Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

Date format in ship articles

I notice Chris the speller recently changed the dates in a USN ship article from ddmmyyyy to mmddyyyy. I thought we had a guideline which states this is a no-no but can't see it in the guidelines, does anyone know where it is and if it hasn't been added, isn't it about time we did so? Gatoclass (talk) 10:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm just about to head to bed, but my sleepy brain wants to say that since American practice is mmddyyyy, shouldn't that be used for American ships? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm in the same state (tired-wise) as Master Bush above, but the US military uses ddmmyyyy, so we've adopted that for our US military maritime articles. Should that be noted at WP:SHIPMOS and WP:MILMOS? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily true. When I was in the navy, dates were very often rendered in YrMonDa format. Also, see USS Wenatchee (YTB-808) at NVR. YYYY-MM-DD for numerical renderings, DD MONTH YYYY in the text (WP:DATESNO 4th & 6th bullet points). Numerical renderings of dates should not normally (if ever) appear in article text.

--Trappist the monk (talk) 14:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Man I am getting sick of this laptop keyboard, now it's eating my posts! I believe in previous discussions we have agreed that ddmmyyyy should be used universally in ship articles. Certainly we should have a consistent format for infoboxes IMO. Once we've made a decision, it should obviously be added to SHIPMOS and MILMOS per ed to avoid confusion. Gatoclass (talk) 10:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Whenever I've seen it discussed, DMY for US Military articles falls under the second bullet point under "strong national ties to a topic" in the WP:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, which states "Sometimes the customary format differs from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern US military use day before month, in accordance with military usage". -- saberwyn 11:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If we use ddmmyyyy for non-US ship articles, and ddmmyyyy for US military ship articles, that only leaves mmddyyyy for US non-mil ship articles. Wouldn't it just be easier and more consistent to adopt ddmmyyyy for everything? Gatoclass (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't overlook "modern" in the guideline for "articles on the modern US military". If you look up "modern military", it generally refers to World War II and later. This is about when dmy dates began to prevail in the US military. The articles I have changed were not on ships from that period. When you say "Wouldn't it just be easier", I get the feeling that there is more concern for the editors in this group than the readers in general. Americans in general use mdy dates, so why make them read the other format in articles about Old Ironsides and Monitor, when even the crews of those ships did not use dmy format? Chris the speller ^yack 12:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I think having one format for US military articles from one era and another one for a different era would be even more baffling for the reader. But in general I agree with your comments on consistency. I'm not particularly concerned what formats are adopted as long as they are consistent. I will however repeat that I think ddmmyyyy should be adopted universally in infoboxes, because infoboxes require brevity and adding extraneous commas is not helpful and also looks rather strange IMO when the months are abbreviated as they usually are. Gatoclass (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with Chris, with MOSNUM, and with US style guides. - Dank (push to talk) 13:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

@Chris the speller: Link to your 'guideline for "articles on the modern US military"' reference?

The date format that was in use while any particular ship was in service is irrelevant. Old Ironsides is an "old" navy ship still in commission in the "modern" navy. What date format applies to her article? It is likewise irrelevant what date format the military services of any nation use or used at any particular time. This is en.wikipedia.com. The issue of date formats is a here-and-now issue that applies to WP articles written and read in the here-and-now.

I think that Americans are more clever than you seem to credit them. They can and do understand that 17 November 2011 is the same as November 17, 2011. And, not only Americans read articles on en.wikipedia.com. What about Australians? British? Canadians? New Zealanders? South Africans?

Articles here should use date formats that are easily understood by readers of any nation in the here-and-now. Date formats should be consistent throughout the encyclopedia - not just in this project. Readers should not have to pause to decipher dates like 11-09-10. So, no numerically rendered dates in article text; numerically rendered dates, if they must be used in infoboxes and the like, shall be YYYY-MM-DD format; full dates are DD Month YYYY where month is normally spelled out - three letter month abbreviations allowed when necessary (no periods: Nov not Nov.). Of course, dates in quoted text must keep the format in which they were originally rendered.

--Trappist the monk (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Trappist, it's WP:STRONGNAT (at MOSNUM) that says "articles on the modern US military". I tend to avoid arguments about dates, since the various proponents tend to attack the question with a zeal that would make jihadists blush, but please let me know if people start discussing a change to STRONGNAT. - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't want to get drawn into an unwinnable war (on either side) about technical righteousness; what position will cause least controversy/drama? (Bearing in mind that simple clear boundaries are helpful) bobrayner (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no intention of debating WP:STRONGNAT here. I will simply observe that the WP:STRONGNAT guideline is a triumph of equivocation over specificity. The second bullet point simply makes a statement that, in and of itself, isn't much of a guideline:

• Sometimes the customary format differs from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern US military use day before month, in accordance with military usage.

To which the natural question arises: what does that really mean? (I'm not going to attempt to answer that.)

So here is perhaps a more important question: Do WikiProject Ships guidelines supersede WP:MOS guidelines? I would suggest that they must. If in fact they do then decisions taken here and properly documented in WikiProject Ships/Guidelines govern all articles in the project. I think that this would provide something of what bobrayner wants.

--Trappist the monk (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything in Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines about date formats. - Dank (push to talk) 16:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Right, you don't. That was my point. If Wikiproject Ships wants to establish standards for date style to be used in the Project's articles, the Project simply needs to determine what those standards are and publish them in Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines. Once published there, those standards supersede the standards contained with WP:MOS. Am I making sense?

--Trappist the monk (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Project guidelines can't or at least shouldn't go against Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Project guidelines can have more specifics than the Wikipedia ones though. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing particularly nautical about dates, so I'm wary of the concept that a handful of people in one wikiproject could choose to overrule a guideline set by the broader community. That is a recipe for drama when people subsequently start changing dates from one standard to the other... bobrayner (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

@Fnlayson: Agreed. I'm not suggesting that the Project make up some heretofore unused date format and declare it to be the only format used in the Project's articles. I am suggesting that to avoid debates like this one in future, the Project should establish what the date format(s) shall be in articles under its purview, and then DOCUMENT that decision in Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines.

@bobrayner: If the Project does nothing, then this discussion will eventually die. But, eventually it will become undead and be a plague upon us all in future. I for one, would like to settle the matter rather than see it repeat again and again and again ad nauseum.

--Trappist the monk (talk) 14:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The choice of date format is basically down to the original author of the article. There should be no changing of date format without discussion via the talk page and consensus being reached. My personal preference is ddmmyyyy, but I can live with mmddyyyy if that is what the original author chose to use. On the other hand, yyyymmdd is not an acceptable method of giving a date IMHO. Mjroots (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the choice of date format is basically down to the original author, unless the article has "strong ties to a particular English-speaking country" (from WP:STRONGNAT). So the first author can choose a date format for French ironclad Gloire, but not for HMS Hood or USS Iowa. Changing the format for the last two does not require a discussion. That's what guidelines are for. Chris the speller ^yack 22:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

This really needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis. Some of the Empire ships spent much of their career under the American Flag. As they are all linked by a strong tie to a British topic, I've been creating the articles in British English to mainain a consistent style across the topic. IMHO, this is better than a mish-mash of different styles on English across the topic.

Um, wait, don't the French have a preferred date format? I would think they do, in which case we should use that.

As for the larger question, quite frankly I've always found the anomalous day-month-year format for US military articles was always more trouble than it was worth and the most consistent method would be to simply adopt month-day-year across all US articles, military or not. However I reiterate that I still think day-month-year is the best format for infoboxes due to space constraints, regardless of subject nationality. Gatoclass (talk) 09:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

@Mjroots: If the Project establishes and publishes a date format to be used in articles within the Project's purview, no determination is required, there is no debate, there is no drama. As you note, many ships have careers under multiple flags. I would venture to guess that some proportion of them had longer careers under non-English speaking countries. WP:STRONGNAT doesn't address this issue. Another reason for the Project to establish and publish style guidelines that are clearly particular to the Project.

@Gatoclass: Umm, the last time I looked, the French weren't "... a particular English-speaking country."

--Trappist the monk (talk) 14:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not my fault the policy is Anglocentric. I'm simply saying that I think French related articles should use the format preferred by the French. Otherwise we end up with inconsistency from one French ship article to another. As you yourself note, there are omissions in the general guidelines that we would do well to address here at Wikiships. Gatoclass (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm always open to suggestions for how we can make the English Wikipedia more appealing or accessible to non-native speakers, on points where native-speaking Wikipedians and English-language style guides seem to allow some flexibility. I haven't noticed a lot of flexibility on date formats. - Dank (push to talk) 15:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to bend over backwards to accommodate Francophone readers' date preferences, and it's no one's "fault the policy is Anglocentric." This is en.wikipedia, and the French have fr.wikipedia. Next, you'll be trying to overturn the style guide that instructs us to change guillemets to quotes? Chris the speller ^yack 15:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Mjroots, Chris' and others. I was told sometime back to use dd/mm/yy in ships articles and went along with it, however it's best not to insist on any 'one-size-suits-all' format, as there are thousands of articles and many many editors involved. Both date formats work. If an issue doesn't involve a policy violation and doesn't compromise the readers, insisting on it is not only sort of arrogant, it creates an atmosphere of unfriendliness, which in turn will discourage contributions in general. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how you can "agree with Chris" on such grounds when it is Chris who is making changes to articles' date formats. Regardless, I think we need a resolution of these issues, because without a resolution we will just be revisiting these same issues at a later date. Gatoclass (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind arguments of the form "it's obvious, can't you see?" ... that's kind of a standard argumentative style on Wikipedia and elsewhere ... but just so we're clear, it's far from obvious how to figure out exactly which articles are connected much more strongly to the US than any other country and aren't "modern US military". Chris suggests WWII as a cutoff; I'm not sure, but I don't really see a cutoff there in WP articles. OTOH, I do believe that if we could get consensus on those two points, STRONGNAT would allow changing the date format to m/d/y ... but it's probably a bad idea to make any kind of change to dates in an automated fashion. Arbcom is pretty exasperated over date issues. - Dank (push to talk) 17:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Gato' I articulated the grounds on which I agree with, not just Chris, but others as well. As I said, both dates work, and I now use dd/mm/yy myself, however, if you want to try to impose your one size fits all view on and chase after all the editors who don't fall in line with your particular view that is your perogative. IMO trying to establish a "resolution" on such a minor issue that has no bearing on the readers is just asking for trouble. -- Dank, indeed, I can well understand why Arbcom is exasperated over date issues. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit break)

@Chris the speller and Gwillhickers: Umm, I'm the one who is attempting to persuade Project participants to establish a date rendering standard for articles within the Project, not Gatoclass. All he has done, I think, is to agree with me that the issue needs to be addressed and put to bed so that we don't revisit it again and again as surely we will if we don't take action. So, please, slings and arrows in this direction.

I am --Trappist the monk (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: I wasn't attempting to lay "blame". It was my intent to point out that the quoted guideline from WP:STRONGNAT doesn't anticipate this issue. What I meant and what I wrote did not match and I failed to make my point. I apologize.

--Trappist the monk (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Trappist, even if the few editors here in this forum arrive at an agreement, and that doesn't look like it's happening, there are still all the editors who use, and will continue to use, different date formats. Both date formats work just fine. I was asked to use dd/mm/yy and went along, but at the same time I am not going to chase after those who chose to use a different format. That would be a never ending task. Look at the length of this thread. -- Again, if there is no policy violations, no incivility and the readers are not effected, I say let it rest and move on to contributing to the readers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

If we go way back in time and read my 14:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC) post, I think that we will see that I think that it is as much about the reader as it is the editor. Yes, of late my posts have taken a decided tilt toward urging the Project to take a stronger stand on date rendering than the "guidance" provided by WP:STRONGNAT. In part, the reason that this thread is so long is largely due to the equivocal wording of "guidelines" like WP:STRONGNAT. There is so much room for interpretation in many guidelines that it is easy for editors to read into them what they want to read from them. Yeah, that is a product of the "least commonly offensive wording" that comes from having so many cooks making the sausage. Of course, another explanation for the thread's length is my tendency to voice my opinion.

Twice now you've said "I was told/asked to use dd/mm/yy and went along". Who told you? Perhaps whomever it was can come in here, take charge, and tell the rest of us what to do and tell us to get on with it. Then this conversation can come to an end and not become the zombie topic I fear it will if we don't smite it with resolute and manly firmness.

--Trappist the monk (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no issue about voicing an opinion, and I sincerely respect your pursuit of an issue you feel is important, but given the number of editors who use the different date formats, it won't matter much what the few of us here at Ships' agree on. Since both formats work, and neither confuse the readers, this is perhaps a matter that needs no resolution. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Hull number

Does anyone mind if I write "hull number 39" instead of "hull classification symbol BB-39"? The latter is the title of the relevant page, but I'm getting 5 times as many hits for the former, and on top of that, the hits for the former generally seem to be relevant, whereas most of the first 20 hits on the latter seem to be in or copied from Wikipedia. I also want to be as tight and informal as possible (without sacrificing accuracy of course). - Dank (push to talk) 16:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, corrected "hull code" to "hull number". - Dank (push to talk) 20:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I have seen the term "hull number" term used to refer to something akin to a manufacturer's serial number. An example. Clearly different from "hull classification symbol". And did you mean to change your first post from BB-39 to simply 39?

--Trappist the monk (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's how it's used in the BB-39 article at the moment: "The keel of battleship hull number 39 was laid on the morning of ...". FWIW, of the first 30 Google hits (that aren't about boats), only the two about the "Titanic curse" mention a serial-like "hull number" on a ship; the others all refer to numbers under 200, usually prefixed by letters. - Dank (push to talk) 21:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure "hull number" is the WP:COMMONNAME for this. But beware WP:ENGVAR; the "hull number"/"hull classification symbol" is called "Pennant number" in most of the rest of the world... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. On second thought, since the "39" wasn't painted yet when the keel was laid, I'll revert myself so that it's just "battleship number 39." - Dank (push to talk) 22:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That works too - although it could trip things up when the numbering gets reset as it was in some ship types...! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Are we getting confused here? Hull number could refer to a United States Maritime Commission hull number, but it could also refer to a yard number (which is akin to a manufacturer's serial number). These are entirely different to pennant numbers. Mjroots (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The "Hull number" being referred to here is the Hull classification symbol (i.e. BB, DD, etc.) which is the U.S. equivilant of a pennant number. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Category discussion

A discussion about category names that might be of interest to the project is here and here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• The discussion, particularly the objections, raise a question people in this project might ponder. Where do ship enthusiasts here get too far into Wikipedia practices and customs vice real world practice? Objections in those comments center on my proposed naval accuracy as not being in conformance to a Wikipedia standard that is conflicting with the actual classification and usage of the ship class in question. Categorizing a ship class only at its top naval classification is neither accurate nor particularly helpful to either editors or others dealing with ships moving from one classification or ship class to another. In general a ship was a member of a class with an original and perhaps redefined classification and some ships may convert and leave a class to form or join a new class. For example, take the case of the USS Boxer that was an Essex class CV and became a Boxer class LPH Amphibious Assault Ship (Helicopter) that included her old Essex classmates USS Princeton (CV-37) and USS Valley Forge (CV-45). The referenced discussion came about because I proposed matching a ship class/category including a classification in Wikipedia with the Navy’s real world classification system. The specific examples are of little importance beyond a possible additional and very minor "class" page. In my opinion it has a wider significance regarding the accuracy of how USN nomenclature is treated and used here. The tiny and in reality insignificant naval classes specifically involved are two batches of Army mine planters that were transferred to the Navy during and after WW II. The first, the Chimo class actually had some naval usage. The other, the Camanche class was pretty much an immediate dead end. Both were classified by Navy as ACM with the official definition of Auxiliary Mine Layer as can be verified by both DANFS and the Naval Vessel Register. The second group to transfer, the dead end Camanche class, lived on in the Navy list (though rusting away in reserve fleets) long enough to become classified as MMA, Minelayer, Auxiliary. That reclassification came about in a general cleaning up of the Navy’s classification system and is indicative of the problem I see in the categories in question. If you look at the reclassification of mine vessels and consider the hierarchy of “mine vessels” under which we have “layers” and “sweepers” you will see a pattern emerging (Navy has one, though some of the letters used can be shrouded in mists of heritage as “V” for fixed wing in CV) in the classification designations and definition: M for mine warfare vessel, M for laying or S for sweeping followed by the third designator for particular subgroups. Thus MMC is Minelayer, Coastal; MMD is Minelayer, Fast (and every one was an ex DD); MMF is Minelayer, Fleet; while MSF is Minesweeper, Fleet; MSO is Minesweeper, Ocean and so on. With respect to editors using categories for grouping it makes sense to have a category for the modern and old classifications, i.e., Category=mine vessels; Category=mine laying/Category=mine sweeping and then very specific categories for the ship classes based on lead ship name. Thus my argument that Chimo class, of which every one was an ACM Auxiliary Mine Layer and nothing else, or Camanche class, of which every one was first an ACM and later reclassified into the more standardized sequence as Minelayer, Auxiliary MMA, should be brought in line with the official classification. As for the Chimo and Camanche groups they had so little USN importance that their main interest is the Army and, in the case of most Chimo class, the Coast Guard context. The point worth some pondering among ship people here is whether general accuracy in naval nomenclature is important or whether we will just make it up as we go and the ramifications of that to the accurate grouping of ships. My editing interest here is very limited and specific so I’ll pretty much leave that pondering and further discussion, if any, to those more active. Palmeira (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Palmeria, I believe most of us share some of your reservations about the inconsistencies of WP policy, etc. IMO it is certainly in need of some improvements, reforms even. Yes, the CATegories may not adequately represent real life issues regarding the way some ships are identified but we must remember that if we were to be that exacting about assigning CAT's to every ship (and other items) we would need (very) many more and hence be overwhelmed with CAT's, and the purpose of a CAT is to group and sort large numbers of like subjects. If there are a number of other similar ships that merit such a CAT then we (you) should gather them up and bring the CAT issue to the table again. Meanwhile there must be other distinctions that will place the ships you so very well referred to in other categories. At the risk of sounding patronizing, I am impressed with your depth of knowledge and your well written message above -- it almost has enough information to fill a page article. WP needs more writers like yourself. Don't give up the ship! -- So you're a map maker aye? If there is one thing WP is in need of it's better and more maps. Esp battle maps. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The chief issue I am seeing is perhaps differing levels of detail too closely linked. As with the USS Boxer example one can see ship classes as used by Navy are just one step up from individual ships; somewhat as species in biological classification. Meanwhile the functional classification is often two levels up, a sort of genus, and may include a number of ship classes. By attaching the functional description to ship classes we can begin really mixing levels so that functional groupings get crazy. At least in the USS Boxer example the various specific classifications remained essentially "aircraft carrier" until it changed drastically in function to LPH. I would support a general "aircraft carrier" for all those gyrations as Navy tried to standardize functional terminology and types during the 1950s in particular. For grouping a "cat:Boxer class aircraft carrier" and "cat:Boxer class Amphibious Assault Ship (Helicopter)" probably makes sense for logical grouping without going crazy in subgroups. One of the objectors to the quick process appeared to think CVE, the WW II Escort Aircraft Carrier, should just be lumped with aircraft carriers. There things get crazy because in design, size, general appearance and, most importantly capability and function, the escort carriers were very different breeds of cats. Yeah, housecats and jaguars are both obviously cats, but nothing similar in that capability and function thing. There we get to my issue with the ex-USAMP ships that became ACMs. If you know them you know they are as different from "minelayers" in usual naval capability and function as housecats and jaguars. The were designed to plant mines, not lay them, and in the Chimo conversion they got no real minelaying capability. What the appeared to get was a minesweeping capability in addition to the existing over the side davits of USAMP days. The latecomers, the Camanche class, to Navy were not even converted and all but one just went into backwater piers to await disposal. So, yes, topside in naval terms they were mine warfare vessels, minelayers (by naval decree even if rather silly) and explicitly a truly different and almost exclusive little group classiffied as "Auxiliary Mine Layer/Minelayer, Auxiliary". If we are grouping that small and odd bunch dropping the "auxiliary" is very much like dropping "escort" from those commercial hulls quickly diverted to the CVE function of carrying a few planes to cover the black holes in mid ocean where U-Boats had happytimes. I would argue that adding specific functional classification to ship classes as categories needs to be made to facilitate logical grouping and not just be a grab bag of class/classification made by people without a lot of examination of those factors. Got other irons in the fire, including some bits of completely unrelated ship history stuff, so maybe the group can have some fun trying to rationalize the class/function grouping issue to be more useful. Palmeira (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

There's actually one solution to the example I see with Boxer here - I presume there's a USS Boxer LPH-## redirect out there? Categorise it with the other LPHs - categorising redirects can be done and works wonders for that. And I never said I thought escort carriers should be lumped in with aircraft carriers - you raised that as a comparison and I explicitly said I did not believe that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Seeking a plurality...

...is the plural form of "landing platform dock" (LSD) "landing platform docks", "landing platform dock ships", or "dock landing ships"? I've seen all three used... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

We're in trouble when military brass start inventing phrases. In the case of "landing ship tank" ... this isn't Hebrew or German where you can just string nouns randomly together, and the traditional solution is to call them LSTs rather than ... whatever the godawful plural of "landing ship tank" would be. LSDs suffer from being more modern and having an unfortunate acronym ... so I have no idea. - Dank (push to talk) 15:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I agree - it's just that, in class categories, I've seen all three of the originally mentioned plurlisations used - "LSTs" would be awkward in them, unfortunatly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

In the Dock landing ship article, is: Landing Ship (Dock) as a synonym. Makes some sense because the initialism LSD matches the words. Plural then is Landing Ships (Dock).

--Trappist the monk (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

That sounds workable, I think... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Bingo Trappist the monk! Even in the military's jargon the plural goes on the main noun rather than secondary descriptors. Palmeira (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

While standardisation can be a good thing, have you checked as to whether this is what the navies in question, and other sources actually term these vessels? I've flagged up a more common name, and one used by the navy in question, for one such class here for example. These sources, [1], [2], [3], might suggest that the Canberra class amphibious assault ships were better titled as Canberra class landing helicopter docks? Benea (talk) 11:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Aside from "landing helicopter dock" being an awkward contraption, especially when trying to pluralise it, other ship types of this sort - the Tarawa, Wasp, Mistral and Dodko classes - all are at "amphibious assualt ships". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Awkward perhaps, but we don't use plurals in class article titles. If the navy, and the articles that report on these ships, use different terms, who are we to engage in OR by coming up with our own invented terms for these classes? The other examples you give are all operated by different navies. WP:COMMONNAME should take precedent over a standardisation drive. Benea (talk) 11:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

But we do use them in category titles...which is what got me poking around this mess. I agree if there's a WP:COMMONNAME it should be used though, awkward or not. (Hmm. "landing helicopter dock ships" would be a workable cat title I guess...). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Moved it to that name. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for USS Arizona (BB-39) now open

The featured article candidacy for USS Arizona (BB-39) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Nick-D has a number of concerns. People often treat FAC (and sometimes A-class) as if it's off-limits, but any points that any of you want to make about how to structure articles, what to include or omit, and how to say things will be just as welcome at FAC or A-class as they would be on this page. It's up to the whole community to decide what a featured article about a ship is supposed to look like. - Dank (push to talk) 14:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

French Ships enthusiasts

Anyone familiar and/or interested in French ships might want to look into the botch job that recently occurred (June'11) on the List of French steam frigates page. Click on the links and see where they take you. Almost all of them are bunk and link up to pages that have nothing to do with ships. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I've thrown a fast and dirty set of dabs at it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Including "French frogate Asmodée (1841)"? Rich Farmbrough, 14:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC).

There's no problem with L'Asmodée, launched at Rochefort 20 October 1841, and one of the thirteen 450HP paddle frigates built by the French Navy. Rif Winfield (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I was just chuckling at this typo. Rich Farmbrough, 11:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC).

But surely the outstanding example is the (apparently still unnoticed) French frigate French frigate? Those ever-so literal and unimaginative French! Benea (talk) 11:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Cursed fingers! ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for HMS Vanguard (23) needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for HMS Vanguard (23); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

MilHist A-class reviewers urgently needed for the articles on HMS Temeraire (1798) and HMS Vanguard (23)

The A class reviews for these two warships are currently due to be closed in the next few days as not successful due, in the main part, to a lack of reviewers. It would be great to avoid this outcome, so any and all reviews at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Temeraire (1798) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Vanguard (23) would be fantastic. If the reason for the lack of reviews is concerns that the articles aren't up to A-class standard I'm sure that User:Benea and User:Sturmvogel 66 would appreciate your comments and suggestions rather than not really knowing why their nominations didn't pass. Nick-D (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Letter of marque v Privateer

I was recently told that using both the terms Privateer and Letter of marque is redundant, (e.g. 'A Privateer acting under Letter of marque...) however in the various sources these terms are both used on the same page. For example, in John William Norie's The naval gazetteer' ..., p.259 (and the other listed pages) he refers to some vessels as Privateers and others as Letter of marque, so now I am wondering why he just doesn't use one term or the other. We know that Privateer refers to the vessel, while the Letter of marque refers to its authorization to capture given ships and that sometimes the vessel is simply referred to as a Letter of marque, but this still doesn't explain why both terms are used in the same page. Apparently some privateers acted with just the understanding that it was 'open season' on a given country's ships, while those referred to as a Letter of marque had the actual written authorization, again, apparently.
Also, in the WP Privateer article in the Legal framework section both terms are used in the same sentence. Need clarification. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the best way to put it is that 'all letters of marque are privateers, but not all privateers are letters of marque'. Sometimes in ye olden days of wooden ships and iron men, 'letter of marque' referred not just to the contract authorising the ship and its caption to act against a nations enemies (which all privateers had, elsewise, they were pirates), but also to the ship itself - which I think, in general, refers to a larger ship than your run-of-the-mill privateer.

tl;dr: Call them all privateers and you won't go wrong. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, a letter of marque is a document issued to an individual person providing him immunity from prosecution by the state on whose behalf it was issued for acts carried out upon the high seas; whereas privateer refers to an armed ship that is not operated by a navy of a particular state, but by an individual captain. Mjroots (talk) 08:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes the ships are referred to as letters of marque as well though - which muddies the water. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Rif Winfield has also offered some interesting info on his talk page as well. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Cymric (schooner)

new, the ship which collided with a tram Lugnad (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

DANFS a primary source?

If Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships is using naval records as the source for the historical accounts they offer, and since this is a naval institution itself, wouldn't this be considered a primary source and a 'no-no' for use as a citation here at WP? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It's long-established practice that DANFS is a useable source. There's even a template to use when citing from it - {{cite DANFS}}. Mjroots (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The primary sources would have been the ship's logbooks themselves. While using them as a source, DANFS entries are considered secondary sources because they are one step away from the events they are discussing. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Ed is correct; it'd only be a primary source if the author of the ship's article was a crew member during the events s/he is writing about and s/he included her/his personal experiences. Parsecboy (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I suspected as much. Sounds good to me. Just checking as a short time ago someone referred to J.F.Cooper's works as a primary source since he was in the navy and used naval records as sources also. I also use works by Mackenzie and T. Roosevelt as sources, both of whom were in the navy and who also draw heavily on naval records and letters for their material. Good to know. Thanks! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

In any event, primary sources are not banned. They cannot be used to establish notability, and should not be used uncritically. We should actively resist any attempt to extend these restrictions further. Dankarl (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Templates for discussion

Need more "discussion" on the two templates below. Brad (talk) 11:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Ship Wreck Location

Template:Infobox Ship Wreck Location has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Brad (talk) 05:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Ship Wreck Event

Template:Infobox Ship Wreck Event has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Brad (talk) 05:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for HMS New Zealand (1911) now open

The featured article candidacy for HMS New Zealand (1911) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

new infobox ship template

... has been created - Template:Infobox ship builder. Does anyone have an opinion on this, I'm not 100% sure myself, but its already started to appear on ship articles. Benea (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a bit much information as I expect anybody's who's really interested in the location of, say, Wallsend, to just click on it. I see about three extra lines of not real useful information lengthening the already long infobox.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

My initial impression is "why do we need this?" I see at least one problem - that of over categorisation. MV Port Fairy is now in the categories Category:Ships built in the United Kingdom, Category:Tyne-built ships and Category:Wallsend-built ships. If these were not automatically generated, I would remove the first two as supercats. See Wikipedia:Categorization - "Each article should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C." Shem (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see much need for it. We shouldn't be trying to cram as much information as possible into the infobox. Shem makes a good point about over-categorization. Parsecboy (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I concur with the over-categorisation comments. It also makes the whole infoboxship/begin, already quite complicated as it incorporates three nested templates, even more so. If we have one subtemplate for build location, could we also not have them for other fields, which would make a difficult situation more so? The only advantage I can see is that it automatically adds the build location cat, and even this is problematic since it now forces them to be over-categorised. It also compels a user to put in as much information as possible, all the way down to the country, which seems excessive detail for an infobox. Given that the vast majority of these ship articles already had the appropriate build cat, that it is routinely added in passing if it is missing, and that it would be far easier on encountering an article without one to simply add it rather than making all these changes to the existing infobox, then I don't see it as solving any problem. Benea (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any use for this template as typing the same information manually with proper wikilinks and choosing a suitable category takes only couple of minutes. Also, I think the yard number is defined incorrectly. Or perhaps not. Tupsumato (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see this new infobox as really simplifying anything - if anything, it makes things even more convoluted by having a template embedded in a template that's already embedded in another template. I see this new infobox as moving in the wrong direction. The articles using Template:Infobox ship builder should be migrated over to using the standard Template:Infobox ship begin format. If there are any elements in the new infobox that are of use to the project, and consensus exists to add those elements, then the current infobox should be updated to include them - but creating a new template for this is added unneeded complexity to an already large template structure. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The other problem I can see is that when the name of a city is entered for which no category exists (like Dover), the article will automatically be categorised in a non-existent category, like Category:Dover-built ships. This is fine while User:JonEastham is using his own template, but once it gets into the wild, or when other editors edit his work, there will be problems, and many (most?) editors won't be able to fix a red link category if it's automatically generated. On the whole, I think this is a bad idea, although I'd like to hear the case from JonEastham. Shem (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems as though much of the information contained in the info box could/should be covered in the text, esp when it gets into the historical aspects. i.e.Commanders, battles, etc. Sometimes there is so much 'data' listed that the box projects down into the page considerably. Or how about making the 'General characteristics' section of the box collapsible? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

(EC) the template is a solution for a problem that doesn't exist, but seems to create its own issues. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem I attempted to solve with this template was to standardise the display and categorisation of ship articles to include both categories for the location built, and the builder of the ship. The latter being the primary purpose when I set out to create the template. The original plan was to automatically add the articles to a Category for ship built by sorted by Yard number (I've since decided it's probably better to not sort by yard number as very few articles contain the yard number.) I do agree about the over-information in the infobox, the location being perhaps a bit too specific, but this will be a problem no matter whether there is a template or not. I believe the location needs to be defined for the builder as shipyards move, but builders don't, builders can have multiple shipyards etc, the template at least prompts the user for what information is suitable. With regards de-cluttering the fields, more than happy for someone who knows how, to re-write the template to drop certain items when all fields are completed. I couldn't workout what criteria to use that suited all situations (ie, defining the city when the region is Western Australia helps narrow it down to where the location actually is, but defining the city when the region is as small as a UK county may not be necessary.) I considered having both the country and then lowest denominator (either city or region) for the categories. With regards red-linked categories, I don't think that should be much of an issue. Any user can define a category on an article but not tie that new category into an existing category structure. There must be someway of highlighting these in a similar way to the New Article feed. If the consensus is not to use the template then I'd instead suggest including some aspects into {{Infobox ship career}} instead of a sub-template. JonEastham (talk) 18:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't see the value in the added categories - and even if I did, using the template to accomplish this appears to go contrary to WP:TEMPLATECAT.

For the text inserted into the template, as I said above, I would support adding any elements which gain consensus into the primary Template:Infobox ship begin template, so as to avoid the added clutter of an additional sub-template. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Barek has brought up a killer fact; for good reasons WP:TEMPLATECAT says we should not using this functionality to automatically generate categories. As far as I can see, that's the purpose of Template:Infobox ship builder, and if that's the case, I would ask JonEastham to undo his changes as soon as convenient. Shem (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted the template at JonEastham's request.  —SMALLJIM  11:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

infobox ship wreck templates

• {{Infobox Ship Wreck Event}}
• {{Infobox Ship Wreck Location}}

They were created 2 years ago and I didn't feel like starting drama over them. Since the topic of "add a box" is now being discussed I thought I would throw these into the ring. My personal thoughts are that some of the parameters could be transferred over to "ship begin" or whatever. Brad (talk) 03:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Anybody? Mr. Parker? Mr. Lewis? Brad (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm indifferent on their standalone use within a "ship wreck only" article. As for using with and/or integrating into the ship infobox, I think its complete overkill: almost everything of relevance would be covered in the lead section text if it was important. About the only fields that I see as of use are "ship discovered when" and "ship position" from the Locatopn template, although the latter is/should be redundant to coordinates appering in the top right corner of the article. -- saberwyn 19:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, we don't need this in the infobox. A summary in the 'fate' section is enough. 'Wrecked on [date]', then the details in the text. Benea (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm with saberwyn (and following ec - Benea), my position on the subject is almost identical - existing fields in the ship infobox setup can accomodate the info. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

"Shipwreck" is one word. Roger (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

About 50 articles are using the templates. Should the information be moved elsewhere in the article before deleting the template? I don't know what would happen otherwise. Brad (talk) 23:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Renewed discussion move here -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Ship Wreck Location

Template:Infobox Ship Wreck Location has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Brad (talk) 05:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Ship Wreck Event

Template:Infobox Ship Wreck Event has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Brad (talk) 05:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Tons Burthen cannot be given metric equivalents

I'm sure many editors do know this, but I think I need to make a general point to people writing articles on sailing warships. I have just noticed that the person who constructed the articles on the 1706, 1719 and 1745 Establishments (and I suspect there may be other articles with the same fault) has given what purports to be metric tonnage equivalents for the tons burthen. Apologies to those of you are already aware of this, but I think we need to spread the word that tons burthen (used for all ships of the sailing era, although the calculation varied from one nation to another) are units of measurement and not units of weight (so reference to "long tons" is also an error) and there are no metric equivalents. It was only with the introduction of displacement tons during the 19th Century that tons acquired the meaning of tons weight. Shem and I have between us corrected the particular three articles cited above, but there may mean that a number of other articles which need to be corrected. Rif Winfield (talk) 09:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Is it some kind of size measurement, like volume or length? Tons, feet, meters, etc are all units of measure, btw. -Fnlayson (talk) 11:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

[Burthen. The idea of "tons burthen" has its own history (Which Rif will know and I don't). But basically is is a measurement of carrying capacity not a measurement of weight, displacement or dimension. The Land (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, that makes sense. The Tons part could still be converted to metric, but it is still a Burthen measure (cargo carrying capacity). -Fnlayson (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me make it clearer, then. A burthen ton is a unit of spacial capacity, and nothing whatsoever to do with weight. The actual calculation for burthen tonnage (the standard measurement for all ships during the sailing era) varied slightly from country to country, and also changed over time, but for the Royal Navy between 1650 and 1850 (approx) it was calculated by multiplying the length of the keel (in feet) by the maximum breadth (inside the wales, also in feet), and then multiplied again by half the maximum breadth (inside the wales, also in feet), with the product then divided by a factor of 94 (other divisors were used at earlier periods, and in other countries). The 'tons' part cannot be converted to metric (I suppose in theory one could convert units of 94 cubic feet into their metric equivalent in cubic metres, but the result would be absolutely meaningless).

I have been horrified to find a considerable number of entries in wikitables purportedly listing "Tons burthen" and then quoting a figure in "long tons". Clearly the author did not understand the nature of burthen tonnage, and every one of such entries is going to have to be changed! 'Long tons' - which are units of weight - have nothing whatsoever to do with burthen tonnage. Rif Winfield (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I reckon I'd be safe in saying, most people (including me) don't have a clue. Rif, can you give us a couple of examples of how such information should be formatted, both in the infobox and in the prose itself? It'd be good to know for the infobox field guide I'm slowly assembling, and I'm sure there's somewhere else we can put it (WP:SHIPS style guidelines?) to point out errors in the future. -- saberwyn 02:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. The first point is the one made above, that no attempt should be made to try to give a "metric equivalent" of the burthen tonnage - it's not possible and would in any case be entirely meaningless. The second point is that the actual burthen tonnage can always be verified mathematically by using the calculation I quoted above, using the keel length and the beam as recorded. An additional point is that there were always slight differences between the design dimensions (and burthen tonnage) of a wooden-hulled ship, and the as-built dimensions (and from those the burthen tonnage) which were actually measured following the launch of a vessel; this was in the nature of wooden construction; wooden beams tend to warp slightly when used under stress in construction (the best Master Shipwrights tried to allow for this in their calculations, but most ships turned out an inch or so different from the designed dimensions (particularly as regards their breadth/beam).

The examples I would quote for good practice are the infoboxes for any of the RN Sixth Rate 28-gun frigates (1750 to 1790), which have all been recently amended to show a correct format. You will note that these do not simply quote a burthen tonnage rounded off to the nearest whole ton (as is done in most secondary sources), but a more exact tonnage to the nearest 1/94th fraction of a ton, which is what the Navy Board actually had measured and recorded. If you need further help, please email me on sailing.navy@btinternet.com or leave a message on my user:talk page (User_talk:Rif_Winfield). Rif Winfield (talk) 08:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I raised this same subject a while back and it was agreed, but nothing happened. Rif Winfield is 100% right regarding the spurious metric conversions. First we need to decide what the correct format should be, then make a request for a 'bot' to automatically update the 1000+ incorrect pages. The title 'Tons burthen' is itself an ugly construction synonymous with 'Tons tonnage'. We could use just 'Burthen' when builders measure is the only tonnage value likely to be available or we could standardise on 'Tonnage' which has the advantage that it is not an archaic term and that different tonnage measures can be combined on the same line, for example: Tonnage 368 71/94 bm, 435 GRT. Petecarney (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I got a little carried away with my conversions back then! I hadn't realised the significance of the term at the time, but yes it is obviously nonsense to try and convert them to metric. Martocticvs (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleting Templates and their info?

Re:Templates nominated for deletion

The correct link is : Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 November 13#Template:Infobox Ship Wreck Location 70.24.248.23 (talk) 04:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

(Discussion segment from above moved here: (copy-paste)}

About 50 articles are using the templates. Should the information be moved elsewhere in the article before deleting the template? I don't know what would happen otherwise. Brad (talk) 23:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, by all means, the information should be saved. It's always nice to consolidate and stream-line the system -- but it would be unethical to wipe out all the time, effort and good faith contributions just to delete a template that is not casing any issues with the readers. They should always be our number one concern. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, the editors who have elected to delete the two templates should be the ones who will take on the task of moving the information in those templates to 'ship begin' and body of text, and if the spirit moves them, providing citations should any item need it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I can participate to some degree in the upcoming days, but do we have agreement regarding the issue (i.e. should we start moving the information now or only after further discussion and votes for deletion)? Tupsumato (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

We have at least four votes to delete. We might want to notify at least a couple of users who have used this template just to get their votes and to help in the transfer of the info, esp since they might be knowledgeable of any citations that may be involved. Since user Brad has initiated this project you might want to confer with him also. A list of the pages that use the templates in question would be helpful to the task at hand. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on the progress of the deletion voting and this discussion. As for the lists, can't we just use this and this list to see where the two templates have been used? Tupsumato (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Those lists are fine. Looking into some of the ships that used these templates I can see there is a lot of info that will have to be, not only moved, but worked into the text, as it seems much of it can not simply be placed within the confines of 'ship begin'. Having said that, we may have second thoughts about this project. It's always easy to take an editor's axe to something, quite another matter to preserve the content involved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

This issue isn't worth the amount of drama being assigned to it. Templates will not be deleted until they no longer have any articles attached to them. Brad (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Since it was you who nominated the templates for deletion and then asked if the info should be moved I believe the "drama" was called for. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 12:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for German battleship Tirpitz now open

The featured article candidacy for German battleship Tirpitz is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 02:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Moving 'Shipwreck' info to body of text

Okay, I just took a stab at one ship, Lindus (1881), moving info from Infobox Ship Wreck Event and Infobox Ship Wreck Location and writing it up in the section Shipwrecked, as there doesn't seem to be anywhere in 'Ship begin' to put this stuff, not unless you want to cram it all into 'fate' or 'notes'. This info seems better placed in the text. Have removed those templates from page. This info was and remains uncited. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The process of moving info from the two 'shipwreck' templates is underway by at least two editors so far. Will make any needed fixes/improvements and when possible, provide any needed citations, as we(?) go along. Remaining articles using these templates can be checked here: Ship Wreck Event -- Ship Wreck Location
-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I've done at least 25 of these out of the 50 that were present. Jump in anytime. Brad (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, here today -- gone today. Looks like we can take those templates off the map now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

James Postlethwaite

An Arklow schooner, new article, similar to Cymric (schooner). Please assess. Lugnad (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice piece of writing, Lugnad. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - much appreciated - I intended it to compliment the story of Cymric (schooner). I will then revisit Mary B Mitchell. For now, I'm leaving latter schooners with auxillary motor (called 'the iron topsail') like MV Tyrronall (I don't like MV on a schooner). I might look at other ww2 arklow schooners, but their stories are less eventful than the three already done. I might just do a list. Lugnad (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, Tyronall had been dismasted by the time she served under that name. Hence the title is correct. Mjroots (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. It is correct. It is just me. I just think its sad. rather like WP:JDLI. Lugnad (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Serving aboard a Q-Ship must have been quite unnerving -- going out to sea as a decoy 'asking' to be fire upon by Uboats. Hope they had a good exit strategy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No doubt it was. Usually Q-ships had their hold filled with cheap Canadian lumber, so that even if they were holed many times, they would not sink. Three Arklow schooners were requisitioned to be Q-ships in WWI. There were colourful accounts of sinking U-boats and medals were awarded. However checking U-boat records, post-war, did not support these reports. Exaggerations are a feature of war. So the “service history” paragraph of Mary B Mitchell is a little too prominent. With the benefit of post war analysis, those three Q-ships only sank one sub – unfortunately it was an own goal. Q-ship history is badly tarnished by Baralong Incidents. Lugnad (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Wonder if we can trust the Uboat accounts. A history professor of mine once said that history is largely written by the victors of war and therefore is wholely exaggerated and must be scrutinized with this in mind. The professed axiom in of itself seemed a bit exaggerated so I had to ask how so would the accounts be if they were only written by the losers of war. -- i.e.there are no guarantees. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Truth is the first casualty in war. However, the Baralong incident was not from U-boat sources as none of them lived to tell any tale. Initially it was from American mule drovers. (Mules were used to carry supplies to the WWI trenches). A friend of mine, Gerry O’Neill knew William Craig who was third mate on the Nicosian. Gerry has published this story www.lulu.com/product/paperback/favourable-winds/2184262 I will quote from his intro: I was shipmates with a very old Chief Steward whose cabin was close to mine. Sometimes at night I would hear nightmarish shrieks and Bill would emerge bathed in sweat and trembling with terror. I learned that Bill had been one of the crew on the “Nicosian” when the slaughter took place and he eventually recounted the tale to me.

One instance when a uboat commander definitely told a Q-ship lie, was the incident of the Irish Oak. It is a WW2 story. Wolf Jeschonnek, of U-607 sank the Irish Oak. He claimed she was a Q-ship with false Irish markings, sailing at night without lights, zigzagging, and travelling at fourteen knots, although she appeared capable of barely half that speed; and that she opened fire on him. But, on the previous day von Witzendorff of U-650 had followed the Irish Oak for some hours and was satisfied that she was neutral, unarmed, sailing straight along 38°N parallel (the neutral corridor) with full lights. German records are somewhat circumspect, but it may be that the two came to blows. There was a German enquiry, which concluded it ought not to have happened, but could be attributed to an understandable mistake by an eager captain. Curiously, Wolf Jeschonnek repeated his Q-ship story to Allied interrogators after he was captured. Lugnad (talk) 01:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating stuff, Lugnad. Keep up the good writing and citing, it's what WP surely needs more of. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Glad that you like it - there is lots more, however wp:imar can be a lonely place Lugnad (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposals

Two merge proposals needing comment at Talk:Kasuga Maru and Talk:Japanese aircraft carrier Chūyō. Thanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The three ships of that escort carrier class were converted from troopships from liners. Did the liner/troopship have a class name? Were there other ships of that liner class? 76.65.128.198 (talk) 08:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Change to Template:Infobox ship career

I was surprised to see that this change was made to Template:Infobox ship career without any apparent discussion first. It makes the country name in the infobox small, and I can't see that it's an improvement. Perhaps I missed the discussion? 88.111.28.236 (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any discussion and I don't like the change.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Neither do I. Tupsumato (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I concur - and have undone it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Ship's mail

Postmark from USS Texas during interwar period.

Aboard each US naval ship (other countries too) there is a 'post office' which often times consists of nothing more than the desk of the postmaster/officer in charge, a postmarking device and a mail bag. Mail and postmarks from these ships is widely collected among, not just stamp collectors, but history and ship buffs (like me). Most of the postmarks are somewhat common, some are scarce while others are rare and quite valuable. i.e.finding a postmark of the USS Arizona (sunk at Pearl) is a challenge; finding one with the date 'Dec. 7 1941' is a real challenge, and if you ever find one tucked away in an old book hang on to it, it is quite valuable as there are only a couple of these known in existence. Dates from ships during various battles are also widely sought. Anyway, this sort of gets into stamp/postal history stuff, but I just included this image (from my collection) to the USS Texas page. Don't know if it really helps you to understand the ship any better other than to inform the reader that there was a post office aboard each ship and just to give one an example of the mail sent from sailors while serving aboard the vessel. If you feel the image is not appropriate, well, go ahead and remove it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Titanic on film and TV

Template:Titanic on film and TV has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Brad (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Titanic memorials

Template:Titanic memorials has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Brad (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Old Weather project

Hello -

I am working on a crowd sourcing project, Old Weather, involving WWI Royal Navy ships' logs (with US Navy logs to come, I think). The project's primary focus is to record the weather data from these logs, however, we also transcribe the narrative logs as well. In the course of this effort, my fellow transcribers and I have discovered information in the logs that can be used to correct or update Wiki articles, for example, please see the article on Cadmus class sloops or HMS Aphis (1915). After much discussion about the use of the logs, the Wiki powers that be have decided that the logs, are verifiable and are also not original research as such. I propose that this forum be used to provide any pertinent information found in the logs, for use in Wiki articles. For starters, I am posting a link to a log page that contains information on the Second Battle of Heligoland Bight from a ship, the Galatea, that participated in the action, but is not mentioned in the article: https://s3.amazonaws.com/oldweather/ADM53-42346/0067_1.jpg - I hope we can develop this partnership. yours - Kathy Wendolkowski (wendolk is my user name at Old Weather) 216.15.44.249 (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.80.53.48 (talk)

Swedish capital ships

Some issues have cropped up with List of battleships of the Royal Swedish Navy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and List of ships of the line of the Royal Swedish Navy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), see Talk:List of ships of the line of the Royal Swedish Navy and Talk:List of battleships of the Royal Swedish Navy .

70.24.244.248 (talk) 09:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Notability

I was wondering about a possible clash between WP:GNG and "WP:SHIPS position is that any ship of 100' long or 100 tons (deliberatrely vague) is generally notable enough to sustain a stand alone article". I severely doubt that! Reading WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability it seems to me that it is the notability that should be verified, not the mere existence. That means that a ship that just does its jobs without anything special, would fail WP:GNG. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That's why it says "generally notable enough" - the "generally" means "there is likely to be notability per WP:GNG etc", whereas with smaller ships, it's generally unlikely. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly the point I was about to make as well. However the statement 'that means that a ship that just does its jobs without anything special, would fail WP:GNG' - is not one I can agree with. The GNG does not make any comment about doing 'special things' (however they may be determined). It talks about levels of coverage in sources, which ships can achieve without doing uh... special things. Benea (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, but looking at WP:GNG it states "Sources",[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. and "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. To me, that looks like in is the notability that has to be proofed, not the existence! It does not say that sources make an existing subject notable.

Second question: why do you guys regard "any ship of 100' long or 100 tons (deliberatrely vague)" notable? Ships like RMS Queen Elizabeth, Amoco Cadiz and De Groene Draeck are clearly notable. But I can imagine smaller one being notable and bigger ones not. To put an arbitrary size as cut off point is a bit strange in my eyes. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The 100/100 mark was decided upon for use as a project scope gauge; not a notability gauge. There was confusion over the scope guidelines for this project and 100/100 was settled on. It was never intended as a gauge for notability although somehow it started being used that way by people who don't understand the difference between scope and notability. Brad (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

So, the 100/100 mark is not a rule, guideline or whatever in relation to notability? Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

No, and sorry for confusing it a bit in my intitial reply here. 100/100 is the "bottom line" for inclusion within the scope of WP:SHIPS, having nothing to do with notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

...which is not to say that any vessel under 100'/100 ton(ne)s in automatically non-notable (Maud (wherry), Cromer Lifeboat H F Bailey III ON 777). On the other hand, whilst many fishing vessels may be in excess of 100/100, it is likely that it will be much harder for these vessels to meet the GNG, due to a lack of sources, although it is possible for some fishing vessels to make the mark (Ross Tiger). Mjroots (talk) 15:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

As long as we now apply the GNG to ships in the same way that we do to other articles, rather than 100/100 being used to bypass the GNG, I'm happy. bobrayner (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

So, you will don't mind it when I challenge the notability of the MV Argyll Flyer? Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

That's up to you I'm sure that an AfD would get a variety of opinions from the good people of WikiProject Ships... bobrayner (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of WP:SHIPS, ships in general are assumed to be notable automatically overall per long-standing consensus. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Historically, there have been cases where people went to AfD and mistakenly cited the 100/100 thing as though it meant automatic notability even though it meant no such thing when it was written. I would be very reluctant to let such errors become set in stone as a "long-standing consensus". Here is a thread with multiple editors denying that such a consensus ever existed. Of course, if we started with a clean slate and actually had an open discussion on whether or not 100/100 should mean automatic notability (as opposed to citing instances where people previously misused it as keep argument at AfD), I would happily abide with whatever the community decides. bobrayner (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the 100/100 thing, actually - just that ships operating as part of a commercial fleet seem to be accepted as being notable (regardless of 100/100). But there probably should be a discussion at some point to clear the air, I agree. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

NotBW, before you do nominate that article at AfD, you may wish to take a look at WP:SHIPS/AFD. That will give you a good idea of how any AfD discussion is likely to go. Mjroots (talk) 07:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Bobrayner, the 100/100 should mean that a ship will be notable subject to meeting the usual rules of GNG, V, RS etc. There are some Empire ships where it has proved impossible to substantially expand on the relevant list entry, and therefore I've not created a stand-alone article on the ship in question. Mjroots (talk) 07:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

If it's subject to meeting the usual rules then 100/100 is completely redundant as a measure of notability. If a vessel is under 100/100 it's required to pass the GNG; if its over 100/100 it's required to pass the GNG. In which case, why mention 100/100 at all in a discussion about notability? This differs from how you have used 100/100 at previous AfDs - which explains the project's impressive record of keeps at AfDs. When a !voter argues that the "is it a ship?" criterion is actually a criterion for automatic notabilility, a larger proportion of ships will be kept, regardless of how they measure up against wikipedia's real notability guidelines. however, if we can put such things in the past, I'm happy. bobrayner (talk) 12:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, so I may have misunderstood 100/100 in the past. That said, as far as I am aware, all ship articles kept following AFD discussions do meet GNG through V x RS, which is always the thing we need to keep in mind whatever the subject of an article. I think we are now clear that 100/100 is the project scope for WP:SHIPS, and that once a vessel meets that, it still has to pass the usual threshold for articles in respect of the GNG. Mjroots (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you then explain Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MV Peveril (1963) to me? I do not see sources that proofs the notability... (yes, we have met there before) Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I've looked again at the AfD discussion and the article, and I stand by my original comment at the AfD - "references need to be inline, but there is enough indication that the ship meets WP:GNG. Needing improvement is not a reason for deletion". A number of sources are indicated; it would appear that these just need to be correctly referenced for the article to be fully compliant. That they are not does not mean that the subject fails the GNG. Mjroots (talk) 15:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Page names

A discussion at the Village Pumps suggests that having WikiProjects call their advice pages "guidelines" is confusing at least some editors into thinking that they're the same as the "official" community-wide guidelines like WP:Reliable sources, rather than advice from the members of the WikiProject. WP:POLICY#Naming generally discourages the use of terms like "guideline" or "policy" in page names even for regular policies anyway. So some of the WikiProjects are renaming their pages to something like "Article advice", "Recommendations", or "Style advice". This is just a friendly suggestion that your group consider doing the same. There are templates listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice_pages if you want to tag the pages that way.

While you're at it, if it's been a long time since anyone overhauled those pages, this might be a good time to do that, too. I don't know what the history is for your group, but it's pretty typical for a page to get written and then neglected for a long time. If you happen to find anything that no longer matches up with the community-wide Manual of Style or other general guidelines, then perhaps it would be good to fix it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

This brings to my mind that some time ago we worked on "Infobox Ship For Dummies" and got a pretty long document describing the various fields in the infobox. Should we try to finish it and, if the gods are pleased, bring it out as a part of our guidelines advices? Tupsumato (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

State ships template:

I seem to be in a template mode lately. I found: {{State ships}} and it doesn't seem to have any purpose outside of listing ships named after states as far as I can tell. If that's indeed the purpose then it could be expected that the template should hold every ship that has been named after a US State. In that sense the template would grow disproportionately large and unwieldy. But why is Freedom Schooner Amistad on this template? Brad (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I might be wrong but is it for ships that have an association with a state, and have been designated 'state ships' like state rocks, or state birds, - as an emblem of a state rather than just carrying its name? Actually a minority of ships on that template are named after a state. Benea (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You're probably right Benea. I hadn't thought of it from that direction. The template just isn't clear enough as to it's purpose though. Brad (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It needs documentation, but that's my read on it as well - it's a state-symbols navbox. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be named {{State ships (US)}} ? When I saw the title, first thing I thought of was "HMY Britannia" . 76.65.128.198 (talk) 07:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually it would be {{US state ships}} if a dab is needed, based on {{US state capitals}}, {{US state seals}}, {{US state flags}} etc. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think a renaming is in order for this template. Shouldn't be any controversy over that. Brad (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it has, or is supposed to be for ships that are owned by and serve a state? Like the Staten Island Ferry or would they be more like a 'City ship'? That's my guess anyway. Wonder if 'Kansas' has a state ship. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It's for Official State Ships, that are State Symbols. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Template renamed to {{US state ships}}. Transclusions of the former name have been changed. Outline of template use posted on template talk page. Brad (talk) 01:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Category deletion discussion

I've decided to bring this discussion to the attention of this board as I feel there is a broad principle involved. Bushranger initially proposed deletion of the Category:Unique attack transports on the basis that each of these ships should either be in their own single ship category, or else just be listed in the parent cat. I am opposed to the latter because with such an organization, it will not be at all clear to readers why some ships are listed in the parent category and others are not. Alternatively, for someone who might want to look at only the unique ships, they will have no way of doing so if all the ships are listed in the parent cat. On the other hand, I think that creating separate categories for each unique ship of a given type would be overkill, perhaps not in this category but in many others. So I think this discussion needs more eyes on the page. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 04:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Gálveztown (brig sloop)

I just created this article and was about to do more work on the info box. However, I don't think one will do! She was built and commissioned for the RN somewhere in New England (more research) as West Florida (sloop of war) She was then taken by the rebels as part of a Spanish operation, and renamed Gálveztown, but she was taken into the Spanish Navy rather than the Continental Navy. The Spanish then changed her rig. She then sailed as a trader under an American captain and crew to Havana, and on to Philadelphia, where she was pronounced unseaworthy and sold...apparently (the American captain was from there) ...because at Washington's inauguration she saluted him in New York nine years later as a Spanish "ship of war"!

So it seems the article will need at least three info boxes?

1. One for the RN vessel built in New England
2. One for the Spanish vessel serving briefly in the Louisiana campaign
3. One for the replica being built in Spain

Is this correct? Please reply in the article talk Koakhtzvigad (talk) 08:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that the replica ship needs to be a separate article. Compare HM Bark Endeavour and HM Bark Endeavour (replica). That way, there is no confusion over infoboxes. Mjroots (talk) 10:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Sinking of the RMS Titanic

I've written a new version of Sinking of the RMS Titanic, which I'm intending to nominate for Featured Article status with the aim of getting it onto the Main Page in time for the anniversary of the sinking. If you have any comments on the new version, please leave feedback at Talk:Sinking of the RMS Titanic#New version posted - feedback requested. Prioryman (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Galleys, row galleys, non-galleys

During my work on galley, I came across the concept of early US Navy "row galleys" and found it to be a problematic and rather vague term. On Wikipedia, they're often confused with actual galleys, which doesn't seem to have any support in maritime history. I've brought the issue up on peripheral pages before, and have engaged in correcting confusing linkage to galley from articles like USS Viper (1814). But it seems like a broader discussion is needed, especially since there are two separate categories for "galleys" and "row galleys" in the US Navy, despite there being no apparent difference between the two.

I've started a discussion about this issue over at Talk:Row_galley#Still not galleys. Please join in if you're interested.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

What do sources call them?

It may be unhelpful to work on a "fixed" definition of a ship type because so many names have been used and reused and evolved and distorted over the years, in diverse sources. Corvette hints at this problem. Braudel's Mediterranean, for example, mentions countless types of ships in a certain historical period, but each of those labels is used at least once in a way which differs from the associated wikipedia article (or whatever source that article was built on).

I'm a little surprised that Row galley no longer even links to Galley. bobrayner (talk) 15:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The article used to say that these craft actually were galleys, which has no support in sources. It's really about archaic nomenclature vs common modern academic terminology. Describing the nomenclature is not a problem (and has been done in galley#Definition and terminology), but the two terms can't be treated as synonyms since it would be comparing apples and oranges. As a comparison, "gondola" was also a common term for row galleys,[4] but I can't imagine that anyone would try to equate them with Venetian-style gondolas.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)