Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

SS United States (1864) - real or fake?

Something is off about this article in my mind. There's only one source that confirms the ship's existence (though it has a different length), and the rest are offline newspaper articles. The image is of a different ship's figurehead. So, can someone confirm that this ship did, in fact, exist as the article describes? I just find it hard to believe an article on what would seem to be an important ship (a) wasn't created before and/or (b) wasn't linked from anywhere before and/or (c) [especially] wasn't previously listed at List of shipwrecks in 1881 if it was that well-known. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd probably have added it to the shipwreck list when I got to 1884. BTW, the article isn't an orphan. Mjroots (talk) 21:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you have other sources that confirm this ship existed and was really as special as the article claims, though? I tried to search through Google Books, etc., but it's relatively difficult given the name (United States) and the enormously more famous ocean liners of the same name (SS United States). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm impressed that WAF101 (talk · contribs) created such a detailed article (using obscure markup &c) in their first edit; I've asked them to come here and join the conversation. bobrayner (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

see [1] Dankarl (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

For simple confirmation such a ship was built there, by that builder that year this gives that with: "One of the company’s most important and substantial builds was the steam-powered gunboat Cayuga built for the US government in 1861. Three years later, the family completed work on the United States, the largest steamship in the country, weighing in at 1,600 tons." Don't be too quick to dismiss a ship of some significance because people here haven't discovered it yet. There are quite a few. As for details, those are probably in hard copy and difficult to check, unless one has easy access to a museum or archive, for this ship. Palmeira (talk) 13:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

And just in case it might be suspected that that article could be a recent addition, see [2]. Dankarl (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Inconvenient that the relevant years of Annual list of merchant vessels of the United States and Lloyds Register have disappeared from Google Books - anyone know when or why? Dankarl (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

No definitive knowledge of why. I've become increasingly irritated by the fact some once available public domain USGOV publications that are not on official sites and once provided by Google and others have vanished into paid sites or completely. With Google's seeming mission to provide a library and no legal reason the complete sets of these PD documents could not be up it is a bit puzzling. My suspicion, from some hints in general, is that commercial interests strongly want to be the paid conduit of public information of that sort. With budget cuts and limitations we can be almost certain once ambitious efforts toward mass digital libraries at NARA and agencies are drying up. As an aside, some of my old contacts in those places indicated years ago there was commercial/political opposition to those efforts by those wanting to commercialize the information. That drying up is one reason I have gigabytes of such references in deep storage. Palmeira (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hathitrust is a very good alternative repository of PD USGov publications. Gatoclass (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

There are a number, some I check regularly, That have large repositories. Internet Archive has some really valuable stuff. A lot is there, but Google and even the government's ambitious projects to build an effective digital archive of such material that is readily available seems to be taking some steps backward. Oh well, we are drifting way off topic. Palmeira (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all, my doubts have been extinguished. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Problem with flags

Belgian ensign, ww2?

Hello
I've been looking at the Free Belgian navy during WW2, and in particular HMS Godetia (K226). Evidence from original photos (see here) indicates that the state flag, rather than the later naval ensign or national flag, was used on Free Belgian ships, but I cannot get the flag to work for the ship's infobox... anyone have any ideas on how to fix this? Thanks! ---Brigade Piron (talk) 10:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks to me like it works. Can you more fully describe how it isn't working? :—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, it didn't show on my browser before. Perhaps, given that it seems that it seems to have been the universal Belgian naval ensign pre-1945 that it could have its own {shipboxflag} template? --Brigade Piron (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

There was an error at {{Country data Belgium}}, which I've fixed. {{flag|Belgium|government}} now produces Belgium. Mjroots (talk) 12:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems to have slipped back - could you have another look at it? Thanks! --Brigade Piron (talk) 10:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

fixed - it's "government", not "state". Had a message re the state flag on my talk page, the flag is if different proportions to the civil flag. Mjroots (talk) 11:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you also fix the documentation so that it shows "government" as a legitimate alias?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Can't get it to display, have asked at the relevant WP for assistance. Mjroots (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Project scoped article up for deletion...

MV Golden Jubilee, which barely squeaks inside the project's scope (according to Lloyd's), has been nominated for deletion.

Just a question, and not to imply that MV Golden Jubilee would qualify or not, but would it not be appropriate to include some well-documented examples of registered vessels less than 100 ft/100 tons? There are a lot of excursion boats, fishing boats, work boats, and tug boats in our world, their aggregate economic impact is considerable, and details of construction and equipment are of interest. Articles on individual ships, where sufficient detail is available, provide a reality check for articles on the types. If this is thought desirable and feasible, how would we define well-documented? Or would we accept 100 or 1000 excursion boat stubs to permit one well-documented example to pass notability? Dankarl (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Personally I think a lot of the stubs here even for minor naval vessels, most to forever be stubs as these were obscure service vessels, well over 100 ft/100 should be consolidated into expanded lists within logical categories. Logical grouping of other types, fishing, excursion and such by era and geography would be a good thing in my opinion rather than having hundreds of permanent stub "articles" cluttering "to do lists" and searches. If about all that can be said about even commissioned naval vessels is the fact they existed with build and characteristics, then I'd support such group listing. Palmeira (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Are these articles stubs because there's nothing else to add, or simply because no one taken the time and effort to do a proper job with them? Of course, not every vessel in the world deserves an article, but many if not most stubs can be expanded to at least start class. Manxruler (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Just because it's a small article doesn't mean it's not a valid article. "Cluttering" is subjective. And as Manxruler says, there's lots of information out there, even for the most obscure commissioned vessels, if the proper digging is done. Now, as for Dankarl's original question, there's nothing at all that says a sufficiently notable ship smaller than that size can't have an article, it's just that it wouldn't be within the scope of the project (and oddly there is no WikiProject Boats to catch them). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have articles on smaller vessels, such as Maud (wherry). WikiProject Maritime Transport caters for these vessels. Mjroots (talk) 06:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Manxruler & Bushranger, a lot are always going to be stubs. I've had access to NHHC, spent time there and they don't have a lot more on some of those small and obscure vessels. When a DANFS entry is a couple of sentences related to yard or district operations and "served in the Pacific" sort of thing then that ship, unless it has a commercial or yacht "life" that is well documented, has largely run its historical course. It might be possible to dig into deck logs (days at NARA?), but those are far, far less informative than many think. They are most definitely not Startrek logs. I've also found many commercial firm's ship material just vanishing with those companies vanishing as well. Some, fortunately for us get into regional or other archives and few of those are on line. Since personal archives, blogs and that sort of thing is not acceptable here (and sometimes quite confused themselves) the hope that some obscure vessel, even Navy, will accumulate worthwhile information is pretty much in the big lottery win category. I have a massive set of digital files from years of digging on ships. Some I've traced for decades and can come up with a few kb and a few lines dug out of NARA files. There is "cluttering" in to do lists with that "stub" designation for ships that will always be stubs generating calls for improvement. That clutter distracts from ships where such a designation has a chance of attracting attention for actual improvement. Clicking through "(next 200)" in Category:Stub-Class Ships articles time after time made up of perhaps hundreds like this or this is clutter by most definitions and tends to make the list less than a valued resource. Perhaps a new tag indicating likely permanent stub status to separate forlorn hopes from potential real improvement chances? Palmeira (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

To me, both of those are cleary valid articles. That said, if they're "permanent stubs", they should be classified as Start-class, not stubs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree they are valid (at least for "ship people") and have a value in collecting information, references and links of several sources. Those are something like a grand total of fewer than ten sentences of original source (NHHC Ships History section) found on two NHHC pages, into one place. I also think such very short, and not likely to get longer, pieces might have more value in being collected onto one page, a sort of expanded listing, within a logical grouping that, on the off chance of some great discovery digging in some archive, could be expanded, broken out and linked as a stand alone article. As for Start-class, I do not quite agree as "Start" definitely indicates a continuation to some level of completion that is almost certainly not likely—only to "clutter" the already long Category:Start-Class Ships articles list. A more realistic listing is something like a "stub-probable dead end" category to pull these forlorn hopes out of lists containing subjects with realistic hopes of some expansion. Palmeira (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

ps: I just added a little bit of detail from something other than DANFS to that USS Compass Island (AG-153) article. Palmeira (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd oppose the creation of a category with such a pessimistic name. Besides, who would decide which stub articles are "dead ends"? Manxruler (talk) 23:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Realistic, not pessimistic. I think the key is having a good handle on the existing information. Where we have fairly good launch to scrap information with no big mysterious blanks and the service itself is mundane we have a probable dead end. If such a category were created I'd suggest that rather than one of us "deciding" we propose it just as for deletion and see if anyone can oppose based on evidence of some unknown part of the vessel's history that may be covered by sources of some sort. No big deal, but otherwise we'll have those listings looking like some of those reserve fleets of "ghost ships" forever and not all that useful for finding ships with real promise of expansion. As they exist now I consider the list useless for that purpose. Palmeira (talk) 04:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

And, as mentioned, "mundane" and "dead end" are subjective. "Expansion" is not the be-all and end-all of an article, nor is it even necessary - an article of 500 characters can be as informative and complete as an article of 5,000 words. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Burmese ships up for deletion

• image:Stealth frigate F 12 under construction.jpg
• file:F 001 floating dock.jpeg
• File:P 491 FAC(stealth) of Myanmar Navy.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• File:P 491 FAC (Stealth).jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• File:Myanmarnavyfleet.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• File:Myanmarnavyf11.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• File:Myanmar Navy Frigate upgrade.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• File:Myanmar frigate.jpg

has been nominated for deletion. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 11:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like everything the user responsible for those photos uploaded is flagged. Possibly with good reason. Unless "mmmilitary.blogspot.com" is a front for the Myanmar Navy. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Those all reek of copyvio to me. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed they were, and they are gone, and there's more non-ship images where those came from. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Move for AHS Tasman

The information for this ship was significantly lacking the official version of how it came into the Southwest Pacific Area command's permanent local fleet and under U.S. Army control and then a Dutch hospital ship, not Australian. Talk:AHS Tasman contains an outline of the information and the full documents are large .pdf files available for download. I've made changes in the article reflecting those references and strongly recommend a move of the article itself from the erroneous "AHS" title to something along the lines of "SS Tasman to reflect the facts and also provide a general ship title for expansion with pre/post war information. Request other eyes on the topic. The bones of that issue also apply to all the 21 KPM ships in the SWPA fleet, but full detail of "how" is almost an article in itself. Palmeira (talk) 03:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"Tug of War" - mystery ship pic

I'm finding a few mis-titled items in the new British Library collection of Canadiana in the Commons, I'm thinking File:General View of Kakabeka Falls and Gorge (HS85-10-14158).jpg (File:Tug-of-war (HS85-10-17534).jpg) is mis-titled, unless there's a naval history/terminology reference I'm missing. The year is 1906, that looks to be Esquimalt Harbour, and that's most definitely not a tug, it's a battleship isn't it? Bigger than a destroyer, no? but I don't know what other classifications of vessels there are.. The high-res version isn't sufficient to read any name on the ship that I can see. Maybe it's recognizable from its profile, or by knowing what ships were stationed at, or visiting, Esquimalt in 1906.Skookum1 (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a Monmouth class cruiser. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 17:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Think you meant File:Tug-of-war (HS85-10-17534).jpg Dankarl (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

LOL yeah I did, thanks; my clipboard gets clogged.....Been copy-pasting titles all night, sometimes copy-c doesn't "take" and I don't notice.Skookum1 (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

and re what class it is, that may help determine which vessel it is, not sure who's working on Esquimalt material, someone is.Skookum1 (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

So that's not, maybe, "HMS Tug-of-war" which I half gave serious thought to wondering about?Skookum1 (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Possibly HMS Kent, which was there in 1915.[3] Kablammo (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC) I see that Wikipedia dates the image from 1906. The source link is broken. Kablammo (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The source links are broken because the BL is lagging in uploading the data ;-). I have a copy here & can confirm "Tug-of-war" is the entire image caption for 17534.

Striking my earlier comment, though, I've just worked it out. The image is labelled "Copyright by Jones & Co.". The copyright metadata says Faulkner. The image is visually very close to this one (18532) of Monmouth leaving harbour in 1907. The two pictures of Monmouth are 18532 and 18533, and by Jones. I think we've found a mislabelled image - it's been typed as 17534 and should be 18534, but as 17534 matched a copyright number (of a missing item?) we didn't notice. I'll get our curator to check double-check these and find a caption for 18534. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Nice work! And in direct confirmation, here is the same image as the "Tug of war" picture on Commons, but from the Library and Archives of Canada, bearing the caption H.M.S. Monmouth leaving Esquimalt Harbour with Prince Fushimi. According to an answer to a question posed in Canadian Parliament, the prince departed from Esquimalt June 27.[4] And the year was 1907,[5], [6], not 1906. Kablammo (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Both of the last two cites give the departure date as 25 June 1907, rather than the 27th. Kablammo (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if the file is misnumbered then all the metadata will be wrong - title, caption, date, author, etc. (It's pure chance that this one was almost plausible and not, eg, titled "Sixteen Views of Toronto, 1921"). Andrew Gray (talk) 11:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Can't remember what it's called or what it was, but in the second section I created on the Commons talkpage one of the listings is the "Mendelssohn Choir and Pittsburg Symphony (Philharmonic)" but it's actually of a flotilla of sailing vessels flying full flag in some harbour; beautiful shot, again a specific date and story is often attachable to each picture. In this case it was the visit of the Crown Prince of Japan to British Columbia that had inflamed the tensions that led to the Anti-Oriental Riots - xenophobic paranoia, and the then-recent history of the Russo-Japanese War, and the misunderstanding that Chinese and Japanese were all the same, and the prince's visit would somehow bring about an uprising and a declaration of a Prefecture of Japan (as if that were possible, and as if he'd come with an armada). Another consequence of his visit...I think it was his visit, or a later prince's maybe, was the gift of thousands of flowering cherry trees to the City of Vancouver, which line many blocks of the city's residential areas. Anyways, that's the back story as to the significance of this voyage, and who was on board. The particular captain and officers and other dignitaries on board can probably be found out, ultimately. Most pictures from this era had reasons to be taken, they were near-always for occasions. Great collection, Andrew, been enjoying browsing it and have been deploying lots of photos, if only to talkpages when the articles don't really have room, other than for galleries. BTW when we use these pics, even though these digital copies originate with the BL, should we also cite the Nat'l Archives link; or maybe on the image page's info templates? Would make more work to do one-by-one...haven't studied the template, maybe it's already there. Photographic sleuthing gets fun, trying to find out where a picture is and so on....Skookum1 (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

turns out there's another couple of pics of the Monmouth from 1907, just found this one.Skookum1 (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Steamboat vs steamship

Back in April, the article steamship was split from existing content in steamboat. The distinction made here is that steamships are ocean-faring vessels and steamboats are smaller lake/river vessels. I don't really see the point of having separate articles that share so much content in terms of history and technology especially since the steamboat article was of reasonable size before the split. More importantly, the terms steamboats, steamships and steamers are (whether one likes it or not) often used interchangeably in various sources and in Wikipedia articles. Splitting the two articles thus leads to confusion and further problems since many incoming links to steamship should really be links to steamboat and vice-versa. It makes more sense to merge the two articles back into one in which the lede clearly explains the distinction. Pichpich (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Most steamboats had nothing in common with steamships in terms of hull design or manner of use, and little in common in engine design except with the early ocean-going paddle-steamers. Dankarl (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

City of Benares sinking 1940

Can anybody help please with a query that I posted over at the Humanities Ref Desk; WP:RD/H#City_of_Benares_sinking? Alansplodge (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion continued on Talk:SS City of Benares - thanks. Alansplodge (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Partly italicized title

I am planning on writing an article about a sailing vessel. How do I get the article to display the article name partly italicized? Do I need an infobox? The vessel is a so-called open-sea sailboat, I don't think she qualifies as a sail ship. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Depends on the title. If the article title is the ship's name followed bu a parenthetical disambiguator: Name (disambiguator) use {{italic title}}. More complex article titles may require the magic word {{DISPLAYTITLE}}.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I think the italic title template will do, then. I didn't know that template automatically excluded the paranthese; that's fine. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Splash Class nominated for deletion

I have nominated a project scope article Splash Class for deletion. Tupsumato (talk) 05:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

No articles at all on Mississippi River riverboats?

It has been years since I was known as Simesa here -- Now I've spotted a major problem (which I first contacted user:Slambo about, and so have found you).

I can't find anything in Wikipedia on "Mississippi riverboats" or any similarly-named topic. I've explored a fair amount, and I can find a tiny article on "Riverboat casinos" and a couple on now-defunct modern steamboat replicas, but no articles on the core topic.

This would be a pretty big article (for example, some riverboats were used as "tinclad rams" in the American Civil War), and I'm not sure what to request. 68.80.191.1 (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

For starters, there's Steamboats of the Mississippi and Robert E. Lee (steamboat) Dankarl (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

And Steamboats of the Mississippi is a nice example of what I mentioned just above about grouping vessels logically rather than creating individual "articles" when it is not likely they will have enough "notability" and references to support anything other than eternal stubs. That would do very nicely for all sorts of minor naval and military vessels as well as commercial. Palmeira (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, We have Category:Paddle steamers of the United States, which however does not appear complete and includes other river systems and also oceangoing vessels. One useful search strategy is to search for (steamboat) ie for the disambiguator. Dankarl (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Articles on ironclads of the Mississippi River Squadron are cited in the article on engineer James Buchanan Eads, in City-class ironclad, and in Ironclad warship#First battles between ironclads: the U.S. Civil War. Dankarl (talk) 19:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

We also have CSS Manassas a radical Confederate ram.Dankarl (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Palmeira, I agree generally, but that article (Steamboats of the Mississippi) covers rather too much ground. And if anyone took the time to look into 19th century media, they would find that individual steamboats were well-known and notable. Does notability attenuate with time? If so, perhaps articles on more recent ships (Liberty ships, for example) will be culled someday. Kablammo (talk)

Notability does attenuate with time, purely because GNG nees to be met always. The more recent a vessel, the easier it is to find sources. As members of this WP may be aware, I'm currently working on C19th shipwreck lists. Many sailing ships carried the same name, thus making the task of researching individual ships near impossible, although there will always be the occasional exception. With early steamships and steamboats, it is a little more likely that they will be capable of sustaining stand-alone articles. The main sources here are likely to be newspapers, which may or may not be available online. Mjroots (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Notability does not attentuate with time. Now, the ability to establish notability does, but notability itself does not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

On the subject of "notability"—and not necessarialy using this site's standards—I'd say that does change over time. There was often a real buzz about some new luxury liner, somewhat similar to what we see today with some super yachts, with lots of publicity that would establish grounds for an "article" here but in truth not be of much interest except to us real ship lovers. I've just added a few ship pieces on ships pretty much fitting that with some particular exception. A good example is my comment on Talk:Dona Nati (1939). That was, at the time, a rather nice cargo liner, had a somewhat interesting just-before-the-war Italian origin and one footnote in history that in my opinion made an "article" worth while. Otherwise a paragraph somewhere. Pretty much the same goes for her sisters USAT Don Esteban and Don Isidro (1939)—"luxury" inter-island steamers of fond memory worth a paragraph. . .until they got drafted. Except for those exceptional events of 1941-42 they, in my opinion, would best be covered as brief descriptions under perhaps a full article on the De La Rama company that is of some real note in Philippine history and politics. The actually quite notable yacht I dug in to recently could have lots more written as I note on its talk page, but really? Paragraphs more based on society pages of figures seen boarding and comings and goings? Not me! Palmeira (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

If that buzz is enough to pass WP:GNG, that's notability, forever, full stop. While it might indeed be of interest "to...real ship lovers" only, that's a value judgement, and we don't create, delete, keep, or discard articles based on those. If it passes the notability bar, it has once and forever, even if it's something that might be of very small interest to a very few people. Wikipedia is not paper, after all, and we don't need to worry about "taking up space". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all -- I inserted two wikilinks in appropriate places for others to follow. 68.80.191.1 (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

"it is bad luck to change a ship's name"

I just came across a hook over at DYK, that says "... that despite the superstition it is bad luck to change a ship's name, the cargo vessel SS Gallic had her name changed seven times during her 37 years in service?". Is it considered bad luck to change a ship's name, though? Many if not most of the ships I've written articles for have had their names changed at some point in their careers. Manxruler (talk) 09:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, they used to say it brings bad luck to have a woman onboard as well. In modern shipping, changing the ship's name is quite normal when the owner changes (a lot of examples). IMHO, that's not a good DYK as most ships change their names several times during their career. Tupsumato (talk) 10:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the hook isn't good. I've addressed the issue at DYK. Manxruler (talk) 11:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

There seems to have been such a superstition, some may still repeat it or even believe a bit. It certainly is not reflected in most shipping company actions. Even naval authorities have changed ship names over a long period. It probably hangs around along with serving ox tail soup bringing a storm—and over and over I saw that happen in the North Atlantic and North Pacific in winter! Damn if every week ox tail soup was on the menu we didn't have rough weather in a few days. It must be true. Palmeira (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Definitely an age-of-sail superstition, and acknowledged in some military circles as recently as WWII (see HMS Shropshire (73)#Transfer to RAN), but my impression is that the freight industry "outgrew" (for lack of a better word) many supersitions before naval and passenger vessel sailors would have. -- saberwyn 08:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Also probably a sort of "social" thing. I remember one newbie hearing the ox tail soup thing muttered by someone looking at the menu taking it seriously. He got considerable encouragement along that path from pretty much everyone. It took a while for him to realize it was hard to find a week in those regions without "rough weather" in some seasons. There are lots of "fun" things, for example, the old "go grease the relative bearings" thing. Some fall hard, like one rather homesick young fellow I remember that braved some foul, bitterly cold weather for hours hoping to spot the mail buoy and then fell for "maybe they couldn't get it out and it will be there tomorrow" to continue the game. Palmeira (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The wording in the proposed hook (now rejected) and in the article itself says that the name was changed "despite" or "in spite of" the superstition, which implies that those changing the name were aware of the belief and changed the name anyway. That seems to me to be a type of original research, for the purpose of having a catchy "hook". Kablammo (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Notability issue

I have a nomination for a good topic of the four Milwaukee-class monitors of the Union Navy over at the GTC page in which one editor is questioning why the individual ships each deserve their own article (He'd prefer to see them folded into the main class article). Your comments are invited.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

In discussions above I have taken a position similar to that editor. There are probably hundreds of stand alone articles for ships that, short of some pharaoh's tomb like discovery in archives, will always be stubs. Short of existence and bare facts of builder, dimensions and so on they just do not have individual "biographies" with enough cite supported historical record or even interest warranting an "article" alone. Yard craft come to mind, they get built and plod along in routine work, once in a while change stations and are disposed of in some way. There just is no "there there" for an article and they really are best handled in a listing where someone can see the overall picture of their type. A look at those articles shows boiler plate descriptions with a small percentage of unique text. Unless the subject monitors have something well beyond the repetitive boiler plate that can be folded into the class I'd say wrap them into an expanded class article subdivided with the unique extract—at least until Tut's tomb is discovered revealing they had notable individual actions worthy of recording. Let readers get the overview and relatively small individual histories without repetitive clicking to read largely the same text over and over—and that will be a much better article in itself. If they are that persistent! Palmeira (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

And as I've pointed out, I disagree with that for a variety of reasons, starting with that IMHO readers are better served with individual articles, but likely best to agree to disagree here! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep, guess we will disagree there. That said, I sure would like to know why separate "articles" with (I haven't done a word count) very high repetitive wording probably well beyond 60% is particularly valuable. We have, in this case, four vessel articles with an introduction and construction/spec section nearly identical—and that is repetitive of the class article. The first paragraph of each appears cut 'n paste and then only with USS Chickasaw (1864) and USS Winnebago (1863) do we see a service history worthy of individuality—and that is largely about Farragut's plan or briefing and then the action of the two ships together. Setting the window for those sections and I cannot easily even tell which ship is the subject without glancing to the title of the window! Palmeira (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Canadian Ramped Cargo Lighter.jpg

File:Canadian Ramped Cargo Lighter.jpg is under discussion concerning its copyright status at WP:NFCR -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

List of DPRK ships

In light of recent news, I am playing with this table in my sandbox. Do any of you Smart People have any idea how to proceed? Is there any site that might provide a source for such a list?

North Korean merchant ships

Name	Type	Length	Last observed
Chong Chon Gang	Bulk cargo	155 metres (509 ft)	July 2013
Dai Hong Dan	Bulk cargo	122 metres (400 ft)122m	2008
Kang Nam 1	General cargo	86 metres (282 ft)	2012
Ra Nam 3	Cargo	81 metres (266 ft)	July 2013
Mangyongbong-92	Ferry	162 metres (531 ft)	July 2013
Mi Yang 8	Cargo	85 metres (279 ft)	July 2013
Oun Chong Nyon Ho	Cargo	118 metres (387 ft)

Paul, in Saudi (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I've tweaked your table for ship name format, length format, and citation format.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Paul, I won't address the other fields present (or if new fields, such as tonnage, should be added), but "Last observed" should be deleted. That will rapidly age; there is no way it can be kept current on Wikipedia (absent some automated process), and those data are available elsewhere. Regards Kablammo (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, but it is still a sandbox-level thing. I am still lucking about with it. But I am stumped on how to find more data. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

It is possible to attempt to impart too much information in a list, but a bare listing will not really add anything to a category page. Presumably many of the vessels will have their own articles, with the detail. I think however that some measure of capacity should be added, so that tonnage (by whatever measure) or TEUs are given. Good luck with this. Kablammo (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree that some sort of tonnage field would be useful, and perhaps a "comments" column rather than "last observed"?Nigel Ish (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Since most of these are cargo ships, I'd say DWT is better than any other measurement of tonnage. Also, replacing the "last observed" with "notes" or "comments" is a good idea. Also², I'd propose a separate field for inline citation as I've done e.g. here. Tupsumato (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

We ought not to worry about a list of a half-dozen ships. The table can be changed however you like when it is more complete. I ask again, is there any obvious way to find the names of more PDRK merchant ships? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

One way is to do "wild" searches in databases like Equasis with typical (North) Korean (ship) names. I tried "Chong" and found eight ships. "Kang" brought up even more. Tupsumato (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Grand. I had never even heard of Equasis. How do I log on, is it free? Or perhaps you could add what you can to this little seed of mine? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Equasis is free but requires registering. It's very useful. As for helping, I'm afraid I first have to finish my other "projects". Tupsumato (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I have figured out how to register, and this looks amusing. THank you. I shall continue in my sandbox. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Found the complete list here [7] Paul, in Saudi (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Makes life a little easier. If you still want to compile as list to Wikipedia, you should find some additional data as well, like former names and if something interesting has happened to the ships. North Korea is still a kind of curiousity, so it would be interesting to have such list. Tupsumato (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I am in no way done, I am about halfway through the Js. But it is time now to add columns and pretty it up. I invite you to take a look at North Korean Merchant Ships. You can add to as you like of course, but I will consider it my little duty to do the scut work of adding names and so on. I started it, so it is sort of on me, I suppose. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd recommend adding the IMO number. Tupsumato (talk) 08:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Done, and not too easily done either. In any case North Korean Merchant Ships is now largely correct in format, but not yet finished in terms of content. Give me a few more evenings. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 05:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I moved the article to List of North Korean merchant ships as it is more in line with other ship lists (somebody re-move if I have broken some naming convention, please). For Equasis citations, I recommend using {{cite ship register}} as you have done with some entries. Also, use "|abbr=on" with the length conversion. Also², personally I'd center the text in all fields except the ship's name, where I would include former names and year ranges as well (if such information can be found). Nevertheless, keep up the good work! Tupsumato (talk) 05:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Alsolsolso, how about making the list sortable for at least length and gross tonnage? Somebody could be interested in finding out the largest or longest North Korean ship... Tupsumato (talk) 05:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

"Wale"

The usage of Wale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Wale (rapper) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The exact proposal is to move Wale (rapper) to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and Wale to Wale (ship). In ictu oculi (talk) 09:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

P&O European Ferries Logo.jpg

image:P&O European Ferries Logo.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

US Postage Stamp Monitor & Virginia.jpg

image:US Postage Stamp Monitor & Virginia.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Project scope

Just wondering: I noticed that lifeboats and the organizations responsible for them have been edited out of the project as per not in the project's scope. Since they are literally a life and death issue for sailors I would like to know which WikiProject caters for them if not WPSHIPS. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

One of the issues is that these organizations operate mainly or only boat-class vessels that are not in the scope of our project. Personally, I think lifeboats and lifeboat organizations would fit better under another project. How about Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport/Maritime transport task force? Tupsumato (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I popped the question there. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Curiously, WP:RNLI is under WP:WATERSPORTS (which is a very odd place to have it).

I think it's time to expand WP:TRANSPORT's Maritime WG into a full project like WP:AVIATION, except for all things boating/shipping/nautical/maritime, and move RNLI under it, and then we can create task force Coast Guard. Thus everything not covered by WPSHIPS will have a place to go, and we can merge the various inactive boating projects into it as TFs. (except WP:WATERSPORTS, which seems to cover other things as well) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 09:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

HMS Richard ca.1765

Was there such a ship please? Kittybrewster ☎ 22:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

No, there had been warships of that name, none were still in service by anything close to 1765. Benea (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I will say though that if you are looking at historic documents you may easily be fooled by the style of writing and shortening the names. It may be that what you are looking for is a Richmond, not a Richard, (Rich'd - for example). In which case HMS Richmond (1757) is probably meant. Any additional information will help in tracking this down. Benea (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

[8] - Kittybrewster ☎ 09:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

HMS Richard was a so-called 'tender' used for the 'impress service'; I am not sure when it was built nor where, nor tonnage, nor what sort of rig it had. I imagine it was a small, but decked, vessel used for inshore purposes. There would have been 100s of similar vessels all around the coast. There was an 8 man crew as well as 'the lieutenant's gang' of 6 men on board commanded by Lt Robert Corner who eventually was posted to the Pandora as the 2nd lieutenant

· CORNER, Robert - Commission dd. 21 Aug 1790. Appeared on 13 Oct.1790; received £33.1s.6d advance pay; paid £110.12s. ‘neat wages’ on 26 Oct.1792 · Age 37; from London. Prior to his appointment as 2nd. Lt to the Pandora, he was CO of a press gang operating from HMS Richard in the North Sea. It is interesting to note that a number of men in Corner’s press gang and from the Richard’s crew appear to have followed him to the Pandora (Adm. 36/11092) Hamilton (1793:27) mentions that Corner had been commissioned “in the land service” before joining the RN; Corner was first commissioned as an RN lieutenant in 1779 – at age 26. He was promoted to 1st Lieutenant of HMS Terrible in 1792 and also served as 1st lieutenant (1798-1802) in HMS Victory under Horatio Nelson’s command*. He ended his career as Superintendent of Marine Police in Malta; and was buried in February 1819, aged 66, in St Paul’s Cathedral (Valetta)

* But he was not on board the Victory at Trafalgar! Kittybrewster ☎ 14:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

People often apply "HMS" erroneously to un-commissioned ships. It doesn't sound like your source is terribly reliable in any case. She was probably a small cutter of less than 50 tons, and I'd be surprised if much of a written record exists. I'll ask user:Rif Winfield to pass by - if anybody can help, he can. Shem (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I can confirm that what Benea and Shem write is correct. It is certainly possible that there was a tender which was called the Richard (small craft like this might be given any name informally, although they could equally never have any name), but there is no record of a Richard anywhere in either Admiralty or Navy Board records after the close of the 17th century; if there was such a tender she was never commissioned as a naval vessel, not even as a naval cutter (which would be listed in the records, even if it was just a vessel hired for a short period for naval use), and thus the "HMS" prefix used is certainly incorrect. The impress service had access to a number of small craft (NOT naval vessels), mostly harbour craft and small boats. Rif Winfield (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Reduction drive

There are currently nearly 1,000 articles in Category:Ship articles without infoboxes.

How about a dedicated drive during August to reduce the number of articles in this category to none? Mjroots (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I tried to add an infobox to BAP Paita (DT-141), but for some reason the infobox has appeared at the bottom of the article and some spaces in the body of the text are not displaying - can anyone fix it?

Looks like there was a missing "|}" at the end of the infobox - it's all cleared up now.

As for the original question, I'd be able to help out if we decide to do an infobox drive. Parsecboy (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Tupsumato (talk) 04:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

While were at it, we should probably do something for the unassesses articles as well. I've been trying to classify some of them every now and then, but I'm not very good at it. Tupsumato (talk) 07:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

To be something of a pest related to a good idea I have checked some of those "articles" and my poorly received suggestion up above at Mississippi riverboats bubbles up again. Is an info box, even stub improvement, worth while for something like Portsmouth Queen which really may best be covered in context of the little fleet of Gosport Ferry under vessels]]? If memory serves even the old printed DANFS covered such vessels as USS American (1861) under a list of something like "Stone Fleet"—and there is Stone Fleet here—in an appendix. Is a box or stub improvement really likely to do much for that ship? Or is a campaign to reduce that list by some sort of consolidation better? Palmeira (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick hint for editors who want to help but don't know how to get started: one of the easiest ways to fill an infobox for existing ships is first to find out the classification society with e.g. Equasis (free subscription required) and then see if the classification society has a public database. The database entries often contain enough information to fill out the general characteristics section and at least current owner, port of registry etc. I did a bunch of CMA CGM container ships this morning in this way.

Also, don't forget the infobox guide and {{cite ship register}}.

However, I can't help but wonder if all those ships need their own articles. Sure, they are big as heck, but is there anything else in them? Often, the article body consists of just one or two sentences... Tupsumato (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Considering that it's not even August yet, this is going rather well. Tupsumato (talk) 03:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Just writing something so that the discussion won't be archived yet. Tupsumato (talk) 08:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Category relevant to the project...

Category:Royal Navy courts martial is under discussion here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

List of North Korean merchant ships

This is now as done as it is likely to get. Many ships thought to be PDRK are flagged in Panama and elsewhere. One database says a certain ship is scrapped, another does not agree. In all case, I tried to stick to the sure things as much as possible. I hope you ship people will feel free to add this article anywhere it needs to be listed. For me it was an exercise to learn tables, I am unschooled in the wise ways of this project. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

You're not done yet. Fix Rung Ra Do, there are two listed. Also fix the referencing to use {{cite ship register}}.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help on this, by the way. I am afraid you will have to type more slowly so I can understand what a template is and how I ought to use it. Perhaps if you could do one or two for me. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The citation for Pho Thae looks like this:

<ref>{{cite ship register|register=E|id=7632955|shipname=Pho Thae|accessdate=2013-07-20}}</ref>

For all ships that have <ref>Equasis data base accessed July 2013</ref> (or August), use this template. Putting the IMO number in |id=, the ship's name in |shipname=, and the date you saw the source data in |accessdate=:

<ref>{{cite ship register|register=E|id=|shipname=|accessdate=}}</ref>

–Trappist the monk (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, let me try that when the Eid internet madness dies down tomorrow. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I tried to do the first one, and seem to have screwed it up. On the other hand, I do not know what it is supposed to look like. Take a ganger and advise me. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 07:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes you do know. There is a complete example in my last post. Here is the cite you attempted as it should be:

{{cite ship register|register=E|id=7712975|shipname=Al Iman|accessdate=2013-07-21}}

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to explain to me that I did not really need your help. I may or may not get around to bringing the page up to your standards, once I decide how angry I am. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

All the changes up through letter K are done now. It's really nothing to be angry about. Just a matter of lots of copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste. —Diiscool (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

HMT Alvis at sea.jpg

image:HMT Alvis at sea.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The IWM site attributes this image to an official Royal Navy photographer. Assuming it was made 1945 or earlier would then be PD in UK effective 1995. I believe the worldwide release of expired Crown Copyright material would make it PD in the US as well irrespective of publication history. Dankarl (talk) 02:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You might want to post a {{holdon|reasoning}} on the file page then. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

DoneDankarl (talk) 01:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I was bold and removed the deletion tag entirely after adding the PD-GOV template (Template:PD-BritishGov for future reference). It's the same as all the commons uploads from the IWM. If this one goes, the rationale for keeping them falls apart. The method of uploading this image automatically generated the license issue/delete after 7 days tag. So I don't expect any more from this, though anyone feeling different is free to revert. But as it stands, this can be moved to commons to join the other IWM images, in due course. Benea (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

APT AmaKaterina Cruise Ship.jpg

image:APT AmaKaterina Cruise Ship.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Captured naval ships - disambiguation years

A possible change from year built to year captured has been raised at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships) Davidships (talk) 09:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Citation format for SS Blairspey

I am adding references to Lloyd's Register for the articles about some Second World War merchant ships. One for SS Blairspey has generated the scarlet admonition "Cite error: The named reference LR40 was invoked but never defined". As far as I can see I have applied exactly the same format as in other citations that are displaying properly. Applying the principle that it is easier to proof-read another person's work than one's own, someone please check the format and tell me where I went wrong? Thanks, Motacilla (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I do like a challenge! Your citation formatting was correct, as you surmised. What was wrong was that the template:Infobox Ship fields require a capital letter S for "|Ship owner=", and you had "|ship owner=". This meant that the owner field did not display, and since the cite was defined within that field, neither did the citation. It works fine now I've capitalised the "s". A pleasure to help. Shem (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Aaargh! No wonder I couldn't see the mistake. Thanks for fixing it. Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Photo collection

Hey all, just to note, there's a gallery of images of ships (among many other things) available online here. They are all PD-Canada (which means for the vast majority of them, they are also PD-US-URAA). There are many of the Canadian steamer SS Cayuga, which does not currently have an article. If some go-getter out there would like to write that article, he or she would have a plethora of images to use to illustrate it. Parsecboy (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The collection includes a head-on view HMS Iron Duke in full dress here. Wikimedia doesn't seem to have a photo like that of the ship, but I can't see the copyright details for this one. Help? Thanks, Motacilla (talk) 13:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Circular arc hull

Anyone know about this? The article is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circular arc hull. How many ships use this, do you know of the names of any that have used this at any time in history, is it taught in ship schools, found in any university level textbooks? Dream Focus 23:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see the AfD discussion for further details - people are clearly confusing two different subjects, and the actual topic is a specific hull design, not a general form of hull. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Returning to formatting

Please see §Returning to formatting at {{infobox ship begin}}.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

HMCS Saskatchewan (H70)

The fate of the article HMCS Saskatchewan (H70) is under discussion, see Talk:HMS Fortune (H70) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

2013 RAN International Fleet Review - Photo requests

The Royal Australian Navy is hosting an International Fleet Review at the start of October in Sydney Harbour. It's running from 3 to 11 October, and I'm taking most of that off work to get photographs of the ships attending. I'll be aiming to get general shots of all attending warships and tall ships, but if anyone needs a particular image (for example, from a particular view, or a closeup of a particular feature), let me know and I'll see what I can do for you.

I've put a list of attending ships up at User:Saberwyn/2013 RAN IFR ships. List any photo requests you have under the particular ship's section, along with any details I may need to get the shot you want. -- saberwyn 23:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I have photos taken last Wednesday (and Saturday) of the tall ships Europa, Oosterchelde and Tecla off the coast at Semaphore, underway up the Port River, and entering and docked in the inner harbour at Port Adelaide, but not of their departure yesterday for the IFR. Also some of the Lord Nelson, docked (which departed today). Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

GT, GRT, NetT, NRT templates

Perhaps you've noticed that the four templates, {{GT}}, {{GRT}}, {{NetT}}, {{NRT}}, while ostensibly similar, have dissimilar outputs given the same inputs:

Template output comparison

Code	Renders as	Comments
|first=yes
{{GT|36000|first=yes}}	36,000 GT	Improper output of units tons for a unitless specification; unformatted numerical value
{{GRT|36000|first=yes}}	36,000 GRT
{{NetT|36000|first=yes}}	36,000 NT	tons units; unformatted
{{NRT|36000|first=yes}}	36,000 NRT
|first=short
{{GT|36000|first=short}}	36,000 GT	Unformatted numerical value
{{GRT|36000|first=short}}	36,000 GRT
{{NetT|36000|first=short}}	36,000 NT	Unformatted
{{NRT|36000|first=short}}	36,000 NRT
|first=<empty> or omitted
{{GT|36000|first=}}	36,000 GT	Abbreviation linked; unformatted numerical value
{{GRT|36000|first=}}	36,000 GRT
{{NetT|36000|first=}}	36,000 NT	Abbreviation linked; unformatted
{{NRT|36000|first=}}	36,000 NRT

So I set about finding a way to have the templates produce similar outputs when given the same inputs. Also, |first= has always bothered me. As a parameter name it is essentially meaningless since one cannot know what it means when assigned the value yes (or any other value for that matter). To maintain legacy comparability, I have created a new parameter, |disp=, that can have one of three values: long, short, and adj. I also created a second parameter that modifies the output of the templates when |disp=long or |disp=adj. This parameter, |link=off, turns off the wikilink when either of |disp=long or |disp=adj is specified.

The numerical value is now always formatted with comma separators.

Template/sandbox output comparison

Code	Renders as
|disp=long
{{GT/sandbox|36000|disp=long}}	36,000 gross tonnage (GT)
{{GRT/sandbox|36000|disp=long}}	36,000 gross register tons (GRT)
{{NetT/sandbox|36000|disp=long}}	36,000 net tonnage (NT)
{{NRT/sandbox|36000|disp=long}}	36,000 net register tons (NRT)
|disp=short
{{GT/sandbox|36000|disp=short}}	36,000 GT |disp=short
{{GRT/sandbox|36000|disp=short}}	36,000 GRT |disp=short
{{NetT/sandbox|36000|disp=short}}	36,000 NT |disp=short
{{NRT/sandbox|36000|disp=short}}	36,000 NRT |disp=short
|disp=adj
{{GT/sandbox|36000|disp=adj}}	36,000-gross tonnage (GT)
{{GRT/sandbox|36000|disp=adj}}	36,000-gross register ton (GRT)
{{NetT/sandbox|36000|disp=adj}}	36,000-net tonnage (NT)
{{NRT/sandbox|36000|disp=adj}}	36,000-net register ton (NRT)
|disp=<empty> or omitted
{{GT/sandbox|36000|disp=}}	36,000 GT
{{GRT/sandbox|36000|disp=}}	36,000 GRT
{{NetT/sandbox|36000|disp=}}	36,000 NT
{{NRT/sandbox|36000|disp=}}	36,000 NRT
|disp=<empty> or omitted |link=off
{{GT/sandbox|36000|disp=|link=off}}	36,000 GT
{{GRT/sandbox|36000|disp=|link=off}}	36,000 GRT
{{NetT/sandbox|36000|disp=|link=off}}	36,000 NT
{{NRT/sandbox|36000|disp=|link=off}}	36,000 NRT
|disp=long |link=off
{{GT/sandbox|36000|disp=long|link=off}}	36,000 gross tonnage (GT)
{{GRT/sandbox|36000|disp=long|link=off}}	36,000 gross register tons (GRT)
{{NetT/sandbox|36000|disp=long|link=off}}	36,000 net tonnage (NT)
{{NRT/sandbox|36000|disp=long|link=off}}	36,000 net register tons (NRT)
|disp=adj |link=off
{{GT/sandbox|36000|disp=adj|link=off}}	36,000-gross tonnage (GT)
{{GRT/sandbox|36000|disp=adj|link=off}}	36,000-gross register ton (GRT)
{{NetT/sandbox|36000|disp=adj|link=off}}	36,000-net tonnage (NT)
{{NRT/sandbox|36000|disp=adj|link=off}}	36,000-net register ton (NRT)

More complete examination of the new parameters as well as the legacy parameters can be found on the template testcases pages: {{GT/testcases}}, {{GRT/testcases}}, {{NetT/testcases}}, {{NRT/testcases}}.

Questions? Comments, Opinions?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Very nice work Trappist. Yep, these have needed a good uniformity kick in the rear for a while. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

There are no "gross tons" or "net tons" as the modern gross and net tonnages are unitless indices. Thus, the templates should not allow spelling them out. Actually, even "36,000 GT" is wrong by that definition, but that usage is so widespread that it is probably better to leave it be than try to correct a great wrong.

Still, good work on osne of the most-used ship-related templates. Tupsumato (talk) 04:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

So then, wouldn't the correct output be <value> gross tonnage or <value> net tonnage when |disp=long or |disp=adj? I can imagine that in certain circumstances an editor may want to write something akin to "HMS Nonesuch, a 36,000,000-gross tonnage stone frigate, sank at her moorings" or "there are very few stone frigates of 36,000,000 gross tonnage, HMS Nonesuch being an exemplar of the type." (I know, awkward, but ...)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you can spell it out like that. If I could choose, I'd enforce "gross tonnage of <value>" and "<value> GT", and disallow "gross tonnage of <value> GT" (because GT is not an unit) and any form of "gross tons" spelled out (because there is no such thing). As I said, "<value> GT" is not exactly correct either, but it's so widely used that we simply have to leave it be. I use it in text and infoboxes as well (but in tables I prefer giving just the number without the "unit").

It would be nice to get a confirmation from higher authority about the correct usage of the terms. Anyone got a hotline to IMO or anything? I can be mistaken about the unit issue, of course... Tupsumato (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The compatible version (|first=yes) in {{GT/sandbox}} and {{NetT/sandbox}} both output "gross(net) tonnage of <value>":

gross tonnage (GT) of 36,000

net tonnage (NT) of 36,000

The output you describe, "gross tonnage of <value> GT", is not available from the current live version nor from the sandbox version. The thing that has changed for the compatible version (|first=yes) is that the outputs no longer use the term "tons" (and <value> is comma formatted). In the current and proposed compatible versions of the templates, the parenthetical GT and NT simply identify GT and NT as initialisms of gross and net tonnage.

Using just <value> without any of GRT, GT, NRT, or NT makes no sense to me because if you do that, <value> has no meaning except as a number. Even though GT is a unitless index, <value> must still be identified as GT or NT or whatever.

I have changed {{GT/sandbox}} and {{NetT/sandbox}} to output gross tonnage and net tonnage instead of gross tons and net tons.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think "tonnage" is grammatically correct in that context. How about "<value> GT (gross tonnage)" for |disp=long, "<value> GT" for |disp=short (or no parameter), links on by default, and drop the adjectives completely? Also, which parameter gives the output of "a gross tonnage (GT) of <value>"? I recall writing that out in some articles...

As for using <value> alone, I agree — it makes no sense. "Gross tonnage" or "GT" has to be included in one form or another. Tupsumato (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess it depends on how its used: There aren't many ships of 3,600,000 gross tonnage (GT).

The "<value> GT (gross tonnage)" is available in the sandbox version as a modification of {{GT|36000|first=short}}: 36,000 GT (gross tonnage). That functionality isn't going away. I think it's incorrectly worded because the parenthetical should be the inititalism not the definition, but since it's legacy code I won't change it unless there is a compelling reason to do so.

Your suggestion for "<value> GT" (link on) is already the sandbox output for |disp=short. The links are off for no parameters. I chose to have links off as the default because if the template is used multiple times in the article, it's more work for the editor to turn-off the links of the many rather than turn on the link of the one and so avoid overlinking.

The "gross tonnage (GT) of <value>" output is available in the sandbox version as a modification of {{GT|36000|first=yes}}: gross tonnage (GT) of 36,000.

Part of the motivation to do this was to make all of the four templates give similar results when the inputs are the same. Another was that it would have been convenient to have had an adjectival version. So, I've done that. In the non-compatible mode, these templates all act in similar ways when given the same inputs and they all produce an adjectival output. My guess is that most of the time, editors will be using |disp=short if they use any parameters other than <value>.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Forgot this re: "gross tonnage (GT) of <value>". In {{GT}} and {{NetT}} you lined out some of the documentation because the template outputs included the term "tons" for these unitless measurements. The "tons" term has been removed from the sandbox versions.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm somewhat okay with most of the changes, but I just want to have confirmation that "36,000-gross tonnage" is grammatically correct. As for links, I'd prefer to have the links on by default because the template is usually used twice in the article: once in the infobox, once in the article body (and quite often only in the infobox). Articles with multiple instances close to each other are not that common. Tupsumato (talk) 06:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Default state is now linked; |link=off to unlink.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

DWT template

Similar to the above, {{DWT/sandbox}} adds the same features: |disp=long, |disp=adj, both supporting |link=off, and |disp=short. The positional parameter (also called |units= supports values metric and long which controls how the DWT units are displayed. When the {{{2}}} / |units= is not present or empty, {{DWT}} falls back to the generic tons.

Template/sandbox output comparison

Code	Renders as
|disp=long
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|disp=long}}	36,000 tons deadweight (DWT)
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|metric|disp=long}}	36,000 tonnes deadweight (DWT)
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|long|disp=long}}	36,000 long tons deadweight (DWT)
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|disp=long|link=off}}	36,000 tons deadweight (DWT)
|disp=adj
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|disp=adj}}	36,000-ton deadweight (DWT)
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|metric|disp=adj}}	36,000-tonne deadweight (DWT)
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|long|disp=adj}}	36,000-long ton deadweight (DWT)
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|disp=adj|link=off}}	36,000-ton deadweight (DWT)
|disp=short
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|disp=short}}	36,000 |disp=short
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|metric|disp=short}}	36,000 |disp=short
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|long|disp=short}}	36,000 |disp=short
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|disp=short|link=off}}	36,000 |disp=short
|disp=<empty>
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|disp=}}	36,000 DWT
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|metric|disp=}}	36,000 t DWT
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|long|disp=}}	36,000 LT DWT
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|disp=|link=off}}	36,000 DWT

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I've always been against using "metric tons deadweight". I'm sure some older ships were measured in LT or some other unit close but not quite 1000 kg, but in most cases it's just tons deadweight and it's next to impossible to find out what unit was actually used. Some editors seem to be fond to mentioning the metric for modern ships, but in my eyes it's the same as saying "I'm going to call you with the phone" i.e. needless redundancy. How about leaving it at that and also not introducing some extremely non-standard ways of descriping the deadweight tonnage such as "<value> t DWT".

Also, still not sure if the adjective ("36,000-ton deadweight (DWT)") is grammatically correct. I see where you're trying to go and I like it, but it just looks wrong like that, at least in my eyes. I'd probably read it out loud as "36,000-ton ship", but that has its own set of unique issues, so let's not allow that kind of output from the template.

And again, I'd like to see linking on by default. The template is used just once or twice in most articles. Tupsumato (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Default state is now linked; |link=off to unlink.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to you two for taking this on. Consistency and simplicity are needed. We should not return "tonnage" for one measure and "tons" for another. Make it tonnage for both, or (my personal preference) "x gross tons", "x net register tons", etc. I agree with Tupsumato in his penultimate point: the plural (tons) is indicated when it follows the figure. Kablammo (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that DWT is actually measured in tons (weight) and GRT and NRT in register tons (volume; 100 cubic feet). but GT and NT are just numbers without any unit. For this reason, we should steer clear from "gross tons" and "net tons", but not avoid register tons and whatever ton has been used to measure the DWT. Tupsumato (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

@Editor Kablammo: The singular, |adj= version is intended to be used much the same way that we would write a 30-meter sloop but not write a 30-meters sloop. So, we would write a 36,000-gross tonnage (GT) skow, or a 36,000-gross register ton (GRT) skow, or a 36,000-tonne deadweight (DWT) skow but not write a 36,000 gross tonnage (GT) skow, a 36,000 gross register tons (GRT) skow, or a 36,000 tons deadweight (DWT) skow.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

In such cases, I usually use the abbreviations. "39,000 GT ship..." and so on. Tupsumato (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Man-of-war

Could the experts here please examine the suggestion made at Talk:Man-of-war#Delete Man-of-war article? If the assessment given there is correct, the easiest solution might be to turn the article Man-of-war into a redirect to Warship, add a mention of the term there and remove the links to the article from navigation boxes and the like. The etymology should be moved to wikt:man-of-war, where there is currently none. I don't know enough about naval terminology, myself, I only just stumbled over the article and saw all the templates plastered over the page, so I checked the talk page and saw the assertions that man-of-war lacks an agreed-on definition and is mostly just an archaic expression for battleships warships. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Strike "battleship," as it has a modern usage too particular as to a specific type of warship, and I would agree. A quick usage "reference grab" just in U.S. terms at NHHC reveals A SHORT ACCOUNT OF THE Several General Duties of Officers, OF SHIPS OF WAR; FROM AN ADMIRAL, DOWN TO THE MOST INFERIOR OFFICER in which "Thus a first-rate man of war has twenty-four [midshipmen], and the inferior rates a suitable number in proportion" in context of "ships of war" (warships). In The Reestablishment of the Navy, 1787-1801 with "on 27 April 1798 Congress authorized the President to acquire, arm, and man no more than twelve vessels, of up to twenty-two guns each. Under the terms of this act several vessels were purchased and converted into ships of war. One of these, the Ganges, a Philadelphia-built merchant ship, became "the first man-of-war to fit out and get to sea" we see the same mixed use. It has been a while since I really looked at the history of the term but my recollection is that it originated in context of a "king's" (national) ship, as opposed to a private ship, equipped and intended purely for combat, as opposed to the also common armed merchant ships. If I recall correctly, in English it was generally reserved in technical use to rated ships, "sloop of war" for example used for the small unrated sloops, though in popular usage it might be applied to any warship. If someone up on Wiki procedure proposes a merge, with a useful paragraph noting the archaic usage, I would support the term being redirected. Palmeira (talk) 12:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

See, I didn't know there is a difference between warships and battleships; I thought the terms were essentially synonymous. I'm a total noob when it comes to ships. That's why I'd rather let more knowledgeable editors take care of the merge proposal and, in case it succeeds, realisation. Thanks everyone. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Class assessment on redirects

The number of unassessed ships articles suddently went up from less than one hundred to over 300. Since I check the category almost daily, it must have happened overnight or, at most, within the past few days I've been busy. Most of these new articles seem to be redirects to existing and assessed articles. Whoever did this or does this in the future, if you create a large number of redirects and tag them for the project(s), could you also add |class=redirect to the project template so that someone else wouldn't have to go through each talk page and assess them individually? Tupsumato (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

You could ask for a bot at WP:BOTREQ to scan the needing assessment category and automatically assess redirects as redirect-class -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 08:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Santisima Trinidad harried by Terpsichore.jpg

file:Santisima Trinidad harried by Terpsichore.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

MV Kidjang.JPG

image:MV Kidjang.JPG has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Aramoana1976.jpg

File:Aramoana1976.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 04:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Any discussion? If so, the condition for use set by National Library of New Zealand should be considered and perhaps the credit needs to be copied exactly:

You can copy this item for personal use, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It cannot be used commercially without permission, please ask us for advice. If reproducing this item, please maintain the integrity of the image (i.e. don't crop, recolour or overprint it), and ensure the following credit accompanies it: Spray on the bow of Cook Strait ferry the Aramoana, Wellington Heads. Further negatives of the Evening Post newspaper. Ref: EP/1976/4101/21A-F. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. http://natlib.govt.nz/records/22464652

In light of that I'd support keeping the image. Palmeira (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Parsecboy uploaded a new version, with a fair-use rationale. As for the image conditions you found, that would also require a fair-use rationale, since on Wikipedia, any "non-commercial only" needs one. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 06:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

"If reproducing this item, please maintain the integrity of the image (i.e. don't crop, recolour or overprint it)" is a restriction that should be honored by Wikipedia as well as it is a condition on that usage. So is the note that the credit line should be kept intact. Some would see this as a condition upon the "license" for non commercial, including fair use. Palmeira (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not. Fair Use does not require us to reproduce an image exactly as the copyright holder requests (and in fact FU requires us to use a lower resolution than the original). Parsecboy (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Lower resolution and cropping maybe and fair use does take into consideration how much of a copyrighted work was used. However, certainly attribution etiquette is violated when specific attribution/copyright information is stripped when the owner specifically notes they should be included. For courtesy and "safety" I think such "requests" should be followed here. Preserving a copyright owners attribution/copyright statements exactly is a small price to pay for using something they have allowed under "non commercial" rather than just fair use. I might also note a possible violation of the "Terms of use" of the website from which the photo was taken—something that is probably better avoided. Palmeira (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Palmeira on this point. If we're going to use somebody else's content outside the original license, claiming "fair use", I think it's reasonable to try to align with the owner's other requests where practical. Playing the "fair use" card whilst removing the credit line seems excessive to me. bobrayner (talk) 11:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Scope of Aircraft carrier article

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Aircraft carrier#To include, or not to include... about what the scope of the Aircraft carrier article should be, especeally as to whether or not amphibious assault ships that operate STOVL aircraft should be included. Any help in reaching a clear consensus about this issue would be appreciated, as would any links to previous project discussions on the issue. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

French Guichen.jpg

image:French Guichen.jpg has been nominated fo rdeletion -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 22:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

CCGS Labrador.gif

Image:CCGS Labrador.gif has been nominated fordeletion --- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 22:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

What is the proper name for the article Hamilton and Scourge – 1982 Survey Expedition?

I recently cleaned up and added links to Hamilton and Scourge – 1982 Survey Expedition. I'm almost certain the page is at the wrong title. However, I am unacquainted with the naming conventions for ships, archaeology, etc. and a quick browse through the relevant categories didn't yield anything useful. Anyone know or have a good suggestion? Ideally something that doesn't involve short horizontal lines. --erachima talk 00:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Generally the title matches the bold words in the lead. Hamilton–Scourge survey expedition is unique and seems well-suited. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The article wasn't formatted to have a lead at the time I reached it, so there were no bold words one way or the other. If that seems acceptable though, it could certainly work as the new title. --erachima talk 01:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Seeing no dissent, I've made the move. If someone has a problem with this, I'll happily move it back. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of Classes of Anti Aircraft Warfare Ships

Is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of Classes of Anti Aircraft Warfare Ships something that is useful to have in the Encyclopedia? If so, please either accept it (turn on the "Yet Another AFC Helper Script" gadget in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets to make it easy) or add an {{afc comment}} below the existing comment(s) and an AFC reviewer will accept it for you. If it's not suitable, reject it or add an "afc comment" saying so. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I've declined it as a variation on WP:SYNTH; while there are classes of ships that are primarily anti-aircraft types, it's not a distinct classification, and most ships since the 1950s are "dual-role". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

On a not un-related note is there any existing article on anti-aircraft warfare that would tie together ships as diverse as the Flakships/Vorpostenboot, Type 82 destroyer (HMS Bristol) the Type 42 destroyer, and Air Direction ships? GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Moving MS Annie Johnson back to MS Costa Allegra

User:Yankeesman312 moved MS Costa Allegra to MS Annie Johnson. The move should be reverted as per WP:NC-SHIPS. There's a link to the move discussion on the talk page — please comment. Tupsumato (talk) 04:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Mona's Queen

A dilemma - The newspaper article (ref.1) about the 1940 sinking of Mona's Queen does not appear to be available online from from the original source. However, I have a copy of it (because I am related to Captain Holkham) and have reproduced the text on a (non-commercial) genealogical page of my (commercial) website.

As the article contains a great deal of information, including the names, addresses and fates of Mona's Queen's crew at the time of the sinking, and also details about the King Orry (also sunk at Dunkirk) I thought it would be helpful to have a link to the full text. Strictly speaking this would be an external link to my website but I would still like to make the content of the article available. I could put the whole text in the article, but would that be too much information? Any thoughts gratefully received. Thanks. Tony Holkham (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. Got a link?

We don't like spam, but the mere act that you ask before adding one link to one relevant article makes it look completely unlike spam!

One possible problem springs to mind - what about copyright? We should never link to pages that infringe somebody else's copyright. The UK has a 70 year copyright period, but that doesn't necessarily start at the date a piece was published. bobrayner (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. The link to the text is [9]. The article is 1940 so 73 years ago. I can't work out whether the IOM Weekly Times still exists or was absorbed by the Isle of Man Courier. I did try to add a link a few months ago, was told I shouldn't have done it without discussion, and just got round to discussing it... Tony Holkham (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

If the article was published (as in your transcription) without byline then following Bobrayner's link puts it in the clear; and also would be OK if author clearly on the staff as reporter or editor. Otherwise it's iffy. Davidships (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no byline, as only part of the article (concerning the IOM SPC's ships) is on the cutting. Since we don't know who the author was, whether they were on the staff of the paper or freelance, and if the latter when they died, it looks as though it's a non-starter, copyright-wise. Thanks for your input, though. Tony Holkham (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

RMS Queen Mary Southampton 1965.jpg

image:RMS Queen Mary Southampton 1965.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.181.39 (talk) 02:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)