some discussion of this issue buried in the discussion page archives. Do you suppose that if there were a project on locomotives, the members might decide that every locomotive (by engine number, not just model) was notable? Or a project on fire engines might decide that every fire engine in every fire station is notable? Or a project on airplanes might decide that every airplane (or airliner or warplane) is notable? Etc for farm tractors, churches, elementary schools, restaurants, buses, bus stops, libraries, broadcast towers, water towers, etc down to any definable and listable items? People who gravitate to a project tend to like the things the project covers. I do not agree that starting a project gives the participants license to decide which things related to the project are inherently notable and exempt from the requirements of WP:N to show substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, beyond the directory listings which satisfy verifiability. I agree that a great many ships are notable as the earliest of its type (Hunley, Monitor, Dreadnought), fastest, most luxurious, most heavily armed (Bismarck), most unfortunate in its demise (Vasa, Titanic, Normandy), most successful or least successful in battle, because these have all been written about extensively in secondary sources, and easily satisfy WP:N. Many ships were important in commerce, exploration, scientific research, or war, but more were unremarkable other than directory information. A project does great good for Wikipedia in improving and standardizing articles, and listing article in need of writing. I do not envision Wikipedia as a mirror of every directory, with stub entries about every landing craft, merchant marine ship, Liberty Ship, or tugboat, any more than I want to see an article about every broadcast tower or every city street or every other fungible thing with no real "biography" other than directory information.Bloodworth was a "standard Liberty ship" which was in 3 convoys before it was scrapped, and saw action on one. I could write an equal article about any of the millions of soldiers in WW2 who was in 1 battle, or the tank or plane or Jeep he rode in, if similar directory listings were available, but they would not satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone point him to where we have our guidelines to notability please? Mjroots (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Admin assistance needed

Resolved

I've come across a cut-and-paste move of USS Absecon (1918) to USS Absecon (ID-3131) that needs to be fixed. (I've already moved the talk page to the new name.) I left a note for the editor that did the cut-and-paste. — Bellhalla (talk) 01:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Done - USS Absecon (1918)'s history is now at USS Absecon (ID-3131) Nick-D (talk) 02:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick! — Bellhalla (talk) 05:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

submarines General Sanjuro and General Mola

Archimede class submarine and Spanish submarine C-3 contradict each other, the first says that Archimede was renamed General Sanjuro and Torricelli was renamed General Mola, whilst the latter says that Archimede was renamed General Mola and Torricelli was renamed General Sanjuro. This contradiction requires attention. 76.66.195.190 (talk) 11:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Move needs undoing

Resolved

Can an admin undo the move of HMS Mahratta (G23) to HMS Mahratta (1942). I moved this article as a result of a request on my talk page, but now realise this was done in error. Mjroots (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Jinian (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Royal Navy Burford Class

Burford Class I'm not sure what the plan was for this article. Duplicate? --Brad (talk) 06:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. Possibly a table was intended but it is hard to tell as the article is such a mess. Mjroots (talk) 11:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like an editor copied and pasted from the displayed page rather than the edit page. I've tidied it up for the moment. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for SS Timothy Bloodworth now open

The A-Class review for SS Timothy Bloodworth is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! — Bellhalla (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Admin assistance needed for USS PC-1181 move

Resolved

Admin assistance is needed to move the article USS Wildwood (PC-1181) to USS PC-1181 (currently a redirect). Almost all of the article describes activity under the name PC-1181. The ship only held the name Wildwood for the last three years it was laid up and was never commissioned under that name. I posted a notice on the talk page and the article creator agrees with this non-controversial move. Thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This move has been made. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

John McCain

Could somebody here take a look at the change I just made at John McCain (disambiguation)? The page previously had one entry for the ships pointing to USS John McCain, which is itself essentially nothing more than a disambig page. I included the commissioned years in parens after the ship names making these look like birth/death years, but don't know if that's a common (or even reasonable) way to indicate years a ship was in service. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've split the page into "People" and "Ships", looks a lot clearer now. Mjroots (talk) 15:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The question is specifically about the notation used for the years the ships were commissioned. Is this normal notation? Unheard of? -- Rick Block (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Nimrod (ship)

There is a good chance that Nimrod Expedition will appear as the Main Page Feature Article on 9 January, which in turn will draw attention to Nimrod (ship). There is not much there now; sourcing is unclear except for the book link which I added. Miramar also has some limited data. If anyone has any interest in working this up, adding an infobox, etc. feel free. Kablammo (talk) 04:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Infobox added. Mjroots (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Ship infoboxes

This has been raised on the talk page of a template, but is rather hidden away there. With some ships going through a sucession of owners and names, infoboxes can get quite long. I'm trying to find a way of getting all the info into the infobox in the most compact way possible. I created the SS Empire Advocate article with a compact infobox, which another editor altered with the result that it is now much longer, and only adds one minor piece of information. Which is the preferred way of doing this? Mjroots (talk) 08:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Original (Top)

History
Name	Solfels (1913-20) Bowes Castle (1920-32) Angelina Lauro (1932-40) Empire Advocate (1940-45)
Owner	Hansa Line, Bremen (1913-1919) British Shipping Controller (1919-20) Lancashire Shipping Co (1920-32) Achille Lauro, Naples (1932-40) Ministry of War Transport (1940-45)
Operator	Hansa Line, Bremen (1913-1919) H Hogarth & Sons (1919-20) Chambers & Sons (1920-32) Achille Lauro, Naples (1932-40)Galbraith, Pembroke & Sons (1940-45)
Port of registry	Bremen (1913-19) Liverpool (1919-32) Naples (1932-40) London (1948-55)
Builder	J C Tecklenburg AG, Wesermünde
Yard number	255
Launched	8 April 1913
In service	22 May 1913
Identification	Italian official number 382 (1932-40) UK official number 143102 (1940-45) Code letters JWQS (1913-32) Code letters IBIB (1932) Code letters NDHU (1932-40) Code letters GLYJ (1940-45)
Fate	Scrapped at Bo'ness, 1945
General characteristics
Tons burthen	5,787 GRT
Length	418 feet 5 inches (127.53 m)
Beam	56 feet 1 inch (17.09 m)
Draught	29 feet 8 inches (9.04 m)
Propulsion	1 x triple expansion steam engine (J C Tecklenburg AG, Wesermünde) 520 horsepower (390 kW) NHP.
Speed	11.5 knots (21.3 km/h)
Complement	73

New (Bottom)

History
Name	Solfels
Owner	Hansa Line, Bremen
Operator	Hansa Line, Bremen
Port of registry	Bremen
Builder	J C Tecklenburg AG, Wesermünde
Yard number	255
Launched	8 April 1913
In service	22 May 1913
Identification	Code letters JWQS
Name	Bowes Castle
Namesake	Bowes Castle
Owner	British Shipping Controller (1919-20) Lancashire Shipping Co (1920-32)
Operator	H Hogarth & Sons (1919-20) Chambers & Sons (1920-32)
Port of registry	Liverpool
In service	1919
Identification	Code letters JWQS
Name	Angelina Lauro
Owner	Achille Lauro, Naples
Operator	Achille Lauro, Naples
Port of registry	Naples
In service	1932
Identification	Italian official number 382 (1932-40) Code letters IBIB (1932) Code letters NDHU (1932-40)
Name	Empire Advocate
Owner	Ministry of War Transport
Operator	Galbraith, Pembroke & Sons
Port of registry	London
In service	1940
Identification	UK official number 143102 Code letters GLYJ
Fate	Scrapped at Bo'ness, 1945
General characteristics
Tonnage	5,787 GRT
Length	418 feet 5 inches (127.53 m)
Beam	56 feet 1 inch (17.09 m)
Draught	29 feet 8 inches (9.04 m)
Propulsion	1 x triple expansion steam engine (J C Tecklenburg AG, Wesermünde) 520 horsepower (390 kW) NHP.
Speed	11.5 knots (21.3 km/h)
Complement	73

User:GraemeLeggett has also made a similar edit to MS Oranje. This has been previously discussed (at least) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 10#Displaying Flag States in Infoboxes. I was under the impression that a concensus on this was previously reached either at Template talk:Infobox Ship Begin/doc or here, but at least for the moment I failed to find the relevant discussion. Regardless, it is my impression that your original version is the version preferred for commercial vessel infoboxes. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 11:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The top version strikes me as being far more useful than the bottom, for it is more concise, less scattered and spread out. The bottom version seems to be taking its cue from the naval ship format, but with the headers hidden, but that only serves to make it seem confused and bitty; certainly it is not good at conveying information to the reader. The only thing that I would say, and I'm sorry because it's silly and nit-picky (hehe), is should we not use {{flagicon}} for the flags? It is just that they seem a little on the large side, compared to usage in other infoboxes... Martocticvs (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we go overboard in infoboxes. They can handle so many fields that a complete infobox can dwarf the article. Service history, ownership, and other details can be better handled in narrative. The infobox is best suited to metrics and some basic information, not detail. The flag icons contribute nothing and are distracting. Kablammo (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

We do tend to put too much stuff in the infobox, yes. However, in the case of the flags I do think it's a piece of information that should be included (although personally I'd go with {{flag}}) instead of {{flagicon}} for clarity). — Kjet (talk · contribs) 23:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that too much info is often put in infoboxes, although as I've said before I do think that perhaps the amount of whitespace between infobox entries could be reduced to save space. And I really can't see why code letters should be going into the infobox here, for example, how many people care about details like that?

BTW, another problem I see with both infoboxes above is that all the ship names are listed at the top, then the owners, then the operators, then the ports of registry, and finally only then do we get to the basic info about the builder, the yard number, the launch date and the service period. All these basic details should come right at the top of the infobox, not after ephemeral items like renames, owners, operators and ports of registry. Gatoclass (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'm going to reinstate the top part of the infobox as I created it in line with the comments above. The point Gatoclass raises about the order the text is displayed in is something that needs to be done through the template documentation (beyond my editing abilities if I could edit the documentation anyway). Seems to me that name, builder, yard, owner, operator is a good way to do it, as the builder and yard are not going to change, whereas name, owner and operator frequently do. Mjroots (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I considered wp:boldly doing it, but thought perhaps it might be an idea to get some feedback first. I agree that all the permanent details should come before the changeable ones (with the exception of the ship's name which has to be at the top). Gatoclass (talk) 09:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Kjet, I'm against the use of {{flag}}. I don't think it is necessary to have the name of the country the flag represents displayed after the flag. If 25px is too large for a flag, it can always be reduced slightly. IMO 25px is fine for flags, and 15px for code letters. Mjroots (talk) 10:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

{{flagicon}} only shows the flag, not the country name/link ... and by being a standard Wikipedia template, it maintains the standard size accross articles, and is easier to add/maintain that inserting the link to the actual image. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

(Meant to reply to this before but apparently didn't). Regarding the flag, the infobox should IMO provide the reader with the relevant basic information about the port and country of registry without the user needing to click on the port name link. Most of us know which country an article is talking about if the field reads New York City - but how many of you can say the same for Eckerö or Port Louis? Additionally if you use only the port name and {{flagicon}}, there's again a possibility that the reader will not recognise the flag (taking two examples currently used on infoboxes: and —what are the chances of the average reader recognising those?). Therefore IMO {{flag}} is what should be used in the infoboxes alongside the actual ports of registry. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 23:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI: I also patched together {{ICS}} which can be used to more easilly/quickly include the code letter flags. As the only size precedent on those was your use at 15px, I set the default to use that size. See SS Empire Adur for an example of them in use. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent for clarity) On the orher of fields, personally I would prefer retaining the curent order of fields, with name, owner, operator and port of registry displaying before the numbers. Those details are—in my opinion at least—the most important basic information about a ship that a person will look at first, and therefore deserve to be displayed in a prominent position.

Also, on the original actual subject, I take it that the general concensus here is that the "don't repeat the box" formatting for commecial ships is the preferred one? — Kjet (talk · contribs) 11:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must disagree with you on point one. If you look at either of the above infoboxes, the basic info about builder, launch date etc. is lost somewhere in the middle of the box, because it's both preceded and followed by owner/operator info. It just looks untidy.

And I really can't understand why you think owner/operator info is more important, since such details can change many times, but fundamental details do not. These are the fundamental details I think should come first, because they don't change for the life of the vessel:

• Ship builder
• Ship ordered
• Ship original cost
• Ship yard number
• Ship way number
• Ship laid down
• Ship launched
• Ship christened
• Ship sponsor
• Ship completed

Maybe there are one or two others I've missed, but this is what I consider to be the basic stuff that should go at the top right under the ship/article title. Gatoclass (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

If I'm looking for information for any individual ships, the thigs that are most important and interesting to me (as a person interested in commercial vessels) are the names, owners, operators and to a lessel extent flags that the ship has had had. The fact that these have changed over the ship's career doesn't make them any less important or less "basic" that the construction details. The fact that some pieces of information do not change during the ship's career does not make those pieces of information any more important than the things that change. From the point of view of the ship's career the owner/operator details are in my opinion more important than the unchanging build info, as they cover a much larger portion of the ship's overall history. The construction details are just interesting details; who operated the ship during which years carries much more importance overall than, say, the date when a ship's keel was laid.

Also, technically right now the owner/operator info are compactly in one place as the "identification" info aren't related to the operator (though admittedly they are related to the flag). In fact most commercial ships infoboxes out there carry just one piece of information in the "identification" field: the IMO number, which like the build date and other details you mentioned, does not change. The only change that I see the need for regarding the order of the fields in the infobox is moving the "identification" field so that it displays after the "port of registry". That way you'll have the (IMO) more important owner/operator info and related details together on top of the box and the less important construction details below them. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 22:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I also think chronological sequence is important. History is generally best presented in chronological sequence, and from my POV it's no different for a ship infobox. Builder, order date, price, launch date etc all occur before anything else, therefore they should be at the top. Gatoclass (talk) 04:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Re Gatoclass's order, the first thing needs to be shown is the name of the ship. Whether all names should appear there, or only the name at launch is something that needs to be discussed (ship renamed= could be used for subsequent names, with ship name= being changed to show as "Name at launch" in the infobox). With modern ships, identification does not change, as an IMO number stays with the ship for its entire service life. In the past, both Official Numbers and Code Letters changed depending on where the ship was registered. For this reason, Ship identification may not need to be moved in the template.

Yes, I agree the ship name should come first (per the article name), while other names should be in the "ship christened" and "ship renamed" fields where appropriate. I also agree that ship ID can stay pretty much where it is. Gatoclass (talk) 07:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

In the original discussion, it was suggested that having the name of the ship at the top and other names lower down (when the article title is not that of the ship's name at launch) looked odd, and that all names were better displayed at the top. Mjroots (talk) 08:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I do think that all names should be displayed together, in chronological order at the top of the infobox, for the sake of clarity (preferrably in the style used on the current version of SS Empire Adur). The ship's name(s) are it's most important identifiers and if a casual user is looking for information on any given ship, and as such they should be the first piece of information to appear. On a more general note, I understand Gatoglass' argument for having the infobox fields appear in chronological order, but I do not think that is the clearest, most user-friendly way of displaying the information. There are also additional problems with attempting to maintain full chronologicality in an infobox, such as the "ship christened" field, which displays out of order for modern cruise ships as they're often christened on entering service (see MSC Fantasia for instance). — Kjet (talk · contribs) 10:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about that. IMO there are some good reasons to keep separate fields for the names. To begin with, I think the name at the top of the infobox should be the name of the article, in order to clearly identify what the infobox is about. But quite often that will not be the ship's original name. That means if you list all the names together, the name that coincides with the article name will be further down the list.

Another problem I can see is when a ship is christened one thing but has its name changed before entering service. This means that it effectively never operates under that name, but if you list it with all the other names you are going to give the impression that it was a working name. So that seems to me a good reason to keep the "ship christened" field.

I've faced this problem myself on a number of occasions, for example with the SS Santa Teresa article. It had lots of different names and owner/operators, but the presentation seems clear enough to me (although I didn't differentiate names with dates, IIRC because there were no clear dates in the source text). So I can't see a huge problem with this aspect of the infobox myself. Gatoclass (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

IMHO if a ship never operated under a name, then that name should not be in the infobox to start with as it has little to no relevance to the history of the ship. A mention in the article text should suffice in cases such as that. Also, regarding the current name/article name being "lost" if all names are grouped together in one field, we have generally bolded the current name of the vessel in the field for clarity. An option for this that could be considered, if you want to have the "main name" more clearly displayed, is adding a larger field displaying the article name immediately above (or below) the image. This is done in many (if not most) other infoboxes and it does add clarity (a good example of this is {{Infobox Train}}, which looks quite good in use). In addition to that we could retain the current "name" field (renamed perhaps "names"), which could then display all the names in chronological order. Adding a header name field like this has been proposed before, but it was at the time rejected. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 12:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

(Outdenting) We don't seem to be finding much common ground here. Look, maybe what I'll do is create an alternative infobox listing in my sandbox for people to compare with the current alternatives. It's a bit hard discussing some of these issues in the abstract I think. Gatoclass (talk) 04:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, at least we are banging these ideas around without resorting to insults etc. Seems to me that what is needed is a MoS to be set down for the infobox ship template. With a MoS, it can be explained fully what each field is for (not always obvious!) and the various suggestions re the order the fields appear in can be debated during the proposal process. Mjroots (talk) 07:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

A MoS for the infobox would definately be useful - of course we'd have to agree on the correct use of all fields first. :) Re Gatoclass, making an actual visual example for people to properly compare with is definately a good idea. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 12:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that would be a good idea - overall its a template with a lot of options open to people so laying down correct usage is quite logical. Martocticvs (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Using the {{flagicon}} template, does anyone know how to get it to produce the correct historical USA flags, as it seems to only produce the current one. Mjroots (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you'd have to get the images set up with aliases in the country data template to do that. On the odd occasion I've wanted to use it in this way, I've just used {{USN flag}}: : {{USN flag|1796|22px}}. Martocticvs (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Which historical one do you want? I believe that the variants already exist, here's the format:

Wikicode	Results	Notes
{{flagicon|USA}}
{{flagicon|USA|1776}}		Grand Union Flag.svg
{{flagicon|USA|1777}}		US flag 13 stars – Betsy Ross.svg
{{flagicon|USA|1795}}		StarSpangledBannerFlag.svg
{{flagicon|USA|1818}}		US flag 20 stars.svg
{{flagicon|USA|1819}}		US flag 21 stars.svg
{{flagicon|USA|etc}}	etc	etc

The rest of the existing variants can be found at Template:Country data United States. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

(Ahem) Ignore my last comment! :D Martocticvs (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Barek, that's what I was trying to do, but it didn't produce the correct flag, just the current one. OK, 2 stars ain't gonna show at that size, but it is still the wrong flag. {{flagicon|USA|1918}} produces the current flag.

Ahh, I see where I went wrong, should have used 1912, not 1918! :-/ Mjroots (talk) 11:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, unlike {{USN flag}}, {{flagicon}} doesn't do any fancy look-up stuff to work out which flag corresponds to the given year, there are just specific aliases that must be used (which means for people like me who have no idea when the different flags came in, you have to go on a trawl first :p). Martocticvs (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary break - ship infoboxes

• Sorry that I enter this discussion in a so late stadium. I wasn't aware of this page, as I contribute mostly by categorising in Commons. (1) In Commons I started to categorise all 2000/2500 sea-going ships by IMO number and have done so for more than 540 ships. I am trying to bring the complete seagoing Commons fleet under IMO number and invites every uploader of ship-files to give the IMO number together with the file. (And feel free to help in spare time.) And if you are working on an item, please add the IMO number(s) to the used pictures. It seems to me very usefull to find all pictures of a ship by IMO number in Commons, by name is difficult. Names change often with a new owner, the IMO number not. (2) I wonder if it is possible to split the Infobox in two parts: the part that doesn't change, headed by the IMO number, and a part by name (in many cases under a new flag), starting with the MMSI number and Callsign. I didn't find an IMO number in the present Infobox. Is it possible to add it. (3) What I missed in this discussion is the encyclopedia element. Where do you use it for? To find relevant details. If an Infobox has to give all the details, in my POV it will grow much too long. Have a look at Commons Category:IMO 7126322 I think that perhaps a standardised page with all details will do even better than an Infobox. Stunteltje {talk} 17:39, 31 december 2008

By the way, isn't the "Solfes" scraped by Frank Rijsdijk in the "Rietbaan" in Bolnes, the Netherlands? Stunteltje —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC).

For the IMO number, the "Identification" field is currently used for that value. See the RMS Queen Elizabeth 2 article for an example of where the IMO number is added. This helps place all of the ship identifier codes in a single location.

The purpose of the infobox is not to give all the details of the ship - the individual articles provide that. The infobox is intended to be a quick overview of ship characteristics that the community has designated noteworthy enough to include in the infobox.

For images/files, I like the idea of including the IMO number in the file description, as well as adding categories based on IMO number. I'll be sure to include it in descriptions for future files that I upload to the commons. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

As pointed out by Bellhalla at Template talk:Infobox Ship Begin/doc#IMO number, having a part of the infobox headlined by the IMO number does create the problem that for the vast majority of the history of ships the IMO numbers were not in use, and any section based on the IMO number could not be used for ships originating from the time prior to IMO number being in use. Another major problem that I can see with givingthe IMO number is that although extremely useful, the IMO number is—from the point of view of most people who are likely to be using Wikipedia—a minor detail they likely do not know nor care about (hell, I'm a maritime historian and I don't know the IMO number of any ship, nor have I ever looked up info on a ship based on the IMO number). As such the current treatment we have for the IMO numbers in articles is sufficent, IMO (no pun intended).

Usage of IMO numbers in Commons categories is a good idea (provided that the same media can also be found by the name(s) of the vessels, which most people are likely to know), although it would certainly have been preferrable to discuss the idea here first before introducing it. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 17:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought that it shouldn't harm anyone if I created categories with IMO numbers in Commons. General public looks for a ship by name and if found the rest of her pictures via her IMO number. I see the point of using the number in the encyclopidia itself. Forget it, but use it where it has any value. --Stunteltje (talk) 22:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

SS Statendam

Is there any reason why this ship shouldn't be moved to SS Justicia? Statendam wasn't even completed as such before being taken over by the White Star Line. As Justicia she found somewhat greater fame as the second-largest ship to be torpedoed during the First World War. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 11:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that SS Statendam (1917) should be moved to the name Justicia, but what prefix should it be: RMS Justicia or SS Justicia? (And whichever it is not should also be a redirect.) A google search for "rms justicia" vs. "ss justicia" gives 360 hits vs. 281.

A look at the first version of the article shows that it was written from more of a Holland America Line perspective, which may explain the naming choice. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Definately not RMS Justicia. She only saw service as a troopship, therefore she did not carry mail and could not be a Royal Mail Ship. On the other hand, did troopships in the UK at the time carry and HMS prefix? If not, SS Justicia IMO is the title to go with. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 13:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I see it's already been moved to SS Justicia, but if it was only as a troopship, RMS would not be correct. WWI-era British troopships, though, typically used the "HMT" (His Majesty's Troopship) prefix. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The use of "HMT" bothers me for the following reasons - 1) I've never seen it used in relation to Justicia. 2) Most usages of "HMT" on Wikipedia refer to armed trawlers. 3) Most uses of "HMT" in relation to a troopship on Wikipedia redirect straight to "SS". I say "most" because I did about 6 random samples. I think leaving it as "SS Justicia" is the safest bet unless a charming guideline discussion is desired :). Happy New Year... --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 21:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

We certainly shouldn't use HMT Justicia if it wasn't called that, and I have no problems with it being at SS Justicia. I was primarily responding to Kjet's question about the HMS prefix and troopships. But, as to your point about redirections, I think the reason that many HMT troopships redirect to SS is that generally the ships had longer/more notable careers with the SS prefix. Take for example HMT Czar. In her 37-year career, she was known as HMT Czar for less than 10% of her service life. (And for evidence that troopships did use the HMT prefix, see File:HMT Czar.jpg, a contemporary postcard with that name on it.) And, Happy New Year to you, too! Cheers! — Bellhalla (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Merchant ships

Looks like we are going to have to grab the bull by the horns and set down a set of notablility criteria for merchant ships.

To make a start, I'd like to propose that

1. All sailing ships of 100 tons or more are sufficiently notable in their own right, subject to usual rules about verifiability and reliable sources.
2. Sailing ships of less than 100 tons may be notable on a case by case basis.
3. All sailing ships that were sunk or otherwise shipwrecked shall be notable in their own right, subject to usual rules of verifiability and reliable sources.
4. A sailing ship shall be defined as one that uses sails as it primary means of propulsion. Fitment of an engine shall not disqualify the ship from being a sailing ship.
5. All steamships and motor vessels of 1,000 tons or more are sufficiently notable in their own right, subject to usual rules of verifiability and reliable sources.
6. All merchant ships requisitioned into naval service by any country are notable in their own right, subject to usual rules of verifiability and reliable sources.
7. All merchant ships sunk by enemy action in wartime (whether the ship belonged to a belligerent country or not) shall be sufficiently notable in their own right, subject to usual rules of verifiability and reliable sources.
8. All steamships and motor vessels sunk or shipwrecked shall be sufficiently notable in their own right, subject to usual rules of verifiability and reliable sources.
9. Steamships and motor vessels under 1,000 tons may be sufficiently notable in their own right, subject to usual rules of verifiability and reliable sources.
10. Entry of a merchant vessel on a register such as LLoyd's Register, Det Norske Veritas, American Bureau of Shipping or Nippon Kaiji Kyokai shall be considered as meeting WP:N.

OK, I've made a start, over to you. Mjroots (talk) 19:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kickoff on this issue. Per our discussion Inherent notability on your talk page, I saw a lot of hard work and good results from this project, but little discussion of which floating vessels should have their own articles and which are not generally notable or belong in a list which collects "minor ships with routine service histories together in articles on the class" as was suggested in [[this discussion page earlier. Its fine to say "all commissioned ships are notable" but that argument has been used to keep all tugBOATs. The smallest navies in the world probably have some commissioned small speedboats which most of us would not judge worth of individual articles. Consensus guidelines can streamline the AFD process and even avoid worthy ships being nominated. I like to avoid having Wikipedia become a mirror of every enumerated thing in any directory. The general notability criterion of "significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources" is a good guide. Not all ships (or tugboats, or minor craft with uneventful careers) meet that criterion, and Wikipedia is not a memorial. Edison (talk) 20:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I find the inherent idea behind this discussion that a warship or a ship that participated in military action would be somehow inheritently more notable than a ship that saw no wartime action rather odd. IMHO notability guidelines shouls be written so that they do not rely on a ship's participation, or the lack thereof, in wars or other conflicts. Of course, a ship taking part in such matters gets more coverage in source material, but that then falls under the scope of notability and verifiablity. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 21:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The distinction between boat and ship can be an arbitrary one. Just because a vessel is referred to as a boat in some contexts doesn't necessarily make it so. Many submarines are referred to as "boats" but I would not consider them on par with something like a PT boat or a sailboat, for example.

In looking at Mjroots' suggestions above, the key thing that jumps out at me is that most say "subject to usual rules of verifiability and reliable sources". If that's indeed a key component of these guidelines, why not just leave things the way they are and let the notability and verifiability rules handle it? — Bellhalla (talk) 05:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Bellhalla. I don't really see the point in making a bunch of arbitrary rules like this, when we already have wp:note and wp:v. Gatoclass (talk) 08:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

In response to Gatoclass I'd say that if we did have a set of rules then we are in a better position to avoid AfD debates like the current one for Timothy Bloodworth (above). The initial proposals I put forward are all up for debate and change and can be adopted, amended or discarded whatever the consensus is. Mjroots (talk) 08:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

AFDs are not necessarily bad things, though, in that they help establish consensus. Rather than proscribe any list of what's notable, perhaps we could have a list that describes what types or sizes or classes of ships are considered notable. For example, through many AFDs, there's a strong consensus that any commissioned ship meets notability requirements. I would also guess (but Kjet could probably say for sure), that there's a strong consensus in favor of ocean liners and cruise ships. With such a list, questionable AFDs (like that for Timothy Bloodworth) can be quickly refuted. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course, non-passenger ships are something of a poor relation as they generally get less coverage than cruise ships and liners. Suggest that Empire ships, Liberty ships and Victory ships all be considered notable too. Mjroots (talk) 12:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that I would go that far necessarily. A stronger case in that direction could be made for liberty ships and victory ships, since the ships of each type (or subtype for liberties) all had the same size, capacity, propulsion, etc. (That's not the case with the Empire ships.) But the key, I think, is in your first sentence where you say that they "get less coverage". Almost by definition, less coverage = less notability. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there any consensus as to what floating vessels would generally not be considered notable? Are the least boats belonging to a navy not "commissioned," which would be a bright line distinction? What about small harbor patrol boats of a navy, or some small country whose largest ship is a small speedboat with a machinegun? Edison (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Kjet above also thought that being in a military action might not be inherently notable. As these rules are about merchant vessels, which are generally distinct from military craft, is there an existing rule about military craft being inherently notable? If so, then a non-military vessel which becomes involved in the military field would acquire some of the characteristics which make military vessels notable. -- SEWilco (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Establishing rules for defining notability based on the size or status of a vessel (be it a boat or a ship) is problematic, because it can conflict with WP:V (and possibly WP:N). If we say, for instance, that a motor vessel under 1,000 tons (incidentally, which tons?) is inherently unnotable, would that mean that an article on a notable ship smaller than 1,000 tons (say a tug that participated in rescue efforts of several stricken vessels) would be deleted on sight even if it fullfills the notability and verifiability guidelines due to being covered in numerous thried-party sources?

IMHO our guideline cannot be "a ship of this-or-this status/shape/size/colour is inherently unnotable". Nor can it be "a ship of this-or-this status/shape/size/colour is inherently notable". It has to be based on verifiability first, everything else second. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 22:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I think proposed rules 1-4 accommodate those concerns. While I don't hang around AfD much, some project-adopted rules presuming notability at a certain level, and allowing for it at lower levels (in each case subject to normal sourcing standards), could head off repetitive attempts to delete. If that is a problem I think these proposed rules are a good start. Kablammo (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Kjet, I deliberately left tons as vague to stop arguments over which tons. Under the proposals I put forward, a tug that participated in a rescue of a stricken vessel should be notable enough for retention. Of course, a "grandfather rights" clause could always be inserted into the proposal. Mjroots (talk) 05:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

What concerns me is that trying to define a body of rules for this is (a) instruction creep (b) not necessarily supported by WP:NOTE and (c) potentially causing problems rather than alleviating them. For example, defining as notable "any steamship over 1,000 tons" completely ignores the fact that probably half the steamers built in the US in the 19th century were well under 1,000 tons. I'd prefer a rule that said, say, any vessel used as a liner by a steamship line would be considered notable, but why have a hard and fast rule at all? We already have WP:NOTE, for which the only criterion is that reliable sources have addressed the subject in a non-trivial way. That seems to me to be a lot more flexible than the suggestions being canvassed here. Gatoclass (talk) 12:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Gatoclass, all proposals are up for discussion. If 1,000 tons is too high, then it can be changed. Maybe 500 tons is a better figure, I don't know. None of my proposals are set in stone. I'm completely open to debate on this and if all ten get amended, so be it. Just trying to establish a basic set of criteria. The Aviation WikiProject has a set of rules defining notablity for aircraft crashes, which has saved more than one article from AfD in the past. Mjroots (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the rules need to be guidelines to help editors interpret how the standard notability criteria apply to ships. They need to provide for when an AFD should be deferred, to enable sources to be built up over time, versus recognising that sources are unlikely to be available. Rather than all ships meeting X criteria are automatically notable, the guidelines could be along the lines of:

I do not think the rules can say anything about inherent unnotability. It is also unclear it these rules are meant to apply only to modern ships or include historic ships. If these rules are adapted they should be limited to only:

1. Establishing inherent notability.
2. Applyed to modern ships. Historic ships may not meet the tonnage limits while still being notaqble or even inherently notabla.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Viv Hamilton's proposal

1. Uncommissioned naval ships/boats are unlikely to be notable, unless multiple reliable sources can be provided. Any factual information concerning such vessels will normally be best included in an article or list about the class of vessel. Commissioning provides a miniumum set of factual information from a reliable source
2. Merchant ships will generally need to have been formally registered to be notable. Such registration will provide a miniumum set of factual information from a reliable source, but registration alone is not sufficient criteria for notability: other sources should be available.
3. Unregistered merchant ships will normally not be notable, unless there is some significant event such as a notable shipwreck, participation in a notable rescue, winning honours in a yacht race etc. Such events should have resulted in the multiple sources necessary for meeting the normal notability criteria.
4. A press release or other similar material from the owner/operator of a merchant ship is not sufficient on its own (or in conjunction with registration details) to prove notability
5. Shipwreck can render an otherwise non-notable ship notable. Multiple death is automatically considered to confer notability. A shipwreck in modern times should be covered by multiple sources, but a historic event may be supported by only a single reliable source.
6. Vessels performing a role of transporting people (merchant vessels - liners and ferries, and naval logistics vessels) are likely to be notable, by virtue of their impact upon human lives and communities. Multiple minor references in biograhic sources shall be considered to confer notability.
7. Cruise ships may have less claim to notability, although large size, longevity, uniqueness may confer notability. This should be confirmed by sources independent of the owner/operator.
8. Inclusion in a national register of historic ships or equivalent registers of cultural heritage automatically implies notability
9. Participation of a commissioned naval vessel in conflict generally implies notability. Multiple death on such a vessel is automatically considered to confer notability. Where the conflict involves multiple small vessels of a class (such as landing craft), whose individual contributions are not distinguished by secondary sources, such small vessels will generally not be notable individually, and will best be covered by an article on the craft type.
10. Merchant vessels taken into military service may be notable by virtue of either their merchant service or their military role or the combination of both.
11. Historic vessels that are more than 100 years old, (this definition selected for consistency with UNESCO convention on underwater culteral heritage) for which sources can be found are likely to be notable. This will include the vessels used for historically recorded voyages. However, an article should not be created for a vessel for which only the name is known. Facts about the vessel, not just the voyage are required. If only the name is known, the article should be about the voyage not the ship.
12. First of class, and vessels exhibiting technological changes, or other unique features are likely to be notable; notability should be able to be proved through technical references.

Viv Hamilton (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I like the proposed guidelines, although #7 (cruise ship notability) worries me a bit as the requirements of "large size, longevity [and/or] uniqueness" could be used as an argument for the deletion of several existing cruise ship articles, many of which lack these features but should perhaps be considered notable. Obviously as guidelines none of the proposals are set in stone, and criteria #2 also covers cruise ship notability in part. Never the less a clearer guideline on cruise ships, including number/stype of sources that should be provided might be preferrable. Apart from that minor detail I do not see a problem with these. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 13:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Just corrected a typo in #2 (Thanks Mjroots for pointing it out). Re #7, perhaps we should just delete it. Some of the modern cruise ships are so huge they are basically floating towns, and should de-facto qualify as notable. The main problem I see with any guidelines, is that if there are sources available when a new ship is launched, it seems to me to make sense to create an article for it - not wait 30 years for something notable to happen in its lifetime! So, perhaps the whole thing should have a bias towards keep, rather than delete articles on current registered/commissioned ships, provided that at least one source, other than the bare registration/commissioning entry, exists (not counting for this purpose any owner/operator press release). Viv Hamilton (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Rule #7 should be deleted. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Depending a bit on what is done regarding the other fields and establishing bias towards keep, guideline #7 should not nescessarily be deleted outright, if for no other reasons than clarity. Having a separate guideline for ferries & liners but not cruise ships could confuse editors. On the other hand simply repeating #2 in #7 does not accomplish much. In general, finding sources for most cruise ships should not be difficult due to the multitude of publications and websites on the subject, and as such a special notability clause like the one for ferries and liners is not nescessary as such. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 23:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Re #3, could hijacking by pirates be added? (I'm thinking of the current events off Somalia, MY Le Ponant is an example of this. Mjroots (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Presumably (modern) pirate attacks would be covered by the "etc" part in rule #3. Also, according to the Complete Guide to Cruising & Cruise Ships 2008, Le Ponant is registered with Lloyd's. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 13:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

One question regarding proposed rule #1 above: what is an "Uncommissioned naval ship"? Does it mean a ship still in the hands of the builders prior to handover to the navy? Petecarney (talk) 13:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

To use the U.S. as an example, ships of the Military Sealift Command are typically owned by the U.S. Navy but manned and operated by a civilian crew. Ships like these are used in support of military or naval operations but are not commissioned. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense, same as the UK's Royal Fleet Auxiliary, Thanks Petecarney (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how that makes such ships less notable. They are mostly going to be of such a size as to meet other notability criteria anyway. It is always going to be easier to find info on current ships than it is on past ships. Mjroots (talk) 07:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Details of proposed rules

Above should be discussion about the proposed rules in general. This section is for discussion of details which should be considered if the rules are accepted. -- SEWilco (talk) 06:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Type of vessel: Group and use sublists for rules based upon type of vessel. I see two major groups: "sailing ship" and "steamship and motor vessel". -- SEWilco (talk) 06:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Tons: Follow the list with a note that 'tons' is intentionally ambiguous as the measures are sufficiently similar for these rules. -- SEWilco (talk) 06:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Inman Line

This article was recently in the last 48 hours drastically revamped by another editor. It could use some help to meet our quality standards. I normally would help out, but I'm just coming off of a vacation and am not ready for such a task yet. Would someone mind helping out? -MBK₀₀₄ 04:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I've worked with the editor and gotten the article to B-Class. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright status of reprinted books

I'm wondering about this. In my travels I have come across some old books dating from the late 19th/early 20th century that have recently been reprinted. According to the "first published before 1923" rule, I would assume these books to be in the public domain, however the reprinters claim copyright. It is possible to re-establish copyright over an old out of copyright book, or is this sort of thing just an example of copyfraud? Gatoclass (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The content may be out of copyright, but the publisher has copyright on the layout, so you should be able to legally quote the content, but not photocopy the pages. Also, there will be bits that the publisher has added to the new volume - foreword, jacket images etc., that are original works. Viv Hamilton (talk) 12:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

For the book I'm thinking of, the pages are actually direct scans of the original, wobbly typeface and all. So I guess if I want to use an image that was in the original book, that should be free of copyright then? Gatoclass (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal from Italian aircraft carrier Sparviero into SS Roma

A proposed merge from Italian aircraft carrier Sparviero into MS Augustus is under discussion here. Please drop in to have you stay. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 10:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Armament of the Iowa class battleship now open

The peer review for Armament of the Iowa class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 00:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ocean liner

Could I get some eyes on this article and commenting here on the talk page. There have been some edits made to this article which have removed SS and RMS from the names of the ships on the basis on "consistency". -MBK₀₀₄ 05:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Set index pages titled as disambiguation pages

WP:SETINDEX pages, those used for our ship list pages, are specifically different from WP:DAB pages. There however at least three pages to my knowledge, that use the qualifier '(disambiguation)' (HMS Victory (disambiguation), HMS Hood (disambiguation) and HMS Beagle (disambiguation)). This is fair enough if we decide that there is one ship that can qualify as the primary usage. But every now and then someone will come along and remove any formatting that doesn't comply with WP:MOSDAB, sometimes quite insistently. Should these articles perhaps be retitled to some new form that removes the 'disambiguation' qualifier in order to alleviate this? Or is just vigilant patrolling needed? I ask because the issue has cropped up on HMS Hood (disambiguation), where both set index and disambiguation tabs have been added side by side, despite that seeming mutually exclusive in terms of application of guidelines. Benea (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I glanced through WP:SETINDEX; from what I can see, it never states that '(disambiguation)' should be used as a qualifier for set index pages; but I suppose that it could be argued that it also never says anything specifically against it. The nearest applicable example that it provides suggests that these should be named "List of ships named YYY" ... but that example doesn't exactly fit these situations, so I suspect there's some leeway in interpretation. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I had a think but couldn't think of anything else that seemed to fit. I'm happy for it to stay as 'HMS Foo (disambiguation)', the main issue is then someone deciding that it must therefore be a disambiguation page and changing all the formatting accordingly. Since it's only three articles this affects, I think this can be controlled by explaining each time this happens if need be, as we would if someone mistook a conventionally titled shiplist page for a Dab one. But in his revert on HMS Hood (disambiguation) he wrote 'Restore to dab style, consistent with article title', which is what made me suspect the '(disambiguation)' part was to blame. Hopefully he'll read the guidelines I left on the talkpage, but if he wanted to press the issue, perhaps someone could drop by and confirm that I'm not making this up. Benea (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I added an editors' note that will hopefully prevent this from happening again. Take a look and change it as you see fit (or remove it altogether, if you think it isn't useful). Parsecboy (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well he did see it and still thinks the name should be changed. Actually, these three are not consistent with our guidelines which state Other identification should be omitted, so that a reader can easily locate the material sought; for example, name an index article simply "USS Enterprise". Clearly we don't deal in terms of naming with the problem of when an individual ship is the primary article. Is there a reason why we shouldn't rename these three articles to "List of Ships called HMS Victory" etc? Viv Hamilton (talk) 15:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for U-1 class submarine (Austria-Hungary) now open

The A-Class review for U-1 class submarine (Austria-Hungary) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 18:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Lifeboats

Would the Cromer Lifeboat Louisa Heartwell ON 495 article be better titled as RNLB Louisa Heartwell? Is there a naming convention that covers lifeboat articles? Mjroots (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It depends on if "RNLB" is an officially used prefix or not. At the very least, it seems like it should be at Cromer lifeboat Louisa Heartwell (ON 495) (with the number in parentheses and lifeboat in lowercase) to match current naming conventions. But, to put on my curmudgeon's hat, what exactly is notable about this particular boat? Or any of these:

• Cromer Lifeboat H F Bailey III ON 777
• Cromer Lifeboat H F Bailey ON 670
• Cromer Lifeboat H F Bailey ON 694
• Cromer Lifeboat Henry Blogg ON 840

for that matter? — Bellhalla (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that those articles are doing any harm. They certainly meet WP:V to start with. I know that this is the SHIPS wikiproject and not the BOATS wikiproject but lifeboats seem an area where coverage is lacking to me (No, I'm not going to create a load more lifeboat articles either!). Mjroots (talk) 05:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no personal enmity towards any of these articles, but I fail to see the notability of them. After all, my name, date of birth, and address are all verifiable online, but that doesn't mean that there should be an article on me, by any stretch. (And WP:NOHARM is not usually a good reason for keeping an article.) — Bellhalla (talk) 05:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

If a ship sank with the loss of 180 lives, that would be notable, wouldn't it? So why is a boat that saved 180 lives not notable? Mjroots (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, the crew of Louisa Heartwell didn't rescue 180 all at once; the largest number in any one rescue was 23. But, that minor point aside, isn't saving lives what lifeboats are intended for? — Bellhalla (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

If the individual notability of each is an issue the boats could be combined into a single article on the Cromer lifeboat. The link with Henry Blogg adds to the notability by association. I must admit to a possible conflict of interest being from Norwich and with connections to Cromer.GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Something like Lightship Nantucket, perhaps. Kablammo (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, the article should be something like "Cromer Lifeboat Association" and the individual boat histories could be listed there. IMO There should not be a ship infobox for this article. Gatoclass (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If all the articles were merged into one article (Cromer lifeboats ?), it would be quite a large article. Personally. I've no objection to merging them although I think they are better as individual articles. Merging would be far better than deletion. Mjroots (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I originally assumed these were all just a bunch of rowing boats, based on the Louisa Heartwell article. However I see the rest are at least motor-boats.

However, I'm still inclined to think they might be better merged into a single article. Some of the existing articles are very short, and I don't think putting them all together would make such a long article. There are a couple of articles which have longish tables but they could probably be reduced in size. Gatoclass (talk) 07:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've let the creator of the articles know this discussion is in progress. Mjroots (talk) 08:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Having been down Cromer last night (fireworks off the pier) and passing Bloggs memorial set me to thinking that a merge to Cromer Lifeboat would be for the best. That could bring together all the boats (motor or otherwise with their individual infoboxes), Bloggs, and link to the notable rescues in an historical framework. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

(out-dent) I am quite sceptical of the value of listing every rescue by every RNLI lifeboat, which is where we seem to be going with these articles.... The Land (talk) 11:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• On a practical note, whether or not we merge the articles, a general article at Cromer lifeboat (or Plymouth lifeboat, etc etc) listing them all with notes would be useful - if we do want to link to these, most of the time we'll just have a source saying the lifeboat stationed at X was called out without noting any details. Shimgray | talk | 22:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Cromer Lifeboats

First of all may I say that it would have been nice to be asked to contribute to this discussion as the creator of the Cromer Lifeboat articles and not to have learnt second hand from another editor that this discussion was taking place. I think that a merger of these pages would not be a good thing. Firstly I was intending to add to each lifeboat its most notable actions as I have done with the Henry Blogg Lifeboat. This would make a combined page very long and tedious for a reader. I do agree that some of the Lifeboats that have been stationed at Cromer could not stand on there own in an individual article but some of them are indeed very notable and are deserving of there own page. Cromer Lifeboats have been some of the busiest lifeboats over the years, especially during the wars. Until I had made an effort to start these articles there was no reference to them on wikipedia, only to Henry Blogg. As famous and as brave as he was he could not have operated without the crew or the lifeboats that he served on and I think that they had been sadly neglected. I don’t think a single article would be a good enough reference to what has and still is a very important part of Cromer, Norfolk and the RNLI’s History.  stavros1  ♣  17:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

These are growing into detailed and interesting articles and I do not think they or the encylopaedia would benefit from their being merged. I do think notability is affected by their being lifeboats, yes, and since (as we're always being told) Wikipedia is not paper I see no benefit in crushing them down into one when they can flourish as a small and interesting collection of separate articles. To the argument "but we don't need an article about every UK lifeboat I can only respond why not? - if they have as much that is of interest, and that is verifiable, in them as this set then why would we not want them? Best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 07:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Cromer Lifeboat H F Bailey III ON 777

If this Lifeboat is not Notable can Bellhalla explain why the RNLI has gone to great time and expense to preserve this lifeboat in its own museum.!!!!!  stavros1  ♣ 18:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I will preface with what I mentioned above, that I have no personal animosity towards any lifeboat articles. With that said, notability and notability for inclusion in Wikipedia can be very different things. The lifeboat, given the expense and effort to preserve it that you noted, is, I'm sure, quite notable locally. With no disrespect intended at all, my question was to the notability of the lifeboat in regards to Wikipedia. What is special or significant about this lifeboat that makes it suitable for a general interest encyclopedia? Personally, I don't know, which is why I raised the question. :For comparison, the town where I live has it's original fire wagon from the 1880s, which has been carefully restored and is used in parades. When the local firefighting museum opens in the next year or two, the wagon will be on display. But, even though the fire wagon is notable in my town, I doubt very much that it would be considered notable for Wikipedia. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The bottom line on notability (sigh) is the first paragraph of Wikipedia:N#General_notability_guideline: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". Does Cromer Lifeboat H F Bailey III ON 777 meet that criteria? Undoubtedly. -Arb. (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The difference here is that this lifeboat has not been preserved just at the instigation of its own community IE Cromer, but by a National organisation IE the RNLI. There involvement rather speaks loudly for its notability. I agree with what you say about such items as a local fire engine which may be only notable to its own community but this particular lifeboat has a history which is of National importance mainly due to the fact that its coxswain, Henry Blogg is the most decorated lifeboat man to date, and that many of the rescues he is most associated with took place on this particular lifeboat.

 stavros1  ♣  23:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually the notability criteria do not specify that something is nationally or internationally notable. It just needs substantial coverage in independent reliable soures (although a decision can still be made that it isn't notable) It is accepted that every town and city has a right to an article, so if a town has a subject within it, that grows large enough to merit splitting it out into a separate article (providing it meets the notability/verifiability/reliable source criteria), it can have an article. For example see Monkey hanger which is something that is definately notable to the people of Hartlepool, but otherwise would only be of interest to people interested in obscure folk traditions. So in principle, if the people of Belhalla's local town (or some obscure academic historian of fire-engines) have written reliable source articles about their fire-engine , it could have an article. So the question for the likes of the Cromer life-boats is, are there several vessels, that merit individual articles (e.g. they have individual coverage in reliable sources, and sufficient content to make a good article), or is this whole subject better as a list, because there are just a few facts covered in reliable sources, which are more generally about the class than individual vessels? It looks like Cromer lifeboats needs a list or class article for the overall topic plus individual articles for specific notable individual vessels - but this doesn't mean that every one of Cromer's lifeboats should have an indivudal article. Viv Hamilton (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

SS John Stagg AfD

The SS John Stagg article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Yamato class battleship now open

The A-Class review for Yamato class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 05:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

HMS Esk (H15) or HMS Esk (1934)

There's an article with the former title; the latter is the redlink in HMS Esk, and the two articles don't link to each other. I know nothing about WP conventions on the naming of ships, except that this needs to be sorted out! Over to one of you experts. (I just dropped by while looking at the Esk dab page). PamD (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done - with a redirect. Benea (talk) 10:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for U-3 class submarine (Austria-Hungary) now open

The A-Class review for U-3 class submarine (Austria-Hungary) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 20:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Future Canadian Amphibious Assault Ship

I could use some help with the Future Canadian Amphibious Assault Ship article. A user (apparantly both a reg and an IP) keeps adding a ship infox to what is a project article. I addition, he is adding a pic of a Mistral class ship to the infobox, but Canada has not even specified what size of ship it wants yet, nor even issued RFPs as yet. The article is also poorly cited, typical of this user. I've left detailed edit summaries, but not used the talk page or personal contact as yet, as I doubt I can keep my cool much longer. Any help here would be appreciated. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for USS Illinois (BB-65) now open

The peer review for USS Illinois (BB-65) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ship fate box

{{Ship fate box active in service}} needs to be updated to 2009. Thanks --Brad (talk) 12:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me add that its protected so i can't edit it. I'm not sure why this template just can't use currentyear to remove the updating chore. --Brad (talk) 12:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done Parsecboy (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ship Notability - new attempt at guidelines

The discussion on notability had gone quiet, so I've attempted to turn it into some sort of guideline here. This is very much a first attempt so feel free to be bold in editting it. I've copied the existing discussion to the new talk page. I would ask that you leave the existing sections and add new sections to discuss the new suggested guidelines. If it looks like we can generate a consensus we can move it to the project space. Viv Hamilton (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

IMO Categories in Commons

User:LimoWreck added two categories to Category:IMO 6519338‎ in Commons. Definately no wrong categories, it only works the other way around as intended. But my question is: Is it wise to add categories to IMO number categories?.

For those who aren't familiar with the IMO system: The International Maritime Organisation, in cooperation with Lloyd's Register, gives each sea-going ship above a certain tonnage a number of zeven digits. That number does not change during the lifetime of the ship. Have a look on Commons at Category:IMO 7126322 In many cases a new owner gives the ship a new name, the MMSI number and callsigns are coupled to the owner. IMO ship identification number

I created the Category:Ships by IMO number in Commons to make it possible to find all files of a certain ship, when it is found under a certain name. More than 700 ships can be found already, feel free to help. It was not my intention to add categories to that particular category, as I assume is has no extra value and in categories a direction to an IMO number looks to me a little bit strange. What is the general opinion? --Stunteltje (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

When there are many pics of one single object, person, building -- a specific ship in this case -- we create a category on commons to group all pictures (and possibly other media) of that object (e.g. commons:Category:Tour Montparnasse. So, in this case a category for a ship. I don't care WHAT the name of this ship-category actually is; the name itself of the ship seems more logical to me (e.g. commons:Category:RMS Titanic, but as there was already this numerical category, a simply added the appropriate additional pics to that existing one. We don't create a category twice with a different name, don't we. And as each object - be it as a separate pic, or be it as a grouping category - can be added to various appropriate parent categories, some appropriate categories are added. If you think it would more appropriate to have a categoryname reflecting the name of the ship, that IMO number category would be redundant. And if you think that IMO-numbered category can't be used in a normal category tree, well, then the concept of "category" wouldn't be the right thing to use for your IMO numbers. But actually, this is rather a question for commons, instead of the english wikipedia. --LimoWreck (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for SM U-14 (Austria-Hungary) now open

The A-Class review for SM U-14 (Austria-Hungary) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 04:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Same ship, two articles, merge?

Just stumbled upon these, and I don't know if there are more in this class:

• USS Mispillion (AO-105)
• USNS Mispillion (T-AO-105)
• USS Navasota (AO-106)
• USNS Navasota (T-AO-106)
• USS Passumpsic (AO-107)
• USNS Passumpsic (T-AO-107)
• USS Pawcatuck (AO-108)
• USNS Pawcatuck (T-AO-108)

Would someone more well-versed in merging take care of these? -MBK₀₀₄ 00:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've merged each pair into the more notable USS name. When I checked out the rest of the class, I did not find any others so split. Thanks for bringing to our attention, MBK. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

All of the articles were created by the same editor, and for the most part, were only edited by him/her. The third pair—Passumpsic— had been edited by other editors, and therefore needed to have the edit history of the USNS article merged into the composite article, which I have done. The rest should be fine as they are GFDL-wise, because the editor who wrote the articles will still have credit for his/her work, since his/her name is still in the edit histories. Parsecboy (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Can an admin merge these two articles about the same ship:

• USNS Dutton T-AGS-22 (no parentheses around hull number)
• USNS Dutton (T-AGS-22)

They seem to have slightly different content, so I didn't want to redirect the former into the latter. Thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox ship

Hello, why doesn't {{infobox Ship Begin}} also include the wikitable opening wikimarkup {| and not have a complementary {{infobox Ship End}} ? It seems other infoboxes are structured so that these things exist. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it was done that way so that the ship infobox templates could be (if desired for some reason) arranged in a different matter, or be grouped with non-ship infoboxes. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be a good idea to have {{infobox ship start}} and {{infobox ship end}} that only contain {| and |}  ? 76.66.198.171 (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, it's a lot shorter to type 2 characters (either "{|" or "|}") than it is to type 20 or 22. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

{{Infobox Ship Begin}} simply caries the CSS formatting for the infobox, and is shorthand to call {{WPMILHIST Infobox style|main_box}}. It perhaps would have been more accurate to name it {{Infobox Ship CSS}}. The code doesn't seem to have ever been intended to include the "{|" or "|}". And, as Bellhalla points out, it's much simpler to simply type the two characters at the top and bottom of the infobox (or to simply copy/paste the appropriate code from the documentation) rather than use a longer to type start/end template. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It's different than how other infoboxes seem to work, so it looks weird. And if someone were building a ship article, "infobox ship begin" would seem to be the very first element, without needing additional wikimarkup. The other boxes that function in this manner have "end" complementary templates. So... for consistency's sake... 76.66.198.171 (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but a better reason than "it looks weird" would be needed to change fundamental designs of how the template is used. What you're proposing is that the template be modified in a way that would add no new functionality, require extra typing if the template is done manually, and require that all 13,500+ locations where the template is already currently in use would need to be modified to accommodate the changed formatting - all so that it doesn't "look weird" (which is a subjective criteria, to me it doesn't look weird at all).

I just don't see any reason to make the change - it adds zero benefit, but would require considerable effort to implement. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for USS Texas (BB-35) now open

The A-Class review for USS Texas (BB-35) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Caution regarding Miramar Ship Index links

There are quite a few ships article that use the Miramar Ship Index as a reference. After finding that links in references often did not point to the correct ship after a period of time, I exchanged e-mails with Mr. Haworth who runs the site. It turns out that the link style most often used is a transitory link, and is not guaranteed to always link to the same ship. So if I use the link http://www.miramarshipindex.org.nz/ship/show/193342 to point to the ship King Frederick, chances are that when someone else clicks on that link it will be a completely different ship than the one I intended. The type of link that is persistent (i.e. always linking to the expected page) uses the Miramar "IDNo" value. So using the example of King Frederick, the persistent link would be http://www.miramarshipindex.org.nz/ship/list?search_op=OR&IDNo=1119225. Regrettably, this link does not go directly to the page with the specs that most people would be citing, and requires that one click on the link presented in order to see the proper information.

To help remedy this, I've created the template {{Cite Miramar}} that takes the Miramar "IDNo" and converts it into a link. For the same example ship, King Frederick, typing this:

• {{Cite Miramar | id = 1119225 | accessdate = 20 January 2009}}

generates this:

I've also added an optional shipname field that would display as follows:

I'd like to get feedback on the looks of this and/or how to improve it. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possible to use "accessdate" so the date can be written in in one go - |accessdate= 20 January 2009 ? Mjroots (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Good question. It's set up to use all of the same retrieval date options as are available in {{cite web}} (since it is basically calling that template) so accessdate should work. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Good, I won't have to do so much typing then! <g> Mjroots (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

HMS Audacity (D10)

I've expanded/rewritten the article. A few questions arise:-

1. Would the article benefit from a detailed account of how Hannover was saved from being scuttled?
2. What were Sinbad's Code Letters?
3. Can anyone rewrite/reference the last paragraph of the HMS Audacity section?
4. Why the redirect from HMS Audacity (D14)?
5. Are we getting anywhere near GA status yet?

Comments appreciated please. Mjroots (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Corvette

at Talk:Corvette, there is a discussion going on if the warship (Corvette (ship) or sports car Chevrolet Corvette is the primary meaning of Corvette. This is listed at WP:RM 76.66.198.171 (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone closed that rename discussion as 'no change' per WP:SNOW. Since, an editor has proposed renaming Category:Corvettes to Category:Corvettes (ship). The CFD discussion is here. Maralia (talk) 03:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS Moltke (1910) now open

The A-Class review for SMS Moltke (1910) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 20:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

submarines General Sanjuro and General Mola

Archimede class submarine and Spanish submarine C-3 contradict each other, the first says that Archimede was renamed General Sanjuro and Torricelli was renamed General Mola, whilst the latter says that Archimede was renamed General Mola and Torricelli was renamed General Sanjuro. This contradiction requires attention. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There was a previous notice about this same subject posted here on 26 December which apparently elicited no corrections. Have you, (A), thought of posting messages on the talk page of significant contributors since they are most likely to know the subject and/or have the sources needed or, (B), looking up the information and fixing it yourself? — Bellhalla (talk) 12:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I did try looking it up. I figured the relevant wikiprojects would elicit more responses. Especially this one, since it is pretty active. OFcourse, since I don't know either Italian or Spanish, that kind of limits resources. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for USS Kentucky (BB-66) now open

The peer review for USS Kentucky (BB-66) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 20:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Short Brothers

Article needs a major expansion as it says absolutely nothing about their shipbuilding activities. Article also has date and place of foundation completely wrong. Mjroots (talk) 06:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ignore that, looks like they are two separate companies. Mjroots (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Japanese battleship Yamato now open

The A-Class review for Japanese battleship Yamato is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 22:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

List of ship launches in 1946

The above list was deleted as the result of an AfD discussion back in 2006. I've been in contact with the deleting admin and have been advised to ask here before the article is recreated. It was suggested in the AfD debate that the article should be brought to the attention of this WP, but it was not raised on the talk page as far as I can tell. The article only had one entry at deletion.

Q: Does WP:SHIPS support the recreation of the List of ship launches in 1946. Mjroots (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't there some attempt recently to create missing List of ship xxxx in xxx articles? I would say that would support a move to recreate it (and I'm sure that more than 1 ship was launched in '46, as a lot must have been building for war service... Martocticvs (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I move to recreate as well. If the deleting admin is unavailable, I am to restore the list. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleting admin was Mailer diablo. He said to raise it here before recreating the article. Restoration of the old article would be better than recreation IMO. I have another ship to add to the list. Mjroots (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are two more to go on the list: USS Coral Sea (CV-43) and USS Des Moines (CA-134). If we can have at least six or seven vessels to go on before we recreate, we stand a better chance of not having to go through another AFD. If you find some, I'll recreate it since it seems as though Mailer diablo is not opposed to recreation. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Originally on the list was HMS Sparrow, to which I can add SS Benalbanach (1946) - that's four. Mjroots (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

And there's USS Agerholm (DD-826), USS Fresno (CL-121), RFA Spalake (A260), RFA Rowenol (A284), RFA Spaburn (A257), USS Eversole (DD-789), USS Walrus (SS-437), USS Shelton (DD-790), USS Lansdale (DD-766) to name a few. Mjroots (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

this search will show up more ships. Mjroots (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is four more: USS Corsair (SS-435), USS Leonard F. Mason (DD-852), USS Charles H. Roan (DD-853), and USS Forrest Royal (DD-872). We should have enough to recreate. If you would like to ask Mailer diablo to undo his deletion, you are welcome to, or I can go ahead and do it. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

MBK, you may as well undo it. Mailer diablo said to ask here, we've decided we need a reasonable number of ships and found them. The worst that can happen is that it goes back to AfD. Mjroots (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and asked him to restore the article, or see if he feels we need to go to WP:DRV. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can understand you not wanting to tread on Mailer diablo's toes, so to speak. I have asked on the talk page of DRV re putting this to DRV, but as it stands, the decision to delete was correct based on the AfD discussion. Mjroots (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I really appreciate your efforts to check just to be sure. I have no objections to recreation or restoration of the article so long nobody else wants to nominate it for deletion again. :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 19:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Since it seems we have consensus to restore the page, I've done so. Parsecboy (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I found three for 1947, so I went ahead and created that year as well: List of ship launches in 1947 -MBK₀₀₄ 21:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I've gone through the first 500 search results as listed above. I think the 1946 list should be safe from AfD now. Am heading off to bed. Mjroots (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If you ask a bot to go through the more than 800 IMO number files on Commons, it will find a lot of launch dates.--Stunteltje (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Just going by IMO Number is going to miss a lot of ship. IMO numbers only came in during the 1960s. Official numbers were in use a long time before that in some countries. Mjroots (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

List article dilemma

The List of current ships of the United States Navy has developed nicely over the last few months. I would like to take it higher on the assessment scale but this project uses the List rating while Milhist does not. So I'm wondering how to go about this. Should Milhist rating work its way up the GA to FA scale while Ships goes for FL? Hmmm. --Brad (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

From the good article criteria, a list cannot be a good article. It seems like at WP:MILHIST the next steps would be A-Class and then Featured List. For this project, unless it's assigned a letter grade assessment, FL would be the next step. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You could nom it for A-class at MILHIST, or take it to FLC, your choice. One thing though, I have downgraded its MILHIST assessment from B to start because it fails the B5 criteria on images (which is also required for FL). -MBK₀₀₄ 20:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The ship tables cover the "infobox" requirement. I don't see much of a reason for photos in the article as there isn't much room to cram them in. Please change the assessment. --Brad (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm of the mind that an image of a commissioned vessel is required, and IMHO one of Constitution at the top of the list would be perfect. Also, the list would be opposed at FLC for lacking images. Since we disagree, I am ask my fellow coordinators for an independent reassessment on our discussion page: WT:MHCOORD. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

If there's an image of major fleet exercise, that'd be excellent... something showing a wide range of ships. A nice thing to go in the first section. Shimgray | talk | 22:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

←Per this discussion, I have relented to the general consensus and have re-assessed the list in question as B-Class. Though you should take heed of Woody's comments about FLC, he has quite a few successful FLC noms to his credit:

but it wouldn't pass FLC without an image, an adequate lead and those refs sorted out

. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

"She" and "her"

Dear Project

Can I ask your advice please? I'm not a member of this project but, obviously, I do occasionally read/edit ship-related articles. :) On a couple of articles I like to look at, an editor has started to change "she/her" to "it/its". My (perhaps limited) understanding was that the "she/her" usage was pretty standard for ships. Is this so, and should I politely revert these alterations? Is there a guideline perhaps? Or is it some kind of horrendous hot topic in which an innocent like myself would not wish to get, er, embroiled? Thanks and best wishes, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times in the past (although the links to the previous discussions elude me at the moment). The general consensus (at least my understanding of it) is similar to how the American/British English issue plays out: whichever is used first in any article is how it should remain. So, if an article uses "she/her", it shouldn't be changed to "it/its" at a later date, and vice versa. Parsecboy (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Style_guide#Pronouns has what you are looking for. Either is acceptable, but if one format: she/her is already there as you have observed, that way should stay unless the matter is discussed, preferably here. To answer your question, revert when you see that happening. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec x 2) People have their own preferences... I fall into the "she" camp myself. As I understand it, both versions are acceptable, but (1) usage of either she or it should be consistent within the article - no changing back and forth, and (2) it should not be changed from one to another unless there is clear consensus to do so. However, I don't know what policies/guidelines to point you at. -- saberwyn 22:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much all of you. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Style_guide#Pronouns is precisely what I needed. Cheers! DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added new shortcut links at WP:SHIPPRONOUNS and WP:SHE4SHIPS for ease of linking (and remembering where the style guideline is). — Bellhalla (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) Every once in a while, a user whose native non-English language uses "he" for ships (for example, Russian) wants to change the use on a given page to "he". Does this need to be addressed in the guidelines somewhere? And in cases of a dispute of using "she" on such articles, is substituting "it" a good compromise? - BillCJ (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

As this is the English Wikipedia, I would say that non-english language common usages aren't really applicable here. The Russian wikipedia can certainly use the russian word for "he" if it chooses; but I see no reason that usage in any particular language should change how pronouns are used for ships in a WP of a different language.

In the case of disputes, direct the parties to the guidelines, or mention the dispute here with a link for members of the project to help determine if there's valid reasons for a particular article to differentiate from the guidelines. If the dispute continues with reverts by one party after a general consensus is reached, it really becomes a vandalism issue at that point. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Remove flags from templates in Category:United_States_shipbox_templates

What would users opinion of removing the flags from the templates Category:United_States_shipbox_templates as per Wikipedia:ICONDECORATION Gnevin (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Question - I wasn't aware of these shipboxes. Why are they needed when the articles have an infobox ship anyway?

Comment - with the shipbox, I don't think it is necessary to have a flag by the builder. The flag by the operator is fine at that size, but care must be taken to show the correct flag for the period operated, not just the current US flag for all types and that all links are correct (example Template:Ship box USS Pike (SS-6) has wrong flag and links to wrong list of decommissionings. Mjroots (talk) 05:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Also note the Wikipedia:MOSICON#Do_not_use_flags_in_general_article_prose doesn't support in-line flags ,which is the way these are being presented to the user. Gnevin (talk) 08:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I, too, was not aware of these, and am not sure what purpose they serve. Perhaps the bigger question would be why do we haver these at all, flag or no. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

In looking at the templates for destroyers (those ending with DD-##), they all seem to be used exactly once, on List of Wickes class destroyers. The aircraft carriers (CVN-##) are used at Nimitz-class aircraft carrier. The icebreakers (WAGB-##) at Wind-class icebreaker. Three of the subs (SS-##) are used at AA-1-class submarine while the others are not used at all. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you suggest a subst and a AFD Gnevin (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That's probably a good start, but maybe not just yet. A good many of them seem to have been created in 2006 by Joshbaumgartner, whom I've notified of this discussion. Let's see what he may have to add to the subject before taking any action. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Subst seems a good idea as any. Some of them are already orphaned - they can be AFD. The use of a template for a single entry on a single page runs against the usage of templates, and if they haven't been linked from anywhere else in the last year when will they be linke?.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed these templates several months ago but didn't feel like taking up the cause. I don't see the point of a template that only serves one purpose for one article. I think they all should be deleted. --Brad (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree: subst and TfD 'em. Parsecboy (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I had originally created them with the idea that they could be implemented on a wider scale, but there were some problems to doing so. For classes or types of ships there may be more of an application, but for individual ships you aren't going to put the template on more than a couple of pages at most, I would think. I agree that subst and delete is probably the best way to handle them at this stage. It was an idea I suppose, but not one that really worked... Josh (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for providing some input on the history, Josh. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Since we are in agreement about subst and TFD'ing, is it ok if I remove the flag while is am subst'ing them ? Gnevin (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mjroots' post above that the flag by the builder should go, but I don't agree that the other flags need to go. In the MOS guideline linked above (note: not a policy, but a guideline), the admonition is for flags in article prose. When these get subst'd, the information will still be presented in the same form: as more of a table, rather than as prose. Besides, what's the rush on the flags? There's no deadline. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no rush just want to clear on what the CON is, I don't want to remove a flag people still want to keep Gnevin (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I have finished subst'ing all in this category as well as those in Category:Canada shipbox templates and Category:United Kingdom shipbox templates. I have also nominated all for deletion and will post a link in a separate section below. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record, the following pages were where all of the above (including the Canada and UK ones as well) templates that had been transcluded:

• AA-1 class submarine
• Halifax-class frigate
• Invincible-class aircraft carrier
• Iroquois-class destroyer
• Kingston-class coastal defence vessel
• Nimitz-class aircraft carrier
• Protecteur-class auxiliary vessel
• List of Wickes class destroyers
• Wind class icebreaker

— Bellhalla (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Class boxes

What about List of naval ship classes in service which transcludes a number of templates in the same way as the ship box templates. Do we need these? Does the page need a total revamp? Woody (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Renaming proposal for Category:White Star Lines Big Four

There was a proposal made to rename Category:White Star Lines Big Four → Category:Big Four (White Star Line). The opinions of all editors are welcome at the category's entry at the Categories for Discussion page. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"Ship box Name" style templates nominated for deletion

110 templates of the form "Ship box name" (e.g. Template:Ship box CCGS Labrador) have been nominated for deletion. The full list of templates nominated is:

Nominated templates

1. Template:Ship box CCGS Labrador (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
2. Template:Ship box HMCS Algonquin (DDH 283) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
3. Template:Ship box HMCS Athabaskan (DDH 282) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
4. Template:Ship box HMCS Brandon (MM 710) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
5. Template:Ship box HMCS Calgary (FFH 335) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
6. Template:Ship box HMCS Charlottetown (FFH 339) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
7. Template:Ship box HMCS Edmonton (MM 703) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
8. Template:Ship box HMCS Fredericton (FFH 337) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
9. Template:Ship box HMCS Glace Bay (MM 701) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
10. Template:Ship box HMCS Goose Bay (MM 707) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
11. Template:Ship box HMCS Halifax (FFH 330) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
12. Template:Ship box HMCS Huron (DDH 281) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
13. Template:Ship box HMCS Iroquois (DDH 280) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
14. Template:Ship box HMCS Kingston (MM 700) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
15. Template:Ship box HMCS Moncton (MM 708) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
16. Template:Ship box HMCS Montréal (FFH 336) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
17. Template:Ship box HMCS Nanaimo (MM 702) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
18. Template:Ship box HMCS Ottawa (FFH 341) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
19. Template:Ship box HMCS Preserver (AOR 510) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
20. Template:Ship box HMCS Protecteur (AOR 509) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
21. Template:Ship box HMCS Regina (FFH 334) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
22. Template:Ship box HMCS Saskatoon (MM 709) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
23. Template:Ship box HMCS Shawinigan (MM 704) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
24. Template:Ship box HMCS St. John's (FFH 340) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
25. Template:Ship box HMCS Summerside (MM 711) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
26. Template:Ship box HMCS Toronto (FFH 333) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
27. Template:Ship box HMCS Vancouver (FFH 331) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
28. Template:Ship box HMCS Ville de Québec (FFH 332) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
29. Template:Ship box HMCS Whitehorse (MM 705) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
30. Template:Ship box HMCS Winnipeg (FFH 338) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
31. Template:Ship box HMCS Yellowknife (MM 706) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
32. Template:Ship box HMS Ark Royal (R07) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
33. Template:Ship box HMS Illustrious (R06) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
34. Template:Ship box HMS Invincible (R05) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
35. Template:Ship box USCGC Burton Island (WAGB-283) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
36. Template:Ship box USCGC Eastwind (WAGB-279) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
37. Template:Ship box USCGC Edisto (WAGB-284) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
38. Template:Ship box USCGC Northwind (WAGB-282) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
39. Template:Ship box USCGC Southwind (WAGB-280) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
40. Template:Ship box USCGC Staten Island (WAGB-278) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
41. Template:Ship box USCGC Westwind (WAGB-281) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
42. Template:Ship box USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
43. Template:Ship box USS Adder (SS-3) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
44. Template:Ship box USS Bell (DD-95) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
45. Template:Ship box USS Breese (DD-122) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
46. Template:Ship box USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
47. Template:Ship box USS Champlin (DD-104) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
48. Template:Ship box USS Chew (DD-106) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
49. Template:Ship box USS Colhoun (DD-85) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
50. Template:Ship box USS Crane (DD-109) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
51. Template:Ship box USS Dent (DD-116) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
52. Template:Ship box USS Dorsey (DD-117) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
53. Template:Ship box USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
54. Template:Ship box USS Dyer (DD-84) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
55. Template:Ship box USS Evans (DD-78) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
56. Template:Ship box USS Fairfax (DD-93) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
57. Template:Ship box USS Gamble (DD-123) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
58. Template:Ship box USS George H. W. Bush (CVN-77) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
59. Template:Ship box USS George Washington (CVN-73) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
60. Template:Ship box USS Grampus (SS-4) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
61. Template:Ship box USS Gregory (DD-82) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
62. Template:Ship box USS Gridley (DD-92) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
63. Template:Ship box USS Harding (DD-91) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
64. Template:Ship box USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
65. Template:Ship box USS Hart (DD-110) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
66. Template:Ship box USS Hazelwood (DD-107) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
67. Template:Ship box USS Ingraham (DD-111) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
68. Template:Ship box USS Israel (DD-98) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
69. Template:Ship box USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
70. Template:Ship box USS Kimberly (DD-80) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
71. Template:Ship box USS Lamberton (DD-119) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
72. Template:Ship box USS Lansdale (DD-101) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
73. Template:Ship box USS Lea (DD-118) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
74. Template:Ship box USS Little (DD-79) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
75. Template:Ship box USS Luce (DD-99) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
76. Template:Ship box USS Ludlow (DD-112) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
77. Template:Ship box USS Mahan (DD-102) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
78. Template:Ship box USS Maury (DD-100) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
79. Template:Ship box USS McKean (DD-90) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
80. Template:Ship box USS McKee (DD-87) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
81. Template:Ship box USS Moccasin (SS-5) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
82. Template:Ship box USS Montgomery (DD-121) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
83. Template:Ship box USS Mugford (DD-105) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
84. Template:Ship box USS Murray (DD-97) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
85. Template:Ship box USS Nimitz (CVN-68) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
86. Template:Ship box USS Philip (DD-76) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
87. Template:Ship box USS Pike (SS-6) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
88. Template:Ship box USS Plunger (SS-2) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
89. Template:Ship box USS Porpoise (SS-7) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
90. Template:Ship box USS Rathburne (DD-113) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
91. Template:Ship box USS Ringgold (DD-89) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
92. Template:Ship box USS Robinson (DD-88) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
93. Template:Ship box USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
94. Template:Ship box USS Schley (DD-103) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
95. Template:Ship box USS Shark (SS-8) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
96. Template:Ship box USS Sigourney (DD-81) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
97. Template:Ship box USS Stevens (DD-86) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
98. Template:Ship box USS Stribling (DD-96) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
99. Template:Ship box USS Stringham (DD-83) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
100. Template:Ship box USS T-1 (SS-52) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
101. Template:Ship box USS T-2 (SS-60) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
102. Template:Ship box USS T-3 (SS-61) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
103. Template:Ship box USS Talbot (DD-114) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
104. Template:Ship box USS Tattnall (DD-125) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
105. Template:Ship box USS Taylor (DD-94) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
106. Template:Ship box USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
107. Template:Ship box USS Waters (DD-115) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
108. Template:Ship box USS Wickes (DD-75) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
109. Template:Ship box USS Williams (DD-108) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
110. Template:Ship box USS Woolsey (DD-77) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All editors are welcome to comment at the templates' entry at Templates for Deletion — Bellhalla (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have closed it as they have to be preserved for GFDL reasons and redirected with {{R from merge}} attached. I have started this but have to go, any help in converting the pages would be much appreciated. Thanks. Woody (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

All done. :) — Bellhalla (talk) 05:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move

The MV Polarstern article has been requested to be moved to "RV Polarstern". Is RV a recognised ship prefix within this Wikiproject? Rationale for move is 9 hits on Google News vs 0 hits for MV Polarstern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs)

Yes, as far as I know, it stands for "Research Vessel". Parsecboy (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It is also listed as such in the ship prefix article. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 15:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Good topic nomination for "German Type U 66 submarine"

The articles German Type U 66 submarine, SM U-66, SM U-67, SM U-68, SM U-69, and SM U-70 are under consideration for Good Topic status. Interested editors may comment on the topic's entry at the Good Topic nominations page. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for U-5 class submarine (Austria-Hungary) now open

The A-Class review for U-5 class submarine (Austria-Hungary) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 18:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for USS Missouri (BB-63) now open

The peer review for USS Missouri (BB-63) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 23:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Ship Gun Fire Control Systems now open

The peer review for Ship Gun Fire Control Systems is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 23:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for U-20 class submarine now open

The A-Class review for U-20 class submarine is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 01:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Turtle ship

Hello. There is a long-going dispute on this page, whether the vessels featured iron armour or not. To solve the matter I recently asked User:Bradv for his Third Opinion. Following his suggestion, I then rewrote the section basing every single assertion on published references.

However, User:Melonbarmonster2 keeps on discussing me, instead of the contents (See Talk:Turtle ship#Roofing of the ships), and has repeatedly removed material without proper explanation. This is getting tiresome. His history shows IMHO that he confines most of his edits to the defense of perceived attacks on Korean history and culture. Whatever, I put a template on his talkpage, but he wants none of that. Since Bradv seems currently in WP holidays, I am turning to some fresh and uninvolved minds to take a look at the matter.

This is my version (section decking) . Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems like the topic hits a flat out zero on the general enthusiasm scale. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like the main problem is perhaps your interpretation of the sources versus another interpretation of the same sources. What is difficult here is that I've no access to the listed references so that I could read them myself. However, there shouldn't be an edit war over the content. It might be prudent to insert a disputed tag into the decking section and list all the differences of opinion on the talk page. --Brad (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Constitution rollback please.

I need a roll back on USS Constitution to this version. And if I could get rollback ability I won't have to bother anyone again. Thanks. --Brad (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You can just hit "edit" on the older version that you want, then save it (being sure to manually type in a reason). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but with all the warnings, air raid sirens and rifles pointing at you when trying to do so convinces you that you will explode the universe if you click the save button. Apparently there was some vandalism then right after that a bot attempted some corrections and then more vandalism. Rollback wouldn't have helped much in this case; thanks. --Brad (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have granted Brad Rollback. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Newly expanded article by new editor could use some help

I've stumbled across USS Compass Island (AG-153), which has been worked on by a new-ish editor Ffnbbs (talk · contribs). The article could use some help from an experienced editor of this project. Normally I would do the work, but right now I'm in the middle of working on getting USS Texas (BB-35) through an A-Class review ahead of an FAC. -MBK₀₀₄ 07:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I've had to revert all of this editor's edits to the article as they are perpetrating copy-vios of clear cut-and-paste. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Need review of user's edits

I need help with reviewing the edits of Magus732 (talk · contribs). I have tried to have a discussion with the user, but it has been one-way. Myself and others have repeatedly reverted his edits to ship articles for many reasons. I have had to resort to threatening a topic-ban and possible blocks. I would appreciate some back-up and hopefully help with educating this new user. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you please provide some diffs? It's hard to see what's going on from that editor's contribution history - especially as they're not using edit summaries. Nick-D (talk) 05:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Tugs and Coasters

I think that tugs and coasters are generally not usually notable enough for articles on Wikipedia. I've just completed the first of the Empire Ships lists. There are currenty nine vessels on that list which don't have articles - seven tugs and two coasters. What is the consensus for/against an article being created for each of the following?

Empire Ace

A 276 GRT tug was sunk in an air raid on Malta in 1942. Was repaired and returned to service. Ran aground in 1967 and declared a constructive total loss, scrapped in 1970.

Empire Aid

A 479 GRT tug which was built in 1943 and scrapped in 1967

Empire Alfred

A 242 GRT tug which was built in 1944 and scrapped in 1969.

Empire Andrew

A 138 GRT tug which was built in 1943 and scrapped in the early 1960s.

Empire Ann

A 232 GRT tug which was built in 1942 and scrapped in 1977.

Empire Ariel

A 192 GRT tug which was built in 1942 and converted to a barge in 1976.

Empire Ash

A 263 GRT tug which was built in 1941. Preserved at the Welsh Industrial and Maritime Museum in 1978. Scrapped in 1998, public outcry at scrapping. Questions asked at Select Committee level in parliament over scrapping.

Empire Atoll

A 692 GRT coaster which was built in 1941. The only refrigerated coaster built for Ministry of War Transport during the war. Ran aground off Morocco in 1970 and declared a constructive total loss.

Empire Audrey

A 657 GRT coaster which was built in 1943. Grouned in 1967 off Dutch coast. Although temporary repairs were carried out she was sold for scrapping in 1969.

My thoughts are that Empire Ace (sunk, ran aground), Empire Ash (controversy over scrapping), Empire Atoll (ran aground) and Empire Audrey (ran aground) are the most likely candidates to have sufficient notability for articles (subject to WP:V and WP:RS). I'd like to get some views on these, as it would help establish consensus on notability of smaller ships generally. Please use each subsection to vote for/against and article being created. Mjroots (talk) 08:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Rather than vote on each, Mj, I'll state I agree with your thoughts on all. Kablammo (talk) 10:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for that, Kablammo, but the more editors who comment the stronger case can be made for notability (or non-notability) for these smaller ships. Mjroots (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with your assessment as well. Parsecboy (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• I basically agree with the general trend, although I might be a bit tougher on some. Just looking down your list, small vessels with nothing special happening to them aren't going to make interesting articles. I would say, Ash (for your reasons) appears notable. Ace possibly for the air raid sinking, (but may be not for the grounding/loss). You might argue that Atoll is technically notable as the only refrigerated coaster built for the MoWT. If sources cover it there could be quite an interesting economic/logistics argument about the value of refrigerated coasters! I probably wouldn't believe that grounding made Audrey notable (as with Ace), but you could convince me otherwise depending on the specifics of the incidents. Of course if you wanted to, you could make an article about the Empire tugs and coasters and cover them all that way Viv Hamilton (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Empire Atoll is stated to be "the only war-built coaster fitted for the carriage of refrigerated cargoes" in The Empire Ships by Mitchell & Sawyer (p216). I propose to cover the non-notable ships in the relevant "List of Empire ships" by first letter of suffix, as I have done with List of Empire ships - A. Mjroots (talk) 05:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on this discussion, I will create articles for Empire Ace, Empire Ash and Empire Atoll. Am content for the others to be covered in the List of Empire ships - A, I may expand their entries there. Mjroots (talk) 09:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Flag icons for builders

A user has been adding flag icons to the builders' filed in several British carrier class and ship articles. In this particular diff, it seems very excessive, but at least in Britain's case, all its mainline carriers were build in the UK. I don't recall seeing the flags used to show the builder's nationality in other articles, but it does seem like overkill to me. Is this permitted? - BillCJ (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm can we get him to stop and wait until we've discussed this? Flag usage or not for builder nationalities should be standardised across all our infoboxes. As this would be a major undertaking across our thousands of articles, we should make sure there's consensus before this is implemented. Benea (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm against the use of flagicons for builders. They work quite well for port of registry/homeports. They work fairly well at the head of infoboxes when there is only one flag to display, but not so well when several infoboxes are used to indicate different flags a ship operated under. Mjroots (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have stopped adding flags to ships builders, until there is a consensus established on this matter. Perhaps if they were only added to ships built in a different country to the one in which a ship will enter service? Aidan Jennings (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Are we gonna have an RFC over this, or just gain the consensus on this talk page? If so, my !vote is oppose. Some ship companies are privately owned and have international elements. Plus I think there is a general "we hate those flags" movement on Wikipedia. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Saw a shed load of these being done on my watch list this evening, came within a whisker of reverting them all. Got to say I don't like to see flags plastered everywhere as they imply a nationalised ship building industry as opposed to private industry in the cases I saw. It seems misleading to me. Justin talk 01:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say that we shouldn't have flags for builders unless that builder is unambiguously associated with a particular country (read: it is nationalized), and even then I could be convinced that we don't need them. I don't think a RfC is needed either. Protonk (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• These flags aren't needed, as they amount to decorative icons, overemphasize nationality, and clutter the infoboxes unduly. --John (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Not trying to jump the gun here, but lets say the consensus is to oppose flag icons for ship builders, is it technically possible to revert all his edits? I mean without painstakingly going through each one, is there some quick admin shortcut or something? Ryan4314 (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There is, but I would probably revert them by hand and try to improve the articles at the same time. I wouldn't mass revert unless the edits seriously compromised the integrity of the articles; in this case they merely add clutter. I've already undone a few of his edits. --John (talk) 02:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If you have rollback and no one has edited the articles since he did, then it's easy, you can revert hundreds of edits in a second. (I'm sure it's also easy with AWB, but I don't know anything about that.) Politizer ^talk/_contribs 02:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted most (if not all) of them. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 02:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Project DYK update

With the additions today of Q-Flex and Q-Max, the number of articles listed at the Project "Did you know?" page is now up to 400, up from 300 in November 2008. Thanks and congratulations to all who have helped write and expand articles for the project. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments are invited and needed...

...here. Thanks, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Nathan F Cobb Shipwreck

Does anyone know of online information about the construction and sailing history of this ship? --Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Good topic nomination for "Yamato class battleships"

The articles Yamato-class battleship, Japanese battleship Yamato, Japanese battleship Musashi, and Japanese aircraft carrier Shinano are under consideration for Good Topic status. Interested editors may comment on the topic's entry at the Good Topic nominations page. — Bellhalla (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Cutch (ship) - article worthy?

I've just been going through Capt. Walbran's British Columbia Coast Names and coming across various refs; the Cutch was wrecked at Metlakatla Harbour, though how badly this ref doesn't say. Don't have anything else on it, and wouldn't know what the ship-designation is for US Coast Guard Vessels (USS or USCG or what?) but dropping mention of it here in case anyone would like to build it up to an article.Skookum1 (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how the Coast Guard question relates (the prefix is usually "USCGC"), but there's only one ship named Cutch that shows up at Miramar (link to ship record), a 324 GRT steamer built in 1884. The info shows that she was wrecked near Juneau, Alaska, in 1900. Historical newspaper archive searches show several incidental mentions of Cutch in relation to the Yukon Gold Rush and a brief mention of her running aground near Juneau in August 1900. The 1899 incident that provided the name of the rock doesn't seem to be mentioned. Not sure there's enough notability for an SS Cutch article. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You can always write the article in your sandbox. If it looks like it will make a decent article there then it's probably notable enough. Mjroots (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

A possible source here and another one here, and a third one here, looks like you may have an article! Mjroots (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Just found another one! Yahoo search for "cutch + ship"] Mjroots (talk) 05:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Metlakatla's not really all that near Juneau, but in continental terms I suppose it is (in the same way that Skagway is "near Sitka"); on the other hand the source I found didn't say it was wrecked at Metlakatla, only that it hit a rock there....Skookum1 (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It was wake-up hours when I came across the original ref, and didn't scan that "USS Co." meant Union Steamships Company rather than United States Ship...I'd say that it being a former yacht of the Maharajah of Cutch qualifies it as notable all by itself....but most Union Steamships vessels will find their way into Wikipedia, eventually....Skookum1 (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Good finds, mj. This is the sort of thing that makes Wikipedia so cool... — Bellhalla (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, at some point to go with other related lists adn templates, List of vessels serving the Inside Passage is de rigeur; many would also be in the Mosquito Fleet, steamboats of the Skeena, Yukon, Fraser, Columbia, even Sacramento; but only certain ones worked on the Inside Passage run (many used it but which were not regular) and I think "vessels" is needed because there were many famosu barges i.e. non-ships (riskly, that could include war canoes...).Skookum1 (talk) 04:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Comet (shipwreck)

I don't much like ship articles being disambiguated like this. A ship article is about a ship, not merely about how it ended up. I think this should be renamed "Comet (steamboat)" or something similar. Any comments? Gatoclass (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree, articles should be about the ship and named accordingly. Titles such as this should only be used if the article is exclusively about the wreck, and has been split from article about the ship. Mjroots (talk) 07:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the incorrect title. I redirected the article to Comet (steamboat). I am new to Wikipedia so please help me out if I didn't get it right. --Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a C&P move, I've reverted the redirect, and flagged the destination to be deleted to enable article move. Can an admin please deal. Mjroots (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

On it...Parsecboy (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, looks like User:Nancy beat me to it. Parsecboy (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for the rescue. --Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ships notability guidelines

I think that this subject has now been fully discussed, and project members are broadly agreed about notability now. Is it now the time to move the proposed guidelines into the Wikiproject? Mjroots (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

There are still some parts that appear contradictory (in regard to commissioned vessels, for example), and some parts that still seem too prescriptive. Perhaps this notice will spur some more comment on how this can be improved. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. The more editors who contribute the better the consensus will be. Mjroots (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Timeline for aircraft carrier service now open

The peer review for Timeline for aircraft carrier service is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 21:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for USS New Jersey (BB-62) now open

The peer review for USS New Jersey (BB-62) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 21:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Braunschweig class battleship now open

The peer review for Braunschweig class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 21:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for SM U-66 now open

The A-Class review for SM U-66 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 22:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Earlier HMS Virago

Please see "Virago Sound". BC Geographical Names. re an earlier Virago in the waters off BC in the 1850s...the earliest Virago on that page now has the dab 1895.....Skookum1 (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Your Virago was a wooden paddle sloop launched in 1842, and broken up in 1876. - HMS Virago (1842). Benea (talk) 02:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Operation: Trailblazer

After a straw poll on the matter I have initiated the FT nom for the Iowa-class battleships. Since this project stands to gain its first featured topic if this nom passes I am leaving this message here to inform you of the nom's opening and to offer anyone instersted a chance to chip on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

For convenience, the featured topic discussion is here — Bellhalla (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! (sorry to fly off the handle like that, but its my first FT ;-) TomStar81 (Talk) 21:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Good topic nomination for "U-27 class submarines"

The following articles:

• U-27 class submarine (Austria-Hungary)
• SM U-27 (Austria-Hungary)
• SM U-28 (Austria-Hungary)
• SM U-29 (Austria-Hungary)
• SM U-30 (Austria-Hungary)
• SM U-31 (Austria-Hungary)
• SM U-32 (Austria-Hungary)
• SM U-40 (Austria-Hungary)
• SM U-41 (Austria-Hungary)

are under consideration for Good Topic status. Interested editors may comment on the topic's entry at the Good Topic nominations page. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Two proposed category renames

There is an active proposal to rename the categories World War I Mediterranean shipwrecks and World War II Mediterranean shipwrecks. All interested editors are welcome to comment at this proposal's entry at the categories for discussion page. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

HBC ship Dryad, 1833

Please see Talk:HMS Dryad.Skookum1 (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied. Benea (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Two SHIPS articles on main page

USS Connecticut (BB-18) is today's featured article, and Brazilian battleship Minas Gerais is the lead DYK (the one with a picture meaning that it will probably get the most views). Eyes on those two would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You're forgetting French battleship Danton (1909) which is in the In the News section, so there are three on the Main Page, and all three are battleships! -MBK₀₀₄ 00:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

and MV Kerlogue is lead DYK on Portal:Ireland -- ClemMcGann (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Very nearly our first Trifecta! --Kralizec! (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Good topic nomination for "U-43 class submarines"

The following articles:

• U-43 class submarine (Austria-Hungary)
• SM U-43
• SM U-47

are under consideration for Good Topic status. Interested editors may comment on the topic's entry at the Good Topic nominations page. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Design 1047 battlecruiser now open

The A-Class review for Design 1047 battlecruiser is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Categories and templates

Would it be useful for individual ships to be categorised by the shipyard that built them? For example, those built by Lithgows would be in Category:Ships built by Lithgows. Alternatively would a template do the job better - or both?

Another matter that needs discussion is the {{Empire ships}} template. There were some 1,370 MoWT ships that bore the "Empire" prefix. I'd appreciate more input on the template's talk page re my suggestion to split by first letter of suffix, then arrange by ship type within the template.

Date format

Chris the speller has been turning up on my watchlist lately making changes to the date format like this. He argues that he is converting articles on American ships to American date format, but I'm not entirely sure this is correct. For one thing, DANFS itself does not use this so-called US date format. For another, adding a comma to infoboxes is a waste of space and looks redundant to me. Anyone have a view on this? Gatoclass (talk) 05:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

US Military uses the dmy format, revert the changes since it is codified in the MOS: Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Strong_national_ties_to_a_topic. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've warned him that he is against the MOS and asked him to revert his own edits. If he refuses, I'll do it myself and if he continues, issue a block. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks MBK :) But for the record, what about US commercial vessels? Is it normal practice to use dmy or mdy, or either? And do we really need commas in infoboxes? They just seem redundant to me. Gatoclass (talk) 12:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I personally use the d-m-y format for articles I write, even for commercial vessels. FWIW, I've never had anyone object at a GA, A-Class, or FA review about "un-American" dates for ships. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I prefer d-m-y too, but if an article is in m-d-y format I'll use that. Doesn't it say somewhere that the date format used by the first major contributor should be followed? Mjroots (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does say that, MJ. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Although it should be noted that strong ties between a date format and a subject override the "first user" rule. -- saberwyn 06:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Gatoclass, et all, I've received a reply from Chris the speller that you may be interested in: [1]. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, it sounds as if he is only temporarily halting his campaign while we have this discussion. Can we establish a consensus that ship articles will use dmy? That might be the easiest way to go. Gatoclass (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd support it. If its good enough for the US Navy, its good enough for Wikipedia. -- saberwyn 06:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I support dmy too. Mjroots (talk) 06:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

HMS Virago (1842)

Please read "Virago Sound" at this page and see Talk:HMS Virago.Skookum1 (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Uss spearhead

Uss spearhead is noted as being owned and operated by the US Army. However, the reference is using the prefix of USS. I'm not sure what would be actually correct but there is no listing for spearhead in the NVR. The Army calls it a TSV (Theater Service Vessel) so perhaps a TSV prefix would be warranted. Otherwise I couldn't find anything to use as a precedent. --Brad (talk) 03:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Google searches indicate that the more proper (official, even?) name would be USAV Spearhead (TSV-X1) so I have moved it there. Regardless of its final name, at least, the name will be properly capitalized. I'm not convinced, though, that this isn't HSV-X1 Joint Venture under a former/later name… — Bellhalla (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for snooping around. I wonder if USAT might be just as applicable since T = Transport which this ship obviously does. It's good for now anyway. --Brad (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

According to this normally reliable website, HSV-X1 Joint Venture has only sailed under the names HSC Incat 050 (pre-Joint Venture) and HSC Manannan (post-Joint Venture). — Kjet (talk · contribs) 13:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I knew you'd have the answer to a ferry-related question, Kjet. :) — Bellhalla (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Always. :D (Well, almost anyway). — Kjet (talk · contribs) 16:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Clarification to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)

A proposed clarification to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Ships that changed name or nationality is under discussion here. More participants for the discussion would be highly appriciated. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 16:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

RFA Empire Gull (LST3513)

Was this ship a RFA ship? The info I have is that she was built as LST 3523, then became HMS Trouncer (pennant number ??) and then SS Empire Gull in 1968 for the Board of Trade. Mjroots (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Found another source which gives a fuller history. She was a RFA ship from 1970. Still need the pennant number though. Mjroots (talk) 07:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

She retained the LST number as the pennant number L3513 per this and this (the L indicating a landing support ship). Other evidence is that the title of the file File:Empire gull 1977 Marchwood.jpg seems to indicate depicting her in 1977, and there is the number 'L3513' on her side, also visible on photos here. Benea (talk) 07:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, 1 number difference (yawn, its still early). Yes, I've noticed the Empire source is not as complete as it ought to be in some cases. Don't rely on it too thoroughly. Benea (talk) 07:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded the article a bit, but still can't find a pennant number for Trouncer. It's a bit confusing that she was LST 3523 and later carried pennant number L3513! As with all articles, the more sources the better. Mjroots (talk)

A-Class review for SM UB-45 now open

The A-Class review for SM UB-45 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 20:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

New template for use in infoboxes

I've finally gotten around to setting up a template for better conversions of ship endurance figures, typically given in the form distance @ speed. I've always felt that using Template:Convert for endurance conversions was very klunky:

• {{convert|1510|nmi|km}} @ {{convert|25|knots|km/h}} → 1,510 nautical miles (2,800 km) @ 25 knots (46 km/h)

With the new template it looks like this:

• {{endurance|1510|nmi|km|25|knots|km/h}} → 1,510 nautical miles @ 25 knots (2,800 km @ 46 km/h)

Details on usage, syntax, units supported, etc., can be found at Template:Endurance. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks more sensible to me :) Gatoclass (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Not wanting to be picky, but is there any good reason

for not using the word "at" instead of "@"?. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the new format. I would suggest the name be convert_endurance or convert (endurance), etc., to sort similar templates together. Saintrain (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

@GraemeLeggett: I've seen endurance figures presented both ways (as @ and at). My thoughts were that in an infobox, the "@" is (slightly) more concise and gives a clear visual break from the two components.

@Saintrain: I have no problem with a name change. I like Template:Convert endurance best. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"Convert endurance" is a bit long to type though. Wouldn't just "cnv endurance" or something be sufficient? Gatoclass (talk) 09:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the suggestion to have it appear alphabetically near {{convert}}, but if moved, "endurance" would still work as a redirect (and would be what I'd actually type in). — Bellhalla (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

MV Morion

I'm in a disagreement with another editor about the Morion disambig page. The main info on MV Morion is found on the page the the link redirects to. User:Rogerb67 is of the opinion that the link should go to the article about the ship type instead, claiming that MOS:DAB enforces this. I originally linked to both articles, but if only one is to be linked, my opinion is that WP:IAR applies and that the link should go to the list. Comments please on the talk page of the dab. Mjroots (talk) 05:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think Roger is right. It's very counterintuitive to hit a link called "MV Morion" and find yourself at a page called "List of Empire ships - F". In fact I'd probably go further and add something like "See List_of_Empire_ships_-_F#Empire_Fang" To help people find the exact ship. Gatoclass (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The main info about the ship is found at the list article. Reason for this is that I'm not sure that such a small ship is notable enough to justify its own article, but is sufficiently notable for inclusion in said list. Apparently there is justification for a redirected link on the dab page. Mjroots (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've changed MV Morion to redirect directly to List of Empire ships - F#Empire Fang, and noted the Empire name on the Morion dab page to help make the transition better. A question though: was there a specific class of vessel called the "Empire F type"? (If not, the wording at the Morion dab page needs to be changed to avoid that impression.) — Bellhalla (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. I looked more closely at List of Empire ships - F and see that there was, indeed, a class of that type. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest that all of the redirects to List of Empire ships - F for individual ships be linked to the appropriate section, like the example above for Empire Fang? WikiProject Redirect would also be pleased if you tag them with {{R to section}} at the same time. And it wouldn't hurt things to note in a comment within List of Empire ships - F that there is a section redirect. (See List of Empire ships - F#Empire Fang for an example.) — Bellhalla (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've amended all redirects so that they go to the relevant section. I've not added the edit notes though. Mjroots (talk) 06:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Notes like that are optional, but they do help let future editors know that renaming a section heading will break a redirect. Considering the scope of this article, renaming the sections is probably not going to happen... — Bellhalla (talk) 12:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

New navy page

...with an ambiguous title it seems. The article Naval Force has recently been created as a reasonable hive off from Military of Lithuania. My guess is the title it ought to be at is Lithuanian Navy (currently a long standing redirect with history), following the approach demonstrated at Category:Navies by country. A search of their military's website suggests 'Lithuanian Navy' is a standard English equivalent. Naval Force could then probably do with being redirected to the general Navy article. Does this sound reasonable? Benea (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Concur. I'd recommend a hist merge too, as the edit dates are so far apart. Since "Naval Force" is ambiguous, it should probably be deleted, or redirected to Navy. Also, the Military of Lithuania article needs some work, including removing the aircraf of the air force and navy equipment tables as redundant. I haven't dealt with that page before, so I don't know if POVers/SPAs would object. - BillCJ (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Spirit of Mystery due to arrive in Australia soon

The Spirit of Mystery is less than 1,000 nautical miles from the end of her journey to Australia. Are there any members in Australia who would be able to get some photographs of her arrival there? The only photo on Geograph is too distant a view to be useable. Mjroots (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I cross-posted your message at WT:AUSTRALIA to see if any non-ship people can help. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that :) Mjroots (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Admin page move

Could an admin move HMS Eurydice (1841) (the year of her order) to HMS Eurydice (1843) (the year of her launching) per our guidelines? A redirect with history currently prevents the move. Thanks, Benea (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done Parsecboy (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Japanese battleship Haruna now open

The A-Class review for Japanese battleship Haruna is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 05:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request on my talk page, I added the ships project to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. I can also get provide the full data for any project covered by the bot if requested, though I normally don't keep it for much longer than a week after the list is generated. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 06:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Quedagh Merchant

Hello, I expanded this article from a stub, and this being my first venture into Wiki Ships, (normally exclusively baseball), and I would love it if the people of this fine WikiProject could scour over the new article and review for any errors, things that could better, the proper infobox, etc. I want to promote this to GA status. Thanks !Neonblak ^talk - 02:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Amagi class battlecruiser now open

The A-Class review for Amagi class battlecruiser is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 05:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Project scope question

I'm seeing a lot of pleasure boat manufacturers—like Malibu Boats, and Sea Ray, to name a couple—being tagged with the WikiProject Ships banner. My feeling is that because pleasure boats are generally not within our scope, that pleasure boat manufacturers would similarly be out of scope (although I'd entertain arguments for a yacht company that built, say, minesweepers or something like that). Anyone else have opinions on the matter? — Bellhalla (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think these would be better listed under WP:Business. Mjroots (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Likely that was my doing. There are some yachts under our scope presently such as the hundreds that were converted to WWI patrol boats. I thought they should belong to something nautical and I gave them Low importance. --Brad (talk) 12:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

Just a reminder that you aren't giving any link to the Article alert pages (found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Article alerts) from you projects' mainpage, losing pretty much all benefits of the subscription. You could also remove the display=none parameter from the {{ArticleAlertbotSubscription}} template at the bottom of your project's homepage..Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I added it to the task template on the main page. Wasn't even aware we were subscribed to this. --Brad (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Nassau class battleship now open

The A-Class review for Nassau class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 21:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

List of Liberty ships: G-Je

Article seems to be the same as List of Liberty ships: Je-L. According to the List of Liberty ships the list should be (was at?) List of Liberty ships: G-L which is now a redirect. Mjroots (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)  Done The issue has been resolved. Mjroots (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Privateers

I'm looking to build a page for the Defence, an American War of Independence privateer. It's become more famous as a shipwreck than as a ship, but I have a book about it coming in the mail this week and I'm unsure how to name the article. Should I use just Defence (ship), United States privateer Defence, or some other combination? And, do these go into Category:American Revolution ships of the United States or are they considered flagless and so need to be in a new/different category? JRP (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Defence (ship) would probably be fine. For an example of another American privateer, look at Prince de Neufchatel; it's in the "US ships of the War of 1812" category, so I would think the Defence should go into the corresponding category for the Revolutionary War. Teazer and Young Teazer are more examples from the War of 1812. Reaper (schooner) is another privateer, and is disambiguated by the specific type of ship it is; maybe that would be a better option for Defence. I hope that helps. Parsecboy (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for SM UB-43 now open

The A-Class review for SM UB-43 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 19:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

B6

What is B6 on Template:WikiProject Ships? It's not on the quality scale... —Ed 17 ^{User talk:the_ed17(Talk / Contribs)} 09:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

First I've heard of it. It ain't on the B class list. Maybe a bit of subtle vandalism? :-/ Mjroots (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I just removed the b6 criteria. We never planned on using it but one editor seems to enjoy pushing an agenda. --Brad (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Australian light destroyer project now open

The peer review for Australian light destroyer project is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 23:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The name of the physical document that evidences a military commission

I moved this from Commissioning Scroll to Commission Warrant, which I now agree was an error. Should it go straight back or have a different title? Your input welcomed at Talk:Commission warrant Petecarney (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

open poll at poop deck

There's an open poll going on over 2 years now at talk:poop deck. I think that's somewhat long... and it's more or less split down the middle on opinions, so can some people comment and then someone else close it? 76.66.193.90 (talk) 12:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have gone so far as to call that a poll, more a way to let people be silly without affecting the article. Still, I'll close it. Shimgray | talk | 12:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

...and done. Now, hopefully, we can forget we ever discussed that! Shimgray | talk | 12:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

HMS Swordfish

An editor has been changing the figures shown on the length and beam of the First World War era HMS Swordfish (1916). He claims that he actually has the dockyard prints and they state that she was 76ft long, with a beam of 7ft. That seems odd since that's basically a large midget submarine, and this was a ship built to take a steam engine originally built for HMS Nautilus, which topped out at over 250 ft long. Both Colledge and Conway's state the length was roughly 230ft by 23ft on the beam. Since that's pretty close to 76 by 7 m, I assumed that he had calculated the figures wrong, but now he's insisting he's correct. Conway's page is here for comparison. Both sources give a displacement of over 930 tons surfaced, making a claim of 76 by 7 ft even more incredible in my mind. Conway's even has a picture of her, with about 2 dozen men walking about on her hull. But how does this tie with the alleged dockyard blueprints? Does anyone have any more sources? Benea (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If the user in question is referring to the scale running beneath the profile of the submarine on the drawings (which runs to 76) that refers to the frame number I believe and not the length. My two cents. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 23:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll see your two cents and raise you two. I'm no naval engineer, but after looking at the image (which I linked above... just needs a colon in front like a link to a category) I agree that the number is far more likely to be the frame numbers, not the measurements in feet. -- saberwyn 23:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Very plausible! Trouble is he's started taking out information that doesn't fit with his theory that it's the length (as here). Benea (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The length overall is given right under the word "KEEL" in "FIXED KEEL". Kablammo (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I had thought that the sub looked nothing like either 250 or 76 ft. The loa as given on the drawing is 148' and a somewhat indistinguishable fraction - "overall". --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 00:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Could this image actually be for another submarine designated S1? The British S class submarine (1914) is 148 ft 1.5 in, and the lead ship of this class was HMS S1 (which is currently a redlink). -- saberwyn 00:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The copies of the plans for Swordfish were printed in Sam Willis's recent book Fighting Ships 1850-1950. The ones currently claimed to be Swordfish are quite different to the submarine shown in the book. I think we've hit on the answer, this is another type of submarine entirely! Benea (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Archibald in The Metal Fighting Ship in the Royal Navy gives length as 231 1/4'. It also says Swordfish was "later S1". Jane's however shows in a table No. 1 of type ' "S" Fiat S.G. type ', dated 1913. Kablammo (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The print linked above shows it is "as fitted" and has a "received" date in 1914. Kablammo (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

One more note: Fiat provided Diesel engines for Diesel-electric subs for Italian F-class subs during the war; (OR warning!) the apparatus in the center of the hull in this drawing appears to be a straight-six block, and the cross-section shows two main engines and an oil cooler; there is no evidence of any steam cylinders and pistons. Kablammo (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Archibald shows subs S1, S2, and S3, all 1914-15, 148', Diesel-electric, all sold to Italy in 1916. p. 187. That is the same page where Swordfish appears as a separate vessel. We have our match, and the print is of S1, not Swordfish. Kablammo (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2) Okay, we've solved Harlsbottom's problem... these plans are not for HMS Swordfish, but are for the completely different HMS S1. However, we still need to solve Caswellsubs' problem where the sub in the plan appears to be 76 ft, instead of the 230 ft of Swordfish or the 148 ft plus change of S1. I'm trying to think where Caswellsubs got the 76 ft figure from. If its the scale running along the bottom of the profile, I'm even more certain than before that this marks the frame numbers than provides a scale of measurement..best evidence fot that is looking at marks 58-60 on the scale. If it was a measurment, the unnumbered mark for 59 should be halfway in between, instead of being much closer to 58 than 60. On the other hand, the 1/2 inch = 1 foot scale of the plans might be where the figure is coming from. -- saberwyn 01:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The frame numbers (although not labeled as such) also appear below the transverse cross-sections of the hull across the bottom. Kablammo (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(Caswellsubs (talk) 10:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)) Gents. My apologies for altering this too many times. I'm really new at this stuff and am having a hard time with making these submissions. I have a lot of plans and photos of submarines and simply wanted to share them, however, this is taking me far too long to get the hang of Wiki. If there is anyone who can add this stuff for me, I'll gladly pass over the material to more qualified people. I have a forum for submarine model makers with some very experience people who continually feed me with information that I can pass on. (Caswellsubs (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)) I have spoken with my local submarine expert and he has suggested that the linear marks are actual measurements, and have nothing to do with frames. Frames are not set on a submarine in any constant measurement. I seriously doubt that any Englishman in the 1910 era would have used metres as a measurement, and so therefore, maybe the numbers refer to yards? The bow of the boat's plan has copier smudging, and I cleaned it up to the best of my ability to determine the actual bow measurement, however I could easily have been a few feet out, which would get us much closer to your estimates of 230 feet.

I agree that it would be a good match if this was Swordfish as you originally thought, but we know now that this is HMS S1, and therefore 148 ft 1.5 in long, not 231 ft. The yards explanation doesn't fit, and I'm not too sure we can discount the frame or section numbering. Benea (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are some dimensions which are legible and useful, principally those for the watertight doors on the transverse sections. But the most compelling figure is the clearly-labeled length overall. The figures under the hull do seem to correlate to frames, and as mentioned above, there is a difference in unit length between these numbers, not only fore, but aft as well. These plans (and any more you have) are however a valuable addition to Wikipedia, especially as photographs are scarce. Please add more, if you have them. We can hope that other vessels sharing an era do not (confusingly) bear the same name or number. Kablammo (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

United States Navy ships / United States Naval Ship articles

United States Navy ships and United States Naval Ship are two articles sort of floating around not sure what to do with themselves. Both are acting like lists when there are other lists already done. I left a post here asking for some input on the matter. Comments would be appreciated. --Brad (talk) 07:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that the current content of United States Navy ships should be farmed out to the relevant sublists of List of United States Navy ships and the title redirected as a plausible search term. Similarly, most of the content of United States Naval Ship should be added (if necessary) to List of Military Sealift Command ships. As you say above, these articles are duplicating other list articles elsewhere on Wikipedia.

The next step would be to restructure United States Ship (which currently redirects to United States Navy ships) and United States Naval Ship as articles about the USS and USNS terms/designations, respectively. Something similar to the Her Majesty's Ship article and related articles for Commonwealth Navy ship prefixes might give these articles a reason to be. -- saberwyn 11:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There is also Ship prefix to add into the mix. Otherwise I will begin cleaning up the others. --Brad (talk) 05:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

SS Schomberg

Please would somebody change this from redirect to article? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the best thing would be to delete the redirect until an article can be written? — Bellhalla (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Or possibly change the redirect from Schomberg to Shipwreck Coast, as that seems to be the only article with any content related to SS Schomberg. In any case SS Schomberg redirecting into Schomberg doesn't really make any sense as there's nothing actually related to the ship on the latter page. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 16:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)