Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

→

Archive 45

Article request

USNS 1st. Lt. Harry L. Martin (T-AK-3015) hit a bridge in Jacksonville, FL today. Any chance this red link could be turned blue? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Voice-of-peace-ship.jpg

image:Voice-of-peace-ship.jpg has been nominmated for deletion -- 65.92.181.39 (talk) 05:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

File:OldKyle.jpg

File:OldKyle.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.181.39 (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Medina-maiden-voyage.jpg

image:Medina-maiden-voyage.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.181.39 (talk) 03:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Photos of the RAN International Fleet Review - assistance needed

Hi all. I've been taking and uploading photographs of the ongoing RAN International Fleet review, but I need the help of other editors to categorise, sort, and caption them all, because at the moment I've not got time to do more than upload and run. I've been collating the image at User:Saberwyn/2013 RAN IFR ships, or alternately, look at my Commons contributions (which at the moment is nothing but IFR uploads). Any assistance would be greatly appreciated!

Also, if I've failed to upload photos of any of the attending vessels, or if there's a particular ship or piece of equipment you want a shot of for an article, let me know and I'll do what I can. -- saberwyn 20:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Happy to help categorizing the pics, not sure exactly what needs to be done and based on which sources? Also I'm taking some pics myself that I'd be happy to share with the project, let me know is there is a repository for that. Regards, DPdH (talk) 08:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Any images can be uploaded to Commons with the Commons category:International Fleet Review 2013]. For the images I've already loaded, the minimum thats needed is categorisation to identify the ship or ships in the image, and additions to the caption stating the same. Names and images of the involved ships can be found here (warships) and here (tall ships). -- saberwyn 09:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Grand Fleet sails.jpg

image:Grand Fleet sails.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.129.3 (talk) 05:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

This has generated a discussion at WT:MILHIST -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 05:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Coasts, continental and otherwise

Hello. Another editor and I are in a dispute whether the word "continental" should be added to SMS Gneisenau to refer to the mainland coast of Chile (as opposed to Easter Island) - the edit in question is here. This has been brought up for discussion here, and I invite others to share their opinions. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 14:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Why do we ban bullets in infoboxes?

So far as I'm aware, WPSHIPS is the only part of Wikipedia that bans bullets in infoboxes. Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines states "Bullet points should never be used in infoboxes. If it is necessary to create a list of items within an infobox, for example, a list of a ship's weapons, the items should be separated using the HTML markup <br />, or the {{br}} or {{plainlist}} templates."

I know there used to be a technical reason (bullets didn't work well in infoboxes way back when), but that was resolved years ago. Given that there's no technical reason why we shouldn't use bullets in infoboxes, I guess the only remaining reason would be style. I find it odd that this particular style quirk applies only at WPSHIPS, and in any case, there are thousands of ship articles that do in fact use bullets in infoboxes (like HMS Daring (D32)) without detracting from the impact - and in fact, it's a powerful way to present a host of technical data (compare the block of incomprehensible data at USS Nimitz (CVN-68)). If it's good enough for Nelson, surely it's good enough for his ships?

Even the navigation bar on the left of my Wikipedia page uses bullets (I know it's not an infobox, but it serves the same purpose in a similar format). The Main Page uses bullets in a style similar to an infobox. An example of other types of page that use bullets in infoboxes would include TV programmes (eg. Q Who), places (Le Cailar, Berkshire), military units (Para Commandos (India)) and planets (Uranus).

Many projects divide their infoboxes up like tables, making bullets unnecessary to separate blocks of technical data (elements; eg. Hydrogen). Others use icons instead of bullets to do the same (transportation; eg. Ontario Highway 17). WPSHIPS does not use these approaches.

Given that this MOS guidance is often ignored, I would like understand if there is any reason to maintain this widely-flouted rule. I for one consider that the bullets actually enhance the readability of the lists of technical information, and would want to remove the rule for that reason alone.

Thoughts? Shem (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion that resulted in the decision to disallow bullet points in WP:SHIPS Infoboxes began here and concluded here.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm genuinely confused now - I don't see any real consensus, and I don't see a record of any decision or summary. Shem (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Review requested

Hi all, if you've got a minute, could you review the FLC candidacy of List of battleships of Italy? It's been up for a month and has only garnered one review so far. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Russian ships and classes naming questions

What is the correct article title for Vladivostok (Russian ship)? It was moved in July from Russian ship Vladivostok (Mistral class). Its sister ship is still at Russian ship Sevastopol (Mistral class). Also, does the class name need to be included in the title? When or when not?

Also, are there any guidleines regarding ship classes, and when ships purchased by other navies should be considered to be of separate class or sub-classes? Vladivostok and Sevastopol are both included in the Mistral-class amphibious assault ship article, while the Canberra-class landing helicopter dock ships aren't considered to be Juan Carlos I. I do understand that the Russian Navy doesn't name its ship classes after the lead ship in the Western tradition, but most WP articles on Russian ship classes do use the lead ship's name. Exampleas are the Kuznetsov-class aircraft carrier and Kiev-class aircraft carrier articles. Also, should we have a separate class article on the Vladivostok-class amphibious assault ships? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The article should be at Russian ship Vladivostok (2013) per our naming conventions, which is where I have moved it. The class name should never be used in the title - if disambiguation is necessary, the year of launching should be used. Parsecboy (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I thought the naming convention said to use the type of ship in the article name unless the navy in question used a prefix like USS or HMS? Forex, Russian battleship Gangut, etc. The year of launch is used if a further disambiguator is needed. BTW, I got into a huge argument with people over renaming French ships of the line in that format rather than the Ville de Paris (ship, 1784), and gave it up in disgust as it wasn't worth the fight.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Sturm is correct, Russian assault ship Vladivostok and Russian assault ship Sevastopol would be the correct names for these two ships. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Do we usually abreviate them as "assault ships"? Would not Russian amphibious assault ship Vladivostok and Russian amphibious assault ship Sevastopol be better, though admitedly longer? - BilCat (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd prefer the accurate-but-unwieldy "amphibious assault ship", although note that the only ships of the type with not possessing a standard prefix that have articles (the three French Mistrals and the Italian San Giusto - the other two of that class are redlinks) currently follow the pattern "<Nation> ship <Name> (<pennant123>)". As a sidebar, most of the stuff I've seen on the Canberras considers the two RAN vessels as a derived but separate design to Juan Carlos I due to differences in internal fitout, bell-and-whistle modifications, and planned operation... though I have no idea how this impacts on any potential Mistral/Vladivostok combination or split. -- saberwyn 11:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

On Mistral/Vladivostok, the Russian ships appear to have some changes to suit them for cold weather, such as a fully-closed well deck. I guess the main factor, other than article size, is what they are called in reliable sources. - BilCat (talk) 13:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Ships from navies without ship prefixes under Type says:

Do not be over-specific about the ship type:

Japanese aircraft carrier Chitose not Japanese light aircraft carrier Chitose

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. "Amphibious assault ship" is the ship type in this case. In my opinion, Canberra-class landing helicopter dock is over-specific, and should be at Canberra-class amphibious assault ship, but an exception seems to have been made for those ships, though I don't know why. - BilCat (talk) 13:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

There was a discussion (although I cannot recall where) that concluded that "Canberra-class landing helicopter dock" was the WP:COMMONNAME based on sources. -- saberwyn 19:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Ship registry flags

I am told by an experienced editor that flag icons are acceptable in Ship infoboxes. Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide#Infobox ship career states "The nation of registry should be expressed as text, not as a flag symbol. A flag symbol may be used in addition, but only if such usage meets Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons." This section of the MOS states "Avoid flag icons in infoboxes ... Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text." Have I missed something? Should this exception for Ship infoboxes be explicitly stated? I don't have a strong feeling for or against flagicons, but would like a clearer statement of policy. Finavon (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you Finavon for raising this discussion.

What is being referred to here is the use of flags for the port of registry/homeport fields. This is long-established practice for ship articles. It occurs to me that ICS flags could also fall foul of the current version of WP:MOSFLAG. I would agree with Finavon that there should be explicit examples of where the use of flagicons in infoboxes is accepted practice, and in particular ship infoboxes. The use of flags in shipinfoboxes can convey information in addition to the text, particularly where a civil flag is not the same as a country's land flag (UK, Malta, Singapore, Bahamas to name a few) and historic flags. Mjroots (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

To the extent that the port of registry is important or useful to readers, shouldn't we just write it? bobrayner (talk) 01:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

We do just write the port of registry, and in addition add the appropriate national ensign (it is not a port flag). It neatly adds additional information on the nationality of the ship, which may not be obvious from the bare port name - over time ports change names, or even countries; many are not at all well-known, and many are duplicated around the world. The reader who wants to know even more can of course follow the link form the port name. The flag icon is a useful way of conveying the nationality of the vessel without expanding the infobox with another field or more extensive text. I don't think that they should be added, however, where the nationality is already shown in the infobox(es) header(s). Davidships (talk) 12:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

Per the above discussion, I propose to add an exclusion at WP:MOSFLAG stating that the use of flags in ship infoboxes is accepted practice. Will do so at the weekend unless there are any serious objections. Mjroots (talk) 19:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Support I support the proposal. One of the more interesting examples I've worked on is the German night fighter direction vessel Togo, which had an extremely varied civil and military career, sailing under a variety of flags - so having flags in the infobox helps to present this efficiently. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 23:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Support per WP:COMMONSENSE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Support as per above. I also like pretty colours in general. Tupsumato (talk) 05:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Support per Tupsumato! Additionally, I strongly agree that, while freely throwing around flag icons in articles can be tiresome to see, they do provide additional understanding of the history of a vessel through it's infobox. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Support for reasons I gave above Davidships (talk) 09:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done Mjroots (talk) 15:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Civilian ships naming query

Quick question:

• Seven articles on the First Fleet civilian vessels are under "Name (ship)" -- Lady Penrhyn (ship), Golden Grove (ship), Prince of Wales (ship), Fishburn (ship), Borrowdale (ship),Charlotte (ship) and Scarborough (ship).
• Two articles are under "name (construction date)" -- Friendship (1784) and Alexander (1783).

In Alexander's case this is to separate her from other ships of the same name. In Friendship's case there are no other civilian ship articles of the same name, so the reason for using the suffix (date) instead of (ship) is unclear. Note that these were not Royal Navy vessels and their existence predates the 1939 naming system referred to Ship prefix. Interested in views on a consistent naming approach for these vessels:

• Keep the seven (ship) articles where they are, rename Alexander (1783)" to Alexander (1783 ship)", and rename "Friendship (1783)" to "Friendship (ship)"
• Rename all nine articles to "Name (date ship)"
• Where feasible, remove the suffix altogether per the WP:NC-SHIP example of Niña. Where not feasible (eg Alexander or Prince of Wales where there are many similarly names articles), change to "Name (date ship)"
• Any other option.

I prefer option 1 but won't die in a ditch about it. Any opinions? Euryalus (talk) 03:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Also prefer option 1. Simply having a date as the disambiguator does nothing, in my opinion, to actually disambiguate with understanding the article title. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Option 1. Agree with Huntster. In particular "Alexander (1783)" is singularly unhelpful. With the possible exception of "Lady Penryn", all these names need a clear informative DAB. Davidships (talk) 09:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Option 2 is better. It should be understood that "ship" in this context means a full-rigged ship. With these sailing ships, dabbing by rig and year of launch is likely to cover most vessels. Should any further dabbing be needed, we could probably chuck in a month of launch or builder, but that bridge should be crossed when it is reached. Mjroots (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks all. Have moved the two most problematic ones - Friendship and Alexander to "Name (date ship)." For the rest it seems a bit academic as there's only one ship article with these names in Wikipedia, but for consistency "Name (date ship)" might be the go. Euryalus (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Unresolved ship-related RMs

Please could one or more people from this project have a look at the current move requests listed at Talk:USS_General_Harry_Taylor_(AP-145) and Talk:USS_General_R._E._Callan_(AP-139)? It appears as if the ships have had two names at different times in their history, and I don't know if WP Ships has any policy on which name to choose in these circumstances. So far there has been no response at all to the requests in three weeks of listing! Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

AfD notice

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MV Seaman Guard Ohio incident may be of interest to the project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Error in the sclass- template

Template:sclass- is currently showing "Unrecognized format value" and "ERROR: invalid option 6" under format option 6. Could somebody have a look at it? Shem (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I assume that's because you'd want to use {{sclass}} instead? Format 6 has no hyphen (i.e. "Minas Geraes class battleship) and so wouldn't be appropriate for that template. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Since its inception, {{sclass-}} has always only recognized format parameter values 0–5. On the documentation page, format parameter 6 is intended to illustrate that that value is invalid and to show what happens when it is used. There was no reason to support the {{sclass}} format parameter 6 which itself is deprecated because it produced incorrect output. That is fixed in the current version which merely duplicates the functionality available with format parameter 1.

Where do you want to use {{scalss-}} with format parameter 6?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization in article names - propseMTB, MGB, SGB and others

There is a current discussion at Talk:Motor_Torpedo_Boat#Requested_move_20_October_2013 relating to a proposed move from Motor Torpedo Boat to Motor torpedo boat that also relates to proposed moves for Steam Gun Boat, Motor Gun Boat and to the uncapitalized forms, and may also touch upon the capitalization in other articles (Sea Control Ship, Landing Craft Assault for instance). GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Wale at AfD

This AfD may be of interest to the project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Identifying ship in painting

Is this a painting of USRC Hamilton (1830)? Don't want to add it to the article in error. Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I have my doubts. The Peabody describes the painting on-line as "Brig HAMILTON Passing Marblehead Light Bound for West Africa ..... Built 1830, Scituate, Mass., 164 tons. J. Ropes Master". She is indeed rigged as a brig. However, the Morris-Taney-class cutters, and Hamilton in particular, were apparently rigged as topsail schooners (see [1]). The place of build is wrong also - USRC Hamilton was built at New York Navy Yard, not in Massachussetts - and she wouldn't have carried cargo to West Africa (though that is not in the Peabody on-line caption)

Incidentally, the existing image doesn't seem right either for these Morris-Taney-class articles, except as a generic revenue cutter of the era. Although rigged as a topsail schooner, there is no attribution at source (a French website). However the same painting is used on Japanese site [2] with attribution to [US] Coast Guard Academy Museum Art Collection as "Forward, a 89-foot topsail schooner that displaced 139 tons, was built by William Easby of Washington for $3,786.75. She was in service from 1842...." Davidships (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio problem

Further information: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Buster40004

The SS William S. Ladd article was almost entirely written by Buster40004 (talk · contribs). We can safely assume that there are major copyright issues here.

Therefore I propose that the article is deleted, leaving the title free for an editor in good standing to write a new article. Any volunteers? Mjroots (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I did a bit of checking (just stuff in the intro) and haven't found any duplicates online apart from Wiki-mirrors. We should probably go through the article line by line and excise any problematic material so as to avoid throwing the baby out with the bath water. If and when the time comes to delete parts of the article, I can help with that. Parsecboy (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

One thing to be careful of is that some of the other articles that user committed copyvios on were, themselves, copied from sources rampant with copyvio themselves. (Copyvioception?) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Quick look also indicates probable factual errors as well. The bit in the opening about "delivered to Navy" and then chartered is highly unlikely at best. Commercial type hulls, excepting those destined to become commissioned naval vessels or the few to come under Army ownership, came under WSA control for allocation. The reference given has no mention of some exceptional delivery to the U.S. Navy. Weyerhaeuser Steamship Co. was likely the operator under WSA charter. Probably the usual made up-misconception stuff. Palmeira (talk) 13:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a need to delete the article altogether and agree with Parsecboy. At most, slim it down to a stub like many of the Liberty Ship articles. Probably a fair amount of this is salvageable - the general ship description could be covered by link to Liberty ship. But I wouldn't describe Manaus as in "the United States and the rear areas of the Pacific Front"! Davidships (talk) 01:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem with not deleting the article is that it keeps the WP:COPYVIO in the history. Far better IMHO to delete and start again, as was done with the Charles Fryatt article. Mjroots (talk) 07:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Good point. I concur. Davidships (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The Plimsoll Ship Data copy of Lloyd's register gives some technical, operational and ownership details of the ship. Mjroots (talk) 07:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

That's what revision deletion/selective deletion is for... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing to salvage though, apart from Buster40004, one editor added a DEFSORT, and another added a hyphen. Mjroots (talk) 11:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

If it can't be trusted, get rid of it. The encyclopædia is not a campaign to collect as much text as possible, regardless of accuracy or of copyright concerns. We need to prioritise quality over quantity, and one of the best quality-control tools is a guillotine. bobrayner (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. User:Mjroots asked my opinion here. :) First, I'd like to say how grateful I am that you guys are looking at this. The copyright problems backlog is horrendous, and it's tremendously helpful to have people who know the field pitching in. In terms of handling, either approach is valid. As a general rule of thumb, I prefer not to delete what I don't have to, but CCIs are complicated. I sometimes determine my own approach after seeing the general pattern evolve with the CCI. When a CCI subject uses a lot of offline resources, for instance, and can be shown to have copied major articles repeatedly, I'm more likely to presumptively delete, as provided in WP:CV. (" If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately.") If their pattern is generally more one of close paraphrasing, I try not to do that.

What worries me about User:Buster40004 is his use of offline resources. As noted at Talk:Gun_carriage, he has taken major passages from books, and the only way I have to discover that is if those books are at least preview accessible on Google books and if those previews sample the relevant section. That can be really hard to work with. :/ (He does seem to have relied heavily on PD sources as well, though, which is helpful, as they only need proper attribution per WP:Plagiarism.) I believe he is generally citing his sources, but I could not say yet if that can be fully relied upon. My gut says that he meant no harm and probably can be trusted to have said where he got the material. This is not the pattern I usually see when a contributor is deliberately flaunting the copyright rules. But only after a few more issues are disclosed will that pattern become more certain. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Bounty

Barnstar

A barnstar is offered to any editor who is willing to write a new article on the SS William S. Ladd. Online sources uses by Buster40004 -

• Oregon Shipbuilding
• USMC
• Lane Victory
• Brunswick Maritime Heritage
• Liberty ship

Book sources used by Buster40004 -

• Marine History of the Pacific Northwest p528.
• Cressman, Robert J. (1999), The Official Chronology of the U.S. Navy in World War II, ISBN 978-1557501493

Other sources mentioned by Buster40004 -

• USMM]
• Wesleyan
• Armed Guard

Additional source

• Plimsoll Ship Data

If you start an article in your sandbox, it can be moved once the current article is deleted. Mjroots (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Glenn Marine Group

A new article, Glenn Marine Group, has just been created, not by me, primarily in connection with a bribery investigation by the USN's NCIS. I have no idea how to categorize the article, or what projects should be covered by. Anyone hsve any ideas? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Related AfD

While (probably?) not within the project's scope, this AfD may be of interest to its members. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Within scope IMHO. A good example of the danger of overuse of ship prefixes: One Google News hit for ["RV Song of the Whale"]; six pages (nearly all relevant) for ["song of the whale" vessel]. Davidships (talk) 10:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

City of Adelaide

Members of this Project may be interested in a proposal to improve the article on the clipper ship City of Adelaide in time for the ship's planned arrival in Australia in February. See Talk:City of Adelaide (1864). Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The definite article

An anon is claiming that ships do not take the definite article. As an example, in HMS Terror (1813), he/she changed:

The Terror and the Erebus are featured in the Doctor Who Audio Drama story Terror of the Arctic.

to

Terror and Erebus are featured in the Doctor Who Audio Drama story Terror of the Arctic.

Is this accurate? I tend to doubt it, per The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

They do not take the definite article, see WP:SHIPNAME#Using ship names in articles Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Disagree entirely. We have discussed this many times Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 32#"The" before a ship's name; Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines#Definite articles, prefixes. The article is illogical with HMS and is not used by tradition with US Navy ships but is commonly used by authoritative sources for non-naval ships and in older literature. I won't quibble with the purists for Erebus and Terror since they were Royal Navy ships, but there is no logical reason to avoid the article when HMS is not used. Examples from authoritative sources have been presented. I'm not sure how long the text Ed cites has been there but it does not in my view reflect consensus. Dankarl (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll still restore the article where the ship's name is an adjective, as in the Investigator site, but I respect the project convention. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

MV Saginaw at AfD

This may be of interest to the project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Eyes on USS Hawaii talk page plz

A dynamic IP is adding long, rambling (and repeated) OR-laden NOTFORUM violations here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

A link to the relevant page would be helpful so we don't have to check the history of three talk pages to find the one you are talking about. A link to the MV Saginaw AfD above would have also been helpful. Thanks, —Diiscool (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I'd linked Talk:USS Hawaii (CB-3), it slipped my mind. There is, however, a link to the AfD in the above post. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see the Saginaw link. Sorry! —Diiscool (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries, in the future I'll bold it or something, it is a little hard to spot. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Ship identification

Hello, Can anyone identify this Peruvian ship, for the benefit of the Ecuadorian–Peruvian War article? Thanks! Brigade Piron (talk) 07:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• 

That would be Almirante Grau (1906) - if I am not mistaken. Her sister ship, Coronel Bolognesi, lacked a poop according to Conway's. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 08:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

If someone knowledgeable could check sourcing and license, that image is obviously not going to be a self-published CC0 license. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Hadlow

I recently discovered that there was once a ship of the same name as my home village. After a bit of research I've managed to knock up an article. One thing bothers me though, the year of her building. A source claims she was built in 1814, whilst an advert of 1817 describes her as "new built". It is possible that the advert is nearer the truth and that 1814 is a typo (easily done on the numeric keypad). Is there anyone who can decipher the Lloyd's register entry or find another source for her date of building and make the necessary amendment. Mjroots (talk) 09:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, the Register of Shipping has multiple entries of Hadlow built in 1814. They did not use keypads then, so it's no mere typo. On the other hand, a three-year old ship in the early 19th-century was probably considered brand new (HMS Victory was fourty years old at the time of the battle of Trafalgar). ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC) P.S.: According to Robertson's Landmarks of Toronto (1914), p.121, a ship by this name sailed from Scotland for Hudson's Bay in June 1815.

My first thought was "Why can't both sources be right?" - depending on context, it wouldn't be surprising for an advert to suggest that a ship is "new" even though it had been built three years earlier. However, if there are multiple ships by the same name, then we need to be very careful that sources used in the article are actually talking about the same ship. bobrayner (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm confident that there was only one ship of that name at that time. It was because the name was so unusual that I was able to find out so much about her history. ÄDA - DÄP, that's an interesting find, explains a bit of the early history. Mjroots (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm now satisfied that 1814 is correct,. Thank you ÄDA - DÄP for adding more to her early history.

It's tenuous, but would it be worth adding {{Hadlow}} to the article and the article to the template? Mjroots (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

There's a place "Hadlow" in Lévis, right opposite Québec on, I think, Hadlow Bay. If it existed at the time it's a more likely connection (and may or may not be connected to the UK place, or a personal name). Davidships (talk) 08:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The online editions of Lloyd's Register of Shipping (links from http://www.lr.org/about_us/shipping_information/Lloyds_Register_of_Ships_online.aspx) seem to point to a build in 1813 (she was described as "5 years old" in the 1818 edition and this is consistent through to her being 10 years old in 1823 edition. She is not in the 1813 edition (including the "new entries" supplement near the end). Unfortunately 1814-1817 are missing (unless you can see the images of the 1815 pages). This may not have been the only Hadlow - LR did not list anything like every vessel - but she is the one covered by the article. A search of the original London registers for the 1813-1814 should confirm when in fact she was built and the builder (though that would be OR). The earlier LRs have owner as Buckles & Co, changing it later to Parker & Co. On her fate, LR 1824 & 1825 give master as Pounder. Perhaps the 9/1823 reference refers to a different Hadlow? A good source to clarify would be Lloyd's List newspaper [not available online]. Davidships (talk) 23:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

You're misreading the register. The figure 5 means that she is in her 5th year, not that she is 5 years old. This is explained at the beginning of the register. Thus the date of 1814 is correct. Searching the original registers would not violate WP:OR any more than using a paper copy of a newspaper would. Her regular master may well have been Pounder, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the source quoting a different name is incorrect. Mjroots (talk) 08:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Mjroots re LR. Re Pounder, I wasn't saying anything was incorrect, only noting what was published. I had thought that archival research of UNpublished material was OR - how should such sources be cited? Davidships (talk) 08:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

LR counts as published. I used {{cite journal}} for the citation in the article. Mjroots (talk) 09:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, but "the original London registers for the 1813-1814" are nothing to do with LR (and they never had port-related versions). They are the official British register books for the port of London and are held at TNA at Kew. Sorry if my shorthand confused. Davidships (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Cyane

The article mentioned just above mentions USS Cyane (1815), which is the same vessel as HMS Cyane (1806) These are separate articles, and the latter has some content on the vessel's career with the USN which is not in the former. I don't know if a merger is appropriate under current policy (and I don't advocate one, as the careers with the RN and USN could support two articles) but if anyone wants to do more to separate the two careers, have at it! (I do not have the sources.) Kablammo (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Why not one article? It would be a nice length at the moment, comprehensive and convenient, just like an encyclopedia should be, and without all the differences that grow over time on WP. Of course, if it grew somewhat that might be different. Davidships (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The USS article began in 2003 and relied upon DANFS. The RN article began as a redirect to the USS article in 2008; it was greatly expanded in 2009, and dealt initially with only the RN career. The RN article since has been expanded to include a fair amount of information on the vessel's service with the US Navy. A merger would require agreement on which article would remain, and which would be the redirect. Kablammo (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that the HMS Cyane article should be kept, and info merged into it from the USS Cyane article. Mjroots (talk) 08:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Articles on ship's life cycles

I've been looking at these and working on them on and off for several years. I just took a fairly deep look, and I see that things need some work. I'm willing and able to do the work, but I'm wondering if there are others who are interested in helping, advising, etc.

I got into this when I became aware that recent changes in shipbuilding have obsoleted some very old procedures and ceremonies. I don't yet have sources for this, but I learned it from conversations with shipbuilders.

Construction articles

The milestones in construction of a modern U.S. Navy ship are, or at least seem to be:

• Start of construction (Cutting the first 100 tons of steel)
• Keel laying (Placing the first module in the drydock or on the slipways)
• Keel authentication (Replaces literal keel laying, since there is no keel; it seems to be a primarily ceremonial occasion, possibly commemorating the joining of two or more modules.)
• Christening (A ceremonial occasion during which the ship receives her name.)
• Launching (Possibly no longer the big deal that it was in the past, because ships are typically built in a drydock, and typically floated there before Christening. Possibly "launching" is the first floating in the drydock. When the ship is floated out to a pier or whatever, it seems to be mostly just a routine manufacturing step.)
• Commissioning (As in the present Wikipedia article.)

The various articles need to be updated to show these changes. Also the existing articles often combine shipbuilding aspects with ceremonial aspects, which doesn't always make for smooth flow.

Keel laying and launching are still major steps in ship construction (although keel laying is now redefined as the first module being placed on the slipway/drydock). -- saberwyn 20:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't doubt you, but sources are needed for all this stuff, especially since construction methods are so different now. For example, there are many sources about the ceremonies surrounding various "keel authentications", but I haven't found a single one defining when or why they occur.

I've added keel laying and launching to the list up above. Lou Sander (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Template

There's a template at the bottom of many ship articles. It's helpful, but sometimes confusing. The entries are:

• Ship naming and launching Leads to an article recently renamed without discussion to Ceremonial ship launching. It's mostly about ceremony, but the Methods of launch section is exclusively technical and needs some updating.
• Ship commissioning leads to that article and is appropriate.
• Ship decommissioning leads to a section of the Ship commissioning article, and IMHO is appropriate.
• Reserve fleet leads appropriately to that article
• Scrapping leads to Ship breaking
• Stripping leads to Hulk (ship)
• Recycling leads to Ship-Submarine Recycling Program
• Retrofitting leads to Retrofitting, which is a somewhat weak general article with no explicit references to ships.
• Scuttling leads to Scuttling, which mostly talks about purposeful scuttling to avoid capture
• Target ship leads to Target ship, IMHO an appropriate article. Missing is anything about Navy ships that are purposely sunk in specific locations to serve as fishing and diving reefs; AFAIK, these are typically not sunk as targets.
• Museum ship leads to Museum ship, also very appropriate.

There are probably other articles that could be referenced from the template. One is Naval Vessel Register.

I mention all this stuff, not necessarily with specific suggestions, but as a guide for possible improvement in the template. Lou Sander (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that reef/dive ships would be more appropriate in Scuttling, which I think should be refocused on a 'by method/reason' style of presentation instead of its current 'by Famous Events in History' layout. -- saberwyn 20:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I really like the systematic approach, though. That's good. We have lots of high-quality content on specific ships &c but I think it's more important to improve articles about general concepts ie. Launching). bobrayner (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

navsource template

It has always seemed improper for {{navsource}} to blindly italicize the whole of a ship's name:

{{navsource|04/081/04081|USS Houston (CA-30)}} → Photo gallery of USS Houston (CA-30) at NavSource Naval History

That can be gotten 'round by the judicious use of {{noitalics}} but I'd really rather not:

{{navsource|04/081/04081|{{noitalics|USS}} Houston {{noitalics|(CA-30)}}}} → Photo gallery of USS Houston (CA-30) at NavSource Naval History

So, in {{navsource/sandbox}} is the fix to that. This version takes either the name that is given in positional parameter {{{2}}} or, if no name is provided, the page name, and formats it in the same way that {{infobox ship begin}} formats a page title.

{{navsource/sandbox|04/081/04081|Houston}} → Photo gallery of Houston at NavSource Naval History

{{navsource/sandbox|04/081/04081|USS Houston}} → Photo gallery of USS Houston at NavSource Naval History

{{navsource/sandbox|04/081/04081|USS Houston (CA-30)}} → Photo gallery of USS Houston (CA-30) at NavSource Naval History

And taking the name of this page, here is the great ship WikiProject Ships:

{{navsource/sandbox|04/081/04081}} → Photo gallery of WikiProject Ships/Archive 39 at NavSource Naval History

It should be noted that this doesn't work (empty positional parameter {{{2}}}):

{{navsource/sandbox|04/081/04081|}} → Photo gallery of WikiProject Ships/Archive 39 at NavSource Naval History

I'll work on that.

This, however, does work so there shouldn't be much downside to implementing the sandbox version once I fix the problem noted above:

{{navsource/sandbox|04/081/04081|{{noitalics|USS}} Houston {{noitalics|(CA-30)}}}} → Photo gallery of USS Houston (CA-30) at NavSource Naval History

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I have upgraded the live version of {{navsource}} from the sandbox.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Presentation of submarine surfaced speed in infoboxes

Thoughts? [3]

Should submarine speeds be presented as:

or as:

To my mind, the arrows are barely visible and are much less clear as to why we have two speeds. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I prefer them spelled out as well; much clearer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't use obscure symbols as a substitute for words. bobrayner (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

If this was a book, the arrows might be workable, but given it's not, spelling it out, while taking up more space, is needed. Perhaps the text might be made (small), though? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the third could be shortened to just "silent running"? Davidships (talk) 12:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, when I saw the arrows added to German Type VII submarine I removed them and replaced the words. The editor in question (User:ÄDA_-_DÄP) is inserting the arrows in place of text on most every U-boat and other submarines as well their contribs, so if consensus is going against the use of arrows perhaps a warning shot across the bows so that they can hold hard on further changes. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC) (addendum - they have also used the arrow in captions - see HMS Graph, perhaps a side function of using AWB?) GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Message received. I actually stopped when I read your edit summary on Type VII.The arrow are used in some of the publications I use on U-boats so I figured it would be a wise thing to do. Should have read MOS:ACCESS before starting this. I shall go and change that back. Sorry ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

On a side note, please use the conversion template without attributes ("{{convert|12|kn}}" → "12 knots (22 km/h; 14 mph)") in the infobox. Tupsumato (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

There's no need to include mph in conversions from knots. Mjroots (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, there's no need to include kph either. However, this is an international website with users from both metric and imperial societies, so perhaps we should allow both perversions? Tupsumato (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Unless otherwise specified, the conversion from nmi will automatically convert to kph and mph. I see no need to specify one or the other and will remove them whenever I see somebody specify just one conversion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I do the same for both knots and nautical miles. It's also in the glorious "infobox for dummies" guide that we once wrote. Tupsumato (talk) 06:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

talk:Minesweeper (ship)#Requested move 2

I have renewed the proposal to move Minesweeper (ship) to Minesweeper, due to hundreds of links to Minesweeper referring to the ship. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 01:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thoughts on Super Battleship (Warship) article

Before I propose this article for deletion, can anybody think of a reason for keeping it? Am I, perhaps, being overzealous? Shem (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The concept pops up quite often, but I'm not sure if it warrants its own article given that, as I understand it, the term isn't often (if ever) used by serious historians and probably can't be defined. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd nuke it also - we don't generally have articles on nebulous neologisms. Parsecboy (talk) 12:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll put it up for deletion and post a notification here. Shem (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Super battleship (warship)

The article Super battleship (warship) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This seems to be an article about a neologism. Furthermore, until I suggested deleting it, it had been entirely unreferenced for over a year; even now the references are of no value. This article might as well be called "Really big battleship". It is much like the late, unlamented Heavy First Rate article, and like that article, adds nothing to the encyclopaedia.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shem (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

MV Bni Nasar

The MV Bni Nsar article has bee nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 10:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Bot to put ship names in templates?

I think it would be an ideal goal to use templates like Template:USS and Template:HMS everywhere that a ship is identified (or should be identified) with a presentation that these templates support. This will insure that ship names are properly italicized, and that the presentation of these names will be consistent throughout Wikipedia in a variety of formats (for example, with or without the leading USS or HMS), and that if a change is needed in that format, it can be made systemwide instantly. It has been suggested to me that we could have a bot template all the ship names like this, if WikiProject Ships supports that as a goal. Does this sound like a good idea? - WPGA2345 - ☛ 05:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The templates already do this, the problem is that many editors don't use them, either through laziness as the standard coding works just fine, or ignorance of the template.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I know this might seem an odd question... but what do these templates actually do over and above conventional markup? I've avoided using them over the years because there doesn't seem to be any value in them; they're complex to use and remember, less clear to non-specialised editors than the standard piped-link system, and occasionally produce weird side-effects (eg, templated names vanish in popups).

I understand the potential benefit to having templates if we do decide on a systematic change in how we render names (eg dropping italics), but we haven't done that in the past decade, and it doesn't seem very likely in the future! The suggested standardisation with USS/HMS usage is exactly the sort of thing we shouldn't be using templates to do - adding or removing HMS to a ship name can break the grammar of the sentence, and so needs done on a case-by-case basis by a human being. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

My recollection is that these templates were introduced to make typing and therefore editing quicker, not to be the default way of presenting the wiki. I don't think conversion is necessary nor desirable. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I like them because they are easier to type and I use them often enough to generally remember the suffixes that control how they display the name. That said, I'm not a fanatic about them and am too lazy to convert a piped version into the template.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

HMS Strongbow (1916) tagged as copyvio

I have tagged HMS Strongbow (1916) for speedy deletion as a copyvio of http://www.hmsstrongbow.org.uk/sinking.htm.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Deleted - thanks for catching this. Parsecboy (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Featured List request

Hi all. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of light cruisers of Germany/archive1 has been up for a month and a half and has only garnered one review so far. If you have the time, I'd greatly appreciate it if you could review the list against the Featured List criteria. The list is the capstone to this otherwise finished 71-article Good Topic. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 14:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Rated Horsepower

I have just created a new article, SS Abukir. Old copies of Lloyd's Register cite the power of ocean-going ships as NHP, but for very small ships they tend to give "RHP" (Rated Horsepower) instead. What is Rated Horsepower, and should Wikipedia's Horsepower article be expanded to include a section explaining it?

Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 13:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Photos of Abukir and Oropesa?

I struggle to find non-copyright photos of old merchant ships. I'd be very grateful to anyone who can help me to find ones of SS Abukir and SS Oropesa (1920) for their new articles. Alternatively, is it allowed to use WP:NONFREE photos on the basis that the subjects were sunk or scrapped decades ago and there's scant chance of finding a non-copyright photo of them? Wikimedia does not allow non-free content, so how does one upload such photos to Wikipedia?

Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 13:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, non-free images are permissible. Upload them to en-Wiki and add the non-free rationale. See file:SS LESBIAN (3).jpg for an example of a non-free ship image. Mjroots (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

M/V Plancius and HNLMS Tydeman (A906)

A stub M/V Plancius and a bit better piece on the same vessel at HNLMS Tydeman (A906) should be merged or perhaps the first just deleted by someone interested in this vessel. Ran across duplication while looking for references to WW II era KPM ship SS Plancius (1923) that was in convoy BM.12 along with RMS Empress of Asia bringing the last troops into Singapore, acted as a "hotel" during the seige and carried refugees from Singapore and Java to Colombo under escort by HMS Durban (D99). That vessel is a potential subject with a prewar history involving Singapore and the NEI and a photo in Commons so future disambiguation might be considered. Palmeira (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Multiple moves of Sovetsky Soyuz-class battleship

Staygyro (talk) recently made multiple moves of this article and its talk page, breaking the link with its history and between the talk page and its proper article page. Can I get an admin to revert all of those pointless and damaging changes?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The guidance on getting an admin to fix it is here. Shem (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Afd

The S/V Rembrandt van Rijn article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 09:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Notability of ships

The above AfD discussion has shown that we really need to lay down a notability guideline for ships. Military vessels are held to be inherently notable per WP:MILUNIT. Merchant vessels can be harder to argue the notability for.

As far as I understand it, this WP holds that ships of over 100' long or 100 ton(ne)s measurement (undefined) fall under the scope of this WP and are capable of sustaining articles subject to coverage in independent reliable sources. Shipping registers such as Lloyd's and the Danish Handelsministeriet count as independent and reliable.

Vessels under 100/100 fall outside the scope of this WP, but may still be capable of sustaining articles subject to the above. Mjroots (talk) 10:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The 100/100 rule is okay when it comes to determining whether or not the vessel falls within the scope of WP:SHIPS. However, I would not use it as a basis for notability (e.g. "it's so big that there must be something about it somewhere").

Various shipping registries are an important source of technical information that can be used to fill out the infobox. However, I would not count them as sources when determining the notability of the vessel because every vessel has an entry in one of those databases. Thus, for notability I would rely on other types of sources (books, articles, news...).

As much as I love ships, I don't really see the point in writing an article about every vessel into Wikipedia. My personal favourite is the Mitsui 56 series, a class of 151+ relatively large (56,000 DWT) bulk carriers. Surely, some of them might make it to the news over time, but most of them will go through their careers from shipyard to shipbreakers without major events that would make them notable enough for an article.

Anyway, if we are creating a guideline, I would propose that:

- databases and registries but do not count when assessing the notability of the ship; and

- likewise, personal websites of ships (e.g. Fakta om Fartyg) are not taken into account.

However, the latter can be used to point out potential notable events during the vessel's career, for which better (WP:RS) sources could be found.

Perhaps it could be a good idea to encourage people to combine articles that are unlikely to expand beyond start class under a single title. I know this is a touchy topic, but perhaps that could even be done for the majority of cruise ship articles...

Tupsumato (talk) 11:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The reason why even the most modest commissioned warship is assumed to be notable for Wikipedia's purposes is the existence of books which provide comprehensive listings of the key features of those ships and highlights from their service histories. I'm not sure whether similar comprehensive listings for ships exist, and 100 tonnes seems a very low threshold. Would it really be possible to pull enough references together on a random 101 tonne Chinese ship which was active in (say) the 1970s to meet WP:N? Nick-D (talk) 06:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

For most civilian vessels currently in service, detailed technical data is readily available through a number of open or subscriber-only databases. Finding information about older ships is often more difficult, but there are some long-running publications that list the merchant fleet of a specific country (e.g. Finnish illustrated list of ships or USSR MORFLOT). Career highlights are usually more difficult to find, especially if nothing special happened during the lifetime of the vessel: they are often limited to "standard" key dates such as keel laying, launching and delivery, and the final fate of the vessel (usually something like "B/U LA SPEZIA 1972" which some editors helpfully copy directly to Wikipedia without describing more). There are some private websites (e.g. FoF) that are useful for certain types of ships (passenger ships and ferries in case of FoF), but it's true that finding data about a 1970s Chinese ship might be a bit challenging and it's unlikely to be notable enough to warrant its own article.

I guess the reason why naval vessels of nearly any size are considered notable enough to be included in Wikipedia is that there is a widespread interest in warships and the like in the world. Nothing wrong in that, I guess — we're not running out of space here in Wikipedia anytime soon...

Anyway, I'm somewhat against using the size alone to claim notability of a specific ship. For example, there's a bunch of articles about very large container ships that, in my eyes, are not very notable as individual ships. The class article should be enough (as was done with e.g. Valemax). Tupsumato (talk) 08:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Tupsumato's approach and agree that notability cannot rely on size, but an individual ship needs to have some inherantly notable aspect - not necessarily a particular event, may also be the vessel's characteristics (eg prototype, largest, age), presence in the public eye (a cruise ship) etc. Non-notable ships can still have their place in appropriate articles (eg shipyard lists, ship-class and shipowner articles). There are enough notable ships to keep us busy for our lifetimes. Davidships (talk) 11:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Size does not matter, I would say. Pinta falls short of the 100/100 rule but I don't think anyone objects of her being included in the project. Notability is best answered by the fact that a ship is mentioned in reliable sources. With the usual leeway. But rather than duplicating registers of shipping, there should be some story to tell other than sailed from X to Y carrying a cargo of Z. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 13:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Tupsumato's approach is one I have proposed before resulting in complete rejection. It needs reconsideration and ÄDA - DÄP makes a good point about "articles" just duplicating registry entries. I dislike some of the "drive by" delete tagging for ships appearing to have noting notable without any effort to do a proper search, i.e., simply checking for other names and IMO number searches, yet the fact remains that even an expert search for many commercial vessels will turn up nothing except basic registry facts of existence and characteristics. The recent case is of a ferry that of late is notable only in its disrepute with some rather flagrant detentions for sanitary and safety issues that caused me to somewhat reluctantly recommend "Keep" largely because someone with local sources might develop that angle. Nothing can change the fact that most commercial vessels go from delivery to breakers plodding along and even if we got into corporate records we would find nothing more interesting that port calls, tons or passengers or catch landed along with maintenance stuff. Other ships, as with some of the small and obscure vessels of the first part of the 20th century, have one brief period of real notability that I think makes them worthy of an article—wartime service and mention in histories—sufficient to be a pass for them. Actually, the same goes for most naval vessels and individual "articles" about patrol, yard and district type craft make little sense. If the U.S. Navy's ship loving Histories Branch cannot come up with more than one or two very short paragraphs on such a vessel even the military exception makes no sense and a listing, for those so inclined, would be more than sufficient.

Consideration should be given to approval of the system now in use for Empire ships for the ships without more notability than facts of existence. That would provide a place holder that would satisfy searches, though I would propose expansion accommodating dimensions in brief format such as L x B x D. Then, if someone found citeable records of true note, the entry could sustain a "Main article" link and a full entry. Another example can be seen in List of Australian hospital ships and certainly one I would take if I ever get around to more extensive coverage of the KPM ships that served so vitally under U.S. Army SWPA control in 1942 and throughout the war as even those critical workhorses largely plodded along without much "mention in dispatches" that remain available. For existing stub "articles" someone could usefully merge such stubs into logical groupings by builder, nationality, line or other such designation. Palmeira (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

WIkiprojects often try to define their own subject-specific notability rules, and I think they all tend to suffer from similar problems - this one is no exception. We already have a general notability guideline, which is accepted across wikipedia and which helpfully aligns with article-writing requirements; if a topic isn't covered in depth by independent sources then you won't be able to write good content for readers. However, topic-specific notability rules tend to focus on technical criteria within that topic, then some rote editor will go and bump up their score by creating hundreds of copy-and-paste articles which have categories and templates &c but don't actually have good content for readers of the encyclopædia. Seriously, what's deficient about the GNG - in what way is it failing to serve WikiProject Ships? Is it the requirement to understand sources before writing about a topic? bobrayner (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I would also point out that WP:MILUNIT does not say that military ships are inherently notable; if it did, that would be a serious flaw that I would fix immediately. bobrayner (talk) 23:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point: the note that commissioned warships (and the other military unit types discussed there) are "likely, but not certain, to have such coverage and therefore likely, but not certain, to be suitable for inclusion" is very important as the availability of sources does differ. Nick-D (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

HMAS/HMNZS Kiama

In random passing, help appreciated in where to look for sources on HMAS Kiama's 24 years in the RNZN (1952-1976). The remainder of the article is sourced but a little sparse. This section however covers the longest period of the ship's existence and has rightly been tagged as unsourced for more than five years. Am not an expert on NZ naval history but keen on improving this article nonetheless.

Suggestions and pointers gratefully received. Euryalus (talk)

I added some refs I had at hand, unfortunately the juicy bits - about decks, hammocks, and mascots - are still unreferenced. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 06:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to merge USCGC Jarvis (WHEC-725) and BNS Somudro Joy (F-28) Comment

A proposal to merge the articles USCGC Jarvis (WHEC-725) and BNS Somudro Joy (F-28) has been suggested. Discussion can be found on the talk page Talk:USCGC Jarvis (WHEC-725). Interested editors please take note. Cuprum17 (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

"Draft" rating

I suggest that this wikiproject implement the new "Draft"-class and categorize into Category: Draft-Class Ships articles‎, for pages in the WP:Drafts namespace that was recently initiated. This would allow tracking of articles related to this wikiproject that are in draft form, which members of this wikiproject may wish to improve and move into the mainspace. -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The Akademik Shokalskiy saga

I was wondering if there shouldn't he a separate article for the icebound icebreakers in Antarctica saga, now that multiple ships need rescuing. And what title such an article should have. -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

At present, an additional article seems superfluous as even the Akademik Shokalskiy article is quite short (thanks to some judicious pruning by 200.30.223.19) and there may well prove to be relatively little to say about the freeing of either ship, nowhere near "saga" proportions I hope. There is already some common material between Akademik Shokalskiy and Xue Long, and a few contradictions to sort out, I think. But the question could always be revisited if circumstances change (or there might be a case later for an AAE 2013/4 article, depending on the conclusions and reception of the scientific findings - but that is really Crystal Ball at this stage). Davidships (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Britannia official pictures?

Hello all. I just found these. Can they be used as they do not display any copyright protection and are available for the press to use? MrDerails (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Disclaimer at the top: "These images may only be downloaded and published, with proper photo caption/credit, by accredited media to accompany P&O Cruises editorial". From that, I interpret these images to be under copyright, and only usable in specific circumstances incompatible with Wikipedia (we are not "accredited media", we do not write "P&O Cruises editorial" and the "may only" means that the images cannnot be republished or reused). When it comes to images online, it is safe to assume that any image is copyrighted and unusable by Wikipedia unless specifically and clearly stating that the images are released into the public domain, or under a Wikipedia-compatible Creative Commons license or equivalent Free content license. -- saberwyn 06:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, I didn't want to add them and it be wrong. Thanks again, MrDerails (talk) 11:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Ship Spotting

I note that someone has updated the Algoma Montrealais article based on some comments with one of the pictures on the shipspotting.com webpage. Personally, I have not seen an official notice that this ship will be scrapped, so think that these comments should be considered personal opinion or rumours (admittedly well spread rumours).

My question is "are comments like these considered factual enough for Wiki?" Thanks Cpfan776 (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Not unless it can be verified that whoever made the comments is some form of expert on the topic. Nick-D (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It's also not "According to ShipSpotting.com...", but "According to a comment posted on ShipSpotting.com...". Tupsumato (talk) 11:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I haven't done much editing of ship articles so wasn't sure what was considered proper. I have updated the Algoma Montrealais article. Cpfan776 (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

HMAS Beryl II

Is HMAS Beryl II ex HMS Beryl of the First World War? Could someone look into this and provide references and expand if this is the case? Regards Newm30 (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

It looks like it - according to Dittmar and Colledge (Dittmar, F.J.; Colledge, J.J. (1972). British Warships 1914–1919. Shepperton, UK: Ian Allen. ISBN 0-7110-0380-7., p. 180), the trawler Beryl was hired by the Royal Navy in December 1914, became Beryl II in March 1915 and returned to commercial service in 1919, joining the RAN in World War II.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/NOAAS Gordon Gunter (R 336)

Can someone take a look at this DYK nomination? The initial reviewer has dropped off the radar. Thanks. EricSerge (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Windham 1800 Chilean ship Lautaro 1818

Not a part of this group, but was just doing some family history reasearch on an ancestor who came to Australia with the 46th Regiment of foot in 1814, and came across some history for the ship that is not on the wiki page, I think it could be the same ship and thought someone might like to add it to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_ship_Lautaro_(1818)

"The regiment embarked on the 23rd of August 1813, on board the "Wyndham", "Three Bees" and "General Hewitt", transports and arrived at New South Wales in February 1814."

source:- 46th foot.com www.hargreave-mawson.demon.co.uk/46th.html

cheers Jodie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.200.205.120 (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Coordinates for ships

The article Lucinda (steamboat) is tagged as needing geo-coordinates. What does location(s) do you use for this purpose (ships being somewhat mobile)? Kerry (talk) 06:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know that I'd bother given that her wreck is buried under tons of landfill.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree that there's probably not a lot to see! But it is a location linked to the ship. Or I could just stick a pin in the Brisbane River where it used to operate a lot. Kerry (talk) 06:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I've always figured that the location marked the wreck, not her area of operation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I think coordinates should only be used in a ship article to indicate the location of a shipwreck, or of a museum (or otherwise preserved and immobile) ship. I don't see any harm in adding coordinates for the wreck... the article explains why this isn't in the water. -- saberwyn 06:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ships that are museum ships, or shipwrecks should have coordinates, since they don't generally move. This ships is a wreck, so should have coordinates. A museum ship is just a building, and those have coordinates. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 07:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC).

German "Liberty ships"

During WWII, Germany built a number of standard cargo vessels, their equivalent of the Liberty ships. These were the Hansa A type cargo ship, Hansa B type cargo ship and the Hansa C type cargo ship. Has anyone got the sources to write the articles? There are apparently some German books on the subject. Mjroots (talk) 11:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mjroots! I wrote the article Hansa-Bauprogramm about those ships in the german wikipedia. There are some sources linked. Maybe i can start a stub about it if nobody is interested in translating it for en:wp. By the way, there was a larger post war-series of vessels which are known as "German Liberty". See the corresponding article here. All the best, --SteKrueBe (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Portuguese flag 1830-1910

Please be aware that Portuguese merchant ships in service between 1830 and 1910 should be flagged with {{Flag|Portugal|civil}} () and not {{flag|Portugal|1830}}(). I've now amended the relevant template to support the civil flag, which it didn't previously. Mjroots (talk) 08:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The flag was introduced on 18 October 1830. Mjroots (talk) 09:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

RN vessels on Australia Station in 1880s

I have posed a question on the identity of one of the vessels shown in File:Australia Station Squadron (AWM 304426).jpg at the talk page at Commons. At least according to our article, HMS Alert (1856), the ship in question, was nowhere near Australia when the image was taken. Nick-D, Rcbutcher or anyone else, can you shed any light on this question? Many thanks. Kablammo (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I left a comment on the photo talk page. Hopefully it's of some help. Parsecboy (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I've commented at the talk page, but our article (HMS Alert (1856)) does say "On 12 March 1879 Captain John Fiot Lee Pearse Maclear took command,[5] and under him she went to Australia Station and the Pacific". The reference given supports the period in Australian waters. I'd suggest the caption is correct. Shem (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

And I note that Doctor Richard Coppinger's diary shows Alert to have visited Sydney "Jan. 23-Apr. 16, 1881". I'd change my "probably" to "almost certainly", and also note the date of the photo is probably "early 1881" rather than c.1880. Shem (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, except that none of the other ships were on the Australia Station in the early 1880s - they were all there around 1886–1890 or so. Parsecboy (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to all. Here is a summary of dates from Wikipedia articles on the other ships in the photo assigned to the Australian Station:

• Alert was there 1880-82, per Australian Station
• Calliope from 1887-90
• Opal from 1885-90
• Egeria from 1886 until at least 1890
• Rapid from 1886-97.

Kablammo (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Now you mention it, the left-most ship doesn't look much like Calliope. For starters, Callipoe may well have been white, as shown by this picture of her as built in front of Semaphore Tower in Portsmouth, and in any case, the gunports and the rudder post look all wrong. Furthermore, in the photo, her funnel is bolt upright, but the Calypsos had raked funnels. The mast rake doesn't look right, either. Opal was there in 1875, as shown by File:HMS Opal Sydney 1880s.jpg (the meta data from the source says the photo was taken in 1875) and as stated in the article HMS Opal (1875), which cites Bastock. Note that she appears to be rigged as a barque, not a ship, which places the date as after 1880. Egeria was in the Far East from 1875, according to HMS Egeria (1873). I agree however that Rapid wasn't launched until 1883 - but the ship in the photo described as Rapid has a strongly raked bow - quite unlike the vertical stem of HMS Rapid (1883). It's not a great image, though, for ship spotting. Shem (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Shem! Calliope is identified as the ship to the right, and I think that is correct. I don't know enough about any of the others. Kablammo (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

My bad! I was reading "left to right". It must have been late. Nevertheless, the ship to the right, identified in the photo as Calliope, has topgallant and royal yards crossed on her mizzen (Calliope was a barque and had no mizzen royal mast at all), a very obvious cut-away rudder post (Calliope's was straight), and is painted black (she left Portsmouth painted white). The funnel should be an obvious feature, and I can't make it out at all. It could just be HMS Wolverine (1863), though. Just a thought. Do you want to continue this conversation elsewhere? Shem (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I think here is fine, as the discussion at Commons seems to have died out. I believe Calliope's rig changed from time to time (there are some images of her ship-rigged), and was painted dark in the Pacific, as shown here. The false quarter gallery may show in the image in question, but I agree that the stack, if it is there, is not obvious. I've invited Rif to come over and comment also. Kablammo (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

All good points - although I'm still inclined to believe that it can't be Calliope. Inviting Rif is an excellent plan. Thanks. Shem (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

New List for WikiProject Ships to take on?

I love history but I'm really not a naval guru on that aspect. I really like the Eastern front during World War 2 and the cliche Allied drive from Normandy, and i came across a article request for Ships of the United States during World War II and i instantly thought that someone in this wikiproject would know more about it and would like to do this. The article request can be seen here and it is under the category "United States military history" towards the bottom of the page. Thanks, Jcfrommn (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The list would be thousands of ships long and thus unlikely ever to be done, or even started. Pieces, yes, but not the whole thing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Concur with Sturm - that list would be impossibly large, especially since it's not limited to ships of the USN, which means the list would include at least 5,000 large transports, from Liberty and Victory ships, T1 and T2 tankers, and the C-type ships. I have removed the list from the requested articles page. Parsecboy (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

We already have List of World War II ships, which covers military ships, List of Victory ships, List of Liberty ships and sublists thereof. Mjroots (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Should not List of World War II ships and List of World War II ships of less than 1000 tons have "warships" rather than just "ships"? For accuracy and to avoid disappointment/confusion Davidships (talk) 08:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they should have "warships". Definitively. Manxruler (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Whilst we're discussing lists of ships, would it be worth having a similar set-up to List of aircraft by tail number for ships that have articles on Wikipedia. Obviously with so many ships, we'd need to split into 25 lists (W and X would combine). Lists could have such info as ship name, builder, year of launch, code letters, call sign, Official Number, IMO Number, MMSI Number as applicable. These lists would only be for vessels that have an article, not those with list entries only. Mjroots (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

AfD of possible interest

While outside the scope of the project, Mini-Cup has been nominated for deletion, which may be of interest to project members. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Yugoslav Navy#Marines

What is the current fate of the 12 Naval Infantry Brigade of the Yugoslav navy? In the article there is no direct indication that it disbanded. 90.189.106.180 (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Italics in article titles

Hi WikiProject Ships. Is there any reason the ship names aren't italicized in the titles of Anglona (clipper), Bristol (1866), Charles H. Marshall (ship) and Coronet (yacht)? It was my understanding that ship names should be italicized in article titles (as they are in the body of the articles) but when I found so many articles where that wasn't the case, I thought there might be a reason. Any enlightenment you could provide would be appreciated. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they are supposed to be italicized. I've fix those four.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Cool. I'll fix any others I come across. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 01:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there any preference as to whether to use {{Italic title}} or {{DISPLAYTITLE}} or where to locate the template within the article (i.e. at the top or down the bottom near the categories, etc)? DH85868993 (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

{{italic title}} adds an extra processing step between the an unitalicized title and {{DISPLAYTITLE}} (the behavior switch, not the template) but that's trivial. For some titles, it may be necessary to use {{DISPLAYTITLE}}.

As for positioning, I prefer to put {{italic title}} or {{DISPLAYTITLE}} right at the top with {{use dmy dates}} or other similar templates and ahead of {{Infobox ship begin}}. As far as I know, WP:SHIPS doesn't take a position on this.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Aerial battleship‎

Can we get some insight on this article subject at its deletion discussion please? Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Endeavour II (barque)

New article Endeavour II (barque). Be glad if any of you all would give it the once over. -Arb. (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I've had a quick look and made some copyedit changes. It could use some more details on the builder, exact launch date, dimensions and so on, but it's a pretty good start. Shem (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)