Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 44

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

→

Archive 50

Duplicate articles

I've just discovered that the articles USS Mary Anne and USS Maryanne are about the same ship. As I have no experience in what to do in such cases, I would appreciate it if someone who has dealt with duplicates before could have a look. Manxruler (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Combine and make the other an alternate name redirect. I'd also drop the "USS" as there is no indication, beyond a compilation by someone calling the vessel "USS MARYANNE, section flag," that the vessel was commissioned. The references including the Navy Cross citation, apparently compiled by the same person, do not reflect official Navy records that make a clear distinction between commissioned vessels and those "in service" at the time. The Navy references, including on page 71 here, have the name as Maryann. It was apparently one of the many "bottoms" that could move both Navy and Army put into use during that bloody disaster 1941-42. Some were fairly notable, most just got shot up or worn out and scuttled quickly. Some made daring journeys all the way to Australia with fugitive personnel in what are amazing stories of harbor launches going way beyond expectations. Palmeira (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

On the technical side, both articles were created by the same user, who apparently attempted a cut-and-paste move that was reverted on the original page. We might should see if a histmerge can be done. - BilCat (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest doing whatever is needed to consolidate, then drop that USS in a move of the page to something descriptive leaving the name error as a redirect. Since as far as I can tell, and I've just run a search on some pretty extensive "fall of the Philippines" stuff digitally, the vessel, as with so many, was a purely local thing—purchased in cash, donated, salvaged or otherwise scrounged—and never got an official designation such as PY-XX. That complicates matters a bit but perhaps do just as Navy did: "Maryann (converted yacht)" with sufficient redirects, including the USS Maryanne and USS Mary Anne error/variants. That way we get accuracy while leaving sufficient cookie crumbs for those that think everything the Navy looked upon with acquisitive eyes is "USS" something. Palmeira (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

If someone will contact me after the articles' prose have been merged and cleaned up, I'll be happy to do a histmerge of the two. Also let me know what the final article name should be, too. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Considering the articles were originated by the same person, apparently starting and working on one in January and then creating and working on nearly identical text in February I just did a redirect from the earlier to later as this has been hanging. Next step would be move to correct Navy name of Maryann (yacht) and then make sure history is kept. Palmeira (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

After some looking in official records and editing I question notability of the yacht unless more about the vessel itself can be found. The individuals cited for service aboard meet notability, but the vessel probably does not from what I've so far found—which is a mention of existence largely in connection with the individuals. Certainly anything afloat in the last days at Corregidor should be notable, but records are almost non existing since whatever there were did not survive occupation. All we have for many, even larger and better known vessels, are postwar survivor accounts. Palmeira (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

There's this book that discusses naval operations during the defense of the Philippines, and mentions Maryanne in several places - don't know if that meets the "significant coverage" bar. On the other hand, I wonder if it might be better to merge it into a list of vessels requisitioned during the invasion of the Philippines, since there won't be much to be said about each one. Parsecboy (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I found a couple of mentions in books, all personal recollections, with not much beyond the yacht was used in those disastrous days as the Philippines fell and the debacle at Corregidor. Over decades I've dug through the official accounts, even archive records, and there are dozens of these fragments ending in "not much known" about not only the little craft and make-do logistics but people that vanished as well. Nautically perhaps the most dramatic stories of any collapse in front of an enemy advance took place from Singapore to the Philippines December 1941—mid 1942. Some of those little craft carried refugees all the way from Singapore or Manila to almost Australia—then got wiped out. Even larger ones, like little inter-island craft turned critical logistics vessels (USAT Don Esteban and Don Isidro (1939)) did not have a chance. Then there was the USAMP General George Harrison and that sad tale of struggling on, almost abandoned for lack of fuel, bombed—and nobody is even quite sure when she "sank" only to be salvaged and sunk by U.S. bombs in Yokosuka. A some-day project might be to collect such stories into a sort of anthology here, with mentions, that as a whole give people now with little idea what that was all about. Palmeira (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

A bit more, just added to the article. Apparently the yacht was pretty much attached to Motor Torpedo Boat Squadron Three from Cavite until the Squadron departed with MacArthur. The reason he did not leave on a sub was the increased Japanese activity, apparently partly in response to news reports with urging he take over in Australia. So, all the little ships and craft left behind were in the hornet's nest that was Corregidor's last days. Most interesting in searching was a hit with this bit about a little Star Class racing sailboat: "1216* Maryanne II MB John Atkins in Manila, World War II PN-35" that may be a clue. I do not seriously think, though there were strange things going on, a small racing sailboat patrolled with the PTs, but this was Maryanne II and it is just possible a smaller boat was named after a larger. Anyone got yacht registry information that might trace a John Atkins in Manila and his boats? Not a hit except that one in general web searches so far. Palmeira (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Moved both this yacht and another, now Maryann (yacht) and Fisheries II (yacht), to pages without the "USS" prefix. Think all the few links are changed to direct links to moved pages. In trying to find the first I found one hit where someone was asking, veteran forum if I recall, about a former name of Ajax so searches for the civilian yacht may be difficult. Given the circumstances likelihood of hard copy records approaches zero. Palmeira (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Question

 Done
In several articles related to the Natick-class fleet tug and Valiant-class tugboat, these boats are written as having a "USS"-prefix. However they do not have this prefix on the Naval Vessel Register (example). Can anyone confirm if these boats do in fact physically/officially have this prefix, and if they are commissioned vessels? I ask because I am currently cleaning up the List of current ships of the United States Navy, and there are categories for "commissioned" and "support". All ships with a "USS"-prefix are listed under "commissioned", but these two classes of tugboats are currently listed under "support", which appears to be contradictory. Any enlightenment here would be appreciated. - ^theWOLFchild 06:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The Natick class articles predate me though I have fiddled with them. I created the Valiant class articles using Natick as a model. You are probably right that these ships should not be listed with the USS prefix unless NVR specifically shows a commissioning date.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

No, there is no commissioning dates on the NVR listings. So these pages should be moved, but from "USS" to... what? Does anyone know if these boats have a prefix? Or is it just the name followed by the (hull-code)? - ^theWOLFchild 13:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably worth noting that Navsource does not include the prefix for these vessels, see for instance here. Parsecboy (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Long ago I raised the question of the improper use of U.S.S. for ships never in commission—a blunder in naval circles showing ignorance and even disrespect as that is an explicit honorific for commissioned vessels. The consensus was to drop the prefix for those vessels never in commission. Strictly speaking the Navy drops it even for a ship that goes into reserve or long yard periods out of commmission, but like a retired President of Senator it is still used as an honorific. Templates are a bit unusual, but Norma (AK-86) works as in this example of one I moved then. The Navy term for non commissioned ships, including United States Naval Ships (USNS) operated by MSC which do get that prefix, is "in service." For a specific example in your question see DANFS Redwing (YTB-783) iii and you will see "Placed in service in June 1965, Redwing . . ." so that article should be moved from USS Redwing (YTB-783) to Redwing (YTB-783) and all "USS" associated with the tug in the article removed. I added a note about commissioned status in articles because the general public is nearly clueless about such things. Unfortunately I linked Navy guidance on the matter at then NHC not realizing NHHC would be so destructive as to destroy all links to all articles and even purge their site of some very valuable historic reports and analysis of engagements. Palmeira (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Ship Naming in the United States Navy (.pdf) at A Note on Navy Ship Name Prefixes is the old NHC page. The applicable text is: "Other Navy vessels classified as "in service" are simply identified by their name (if any) and hull number, with no prefix." As a note, it was usual in Navy correspondence and professional written works to italicize (typewriter days all caps) the hull number if there was no name, i.e., "YFP-3 reported to x for y" for some duty. Palmeira (talk) 16:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Example: Wauwatosa (YTB-775) that I just purged of "USS" and moved to be consistent with every reference given. Note that all the Navy references and NavSource have the name as per policy and custom, someone added "USS" even though the references are quite clear. All those articles should be cleaned up and moved unless there was a commissioning—and I never ran across any harbor class tug that was. You had to get into those ATFs before an officer took command in a commissioning. Palmeira (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

While we're on this topic, it would be wise to correct articles like USS Kentucky (BB-66), USS Illinois (BB-65), USS Washington (BB-47) and any other unfinished ships that may be lurking about. Parsecboy (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

One is reminded of certain stables and Hercules. There has long been a habit here of tagging any floating thing that the U.S.N. touches is "USS" something. Bluntly, it makes the pages look amateurish—"The Chevrolet Thunderbird is an automobile . . ." comes to mind. Then there are those Army vessels and even small craft to which "U.S.A.T." has been attached willy nilly. I made an attempt to clear up some of that here.

The Army case is muddier since Army had no "commissioning" and thus no bright line of precisely how and when a ship got the relatively informal title of "United States Army Transport" attached. In WW II the "title" was maybe or maybe not painted on the ship. Consensus among specialist seems to be solid in favor of that having only been applied to Army owned ships or those bareboat chartered for the duration in WW II where Army was responsible for all aspects of operation. It does not apply to the hundreds of WSA ships operated by WSA agents, often recognized shipping lines that operated the ship prewar, and allocated to Army. None of the many smaller or specialized Army vessels got the title, they were always just "U.S. Army" name as can be seen here and here. Anyone working on those WW II era Army connected vessels needs to understand the status of the ships. Further, knowing the relationships on various vessels is useful. Some mistake the "Transport commander" for the "Captain" (in Army terms "Master"); the relationships are actually interesting as the Transport commander took charge even of units with senior officers embarked. Even the allocated troop ships had Transportation Corps personnel aboard for that administration, but the ships themselves were not "Army ships." Palmeira (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

So, are we in agreement? The Valiant-class tugboats and the Natick-class fleet tugs should be moved to have the "USS"-prefix dropped? I note that all 6 Valiants were created by the same editor (Trappist the monk), while 9 of the 11 Naticks were also by the same editor (Bonewah). Perhaps we could ask then to rectify this? Lemme know what you think.
On another note, there is another class of tug. While the two above, on the List of current ships of the United States Navy are listed under "Support" should be changed, the other class, Powhatan-class fleet ocean tug listed under "Non-Commissioned", have the "USNS"-prefix, which according to the NVR, is correct.

• The "Valiant-class" (YT) is listed here as "Tugboat", but the NVR lists (YT) as a "Harbor Tug". If the article names are going to be changed, we should get it as accurate as possible, no?
  
• The "Natick-class" (YTB) is listed here as "Large Harbor Tug", which is correct according to the NVR. However, on their individual articles, they are listed as "Large District Harbor Tugs", so perhaps that should corrected as well?
  
• The "Powhatan-class" (T-ATF) is listed here as a "Fleet Ocean Tug", which is also correct according to the NVR. But the "Valiants" and "Naticks" are in need of a type corrections.
  

Hopefully these guys, or someone, will make these changes. I'd do it, but I have a ton of other stuff to (including off-site), so it would take me quite some time to get around to it. - ^theWOLFchild 07:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Key to the tugs is the "Y" or "A" where the first always indicates a yard or harbor craft and the second fleet auxiliary. In the old days the "A" types had officers, often Mustangs (promoted from the ranks) with experience and not much rank, "in command" and were commissioned. By the late 70s the big new ATFs were MSC as T-ATF with real pros, lifetime, no long shore tours, Navy civilian mariners in charge. The "Y" types had always been "driven" by senior enlisted, often old salts with real skill and were not commissioned. One did not want some almost too young to really shave JG tooling around your ship "in command" of one of those things.

As an aside, a key to understanding a difference in those Army ships as well, in naval terms worldwide command of a ship is a vital career step, a ticket punch without which one is never going to advance to the senior grades as a line officer. That is why, when Department of Defense merged the Army's ships, using the Army model of professional civilian mariners—just ship people with none of the shore tours and ceremonial stuff of a Navy career—jealousy suddenly arose. Big, deep draft ships, once ticket punches in the tonnage/draft steps to large combatant command were "taken away" from the career path that required command of increasingly large and important ships. Army officers, if such a thing had happened, would have gotten no boost and probably a laugh to mark "ship command" in their record. Thus Navy "worships" ships, lovingly records commission dates, has big ceremonies related to them, keeps meticulous records of those "in command" and has a whole organization devoted to ship history. Army never gave much attention beyond those records necessary to maintain and operate "the things" and thus we have no Army "ship history" organization or extensive ship records. The hopes and dreams and career record of every naval officer is wrapped up in ships so they make sure their records are there for us. Palmeira (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I have made all the page-moves and associated corrections, dropping "USS" from the Valiant-class boats. Anybody feel like helping out with the Natick-class boats? - ^theWOLFchild 06:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

oops! ...it looks like it's already been done. Thanks. - ^theWOLFchild 06:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

An example of need for caution for the old vessels that today would never be commissioned showed up today. I was prepared to move USS Accomac (YTL-18) (now USS Algonquin) to a name only page. Then a check of DANFS and indeed there had been a commissioning. The article was under a later name than "commissioned as" (I found the probable reason) so dropping the USS would be problematic. So, after checking more, I moved the article to the name under which the ship started Naval service and commissioning name. The all the hull numbers, only used after 1920, made no sense in the title (as we have discussed elsewhere) and things got interesting. The ship was a Southern Pacific Railroad, Morgan Line tug (another current interest) and then the misspelled first commanding officer's correct name gets a hit on a later admiral and his extensive 1899 article, "Some Experiences On A U. S. Naval Tug-Boat" and the trials of a young officer and an old tug. Anyway, the old boats can get interesting. Palmeira (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Multiple US Navy ship pages...

We have List of current ships of the United States Navy, which is a detailed, lengthy and up-to-date article. Can anyone explain why we also have (and possibly need) United States Navy ships and List of currently active United States military watercraft ? They are basically duplicates.

Also, having a look at List of Military Sealift Command ships, it appears to be in need of some work, (which I have decided to take on). But there is also List of auxiliaries of the United States Navy, which also appears to need some work. This particular page also brings to mind a point previously raised by Parsecboy above, about the number of ship articles with "USS" incorrectly added to the name/title. Anyone feel like addressing that? - ^theWOLFchild 03:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit)- we can add Equipment of the United States Navy to this list of redundant articles. Along with small arms and aircraft, it again lists all the commissioned ships of the navy, as well as totals of every other type - ^theWOLFchild 05:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

There will be a great deal of overlap between MSC and just USN auxiliaries since MSTS/MSC ships are a sub set of all auxiliaries. The only difference in some was a crew change from hundreds of Navy to fewer than a hundred Navy civilian mariners, blue and gold stack rings and a "T-" added to the hull number. The trend over the years has been to make more auxiliaries MSC (that 300>76 person reduction to professional mariners a reason and now more are going contractor operated). As for the misused USS prefix for everything the Navy floats? The list is huge. Essentially no yard craft, none of those "Yxx" types, and small patrol types were ever commissioned, though I believe some around the turn of the 20th century may have been. I noticed in a list yesterday "USS PT-xx"—wrong. There is also an issue with commercial vessels taken in for war service. I moved USS Manchuria (ID-1633) to SS Manchuria (1903) because that ship had a long, long commercial career that in detail tracks the trends in the U.S. shipping industry during turbulent periods and only briefly served the Navy. On the other hand I left USS Algorab alone because it had only brief, though very interesting (not covered) role supporting building the airfields and early war troop movements for Army, commercial role before going Navy for years. A lot of those commercial vessels, notable in their own right, got tagged USS because DANFS copying was easy. Others because of erroneous veteran memories of crossing in USS Something when they were actually aboard an Army or WSA transport. Palmeira (talk) 10:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Your "USS PT-xxx" example got me thinking, Palmeira - why on earth is Motor Torpedo Boat (a British term) being used for articles like Motor Torpedo Boat PT-109? Also, some articles are hyphenated and others are not (for instance Motor Torpedo Boat PT 105) - which is correct? Parsecboy (talk) 10:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

That British term was used by the U.S.N., though I think not often for individual boats. Most often it is seen as "Motor Torpedo Boat Squadron" as in NSW - Naval Special Warfare Command and John Fitzgerald Kennedy. The term is used for the type, as in DYNAMIC LOADING OF A MOTOR TORPEDO BOAT (YP 110) DURING HIGH-SPEED OPERATION IN ROUGH WATER. From that the Navy got the "hull type" of Patrol Torpedo Boat (PT), probably explicitly to distinguish U.S. "name"/hulls from the British MTBs, as used here. So, in most Navy usage it would be a "Motor Torpedo Boat Squadron" and a "motor torpedo boat" type designated as an individual Patrol Torpedo Boat (PT) with no name and just termed PT # or PT-# with the last probably most common. If I recall the preference here is for U.S.N. hull numbers being hyphenated while British Commonwealth is without for those pennant numbers. As for British ideas? Dig deep into WW II type vessels and it is amazing how many concepts and designs came out of their early war experience.

My opinion is that squadron articles should be titled "Motor Torpedo Boat Squadron #" as an article on the type might be named. Today, considering the fact international and modern readers now may not be well enough acquainted with the stand alone term to recognize it, perhaps the individual articles should be "Motor Torpedo Boat PT-109" or perhaps "Patrol Torpedo Boat PT-109". That immediate recognition of fifty or even thirty years ago may be gone. A survey years ago showed a significant number of college students that thought Ike fought at Gettysburg and Lee landed in Normandy! Palmeira (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

"Multi-water" navy?

Recently, an ip editor has gone busily about changing the "type" value in the infobox for several navy articles. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/92.30.196.95 . Most of these articles simply had "Navy" as the type, while a few had "Blue-water navy". This user has changed several to "Green-water navy" (a recognized term). On a few others, the (USN, French Indian Navy pages), he has changed the "type" to "Multi-water navy", (which appears to be an unsupported, made-up term) I can find no reliable source to support this, and one was not cited. No consensus for this change was sought, (not even an edit summary). I reverted these last 3 changes. (the "multi-" ones). This is being disputed now on the USN page.

I would like feedback from the community, as well as this Wiki-Project on this issue. First, is there a standard descriptor to be added to the "type" value in the info-box? Should it be simply "Navy" for all articles about national navies? Is using recognized terms such as "Blue-water navy", "Green-water navy" and even "Brown-water navy" acceptable? If so, how do we determine which navy gets which description? (refs? talk page consensus?) Aside from all that, what about this term "Multi-water navy"? Is this acceptable? Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 16:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Just put "Navy" in infobox. Qualify the type of navy in the lede where there is plenty of room to explain as necessary but use reader-friendly terms. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Concur with above, but question why there is even a "Type" there? A navy is a navy, an armed force with vessels intended for war. That is the dictionary distinction. A navy's legal framework is national "armed force" and war, whether in tiny inter-island or big national spheres and even in fresh water as in our 1812 battles. A navy has , warships and their support establishment. There are other watery armed forces, different legal framework, one essentially commercial/economic, with vessels intended for completely different purposes, customs and revenue services, fisheries protection, coast guard law enforcement and SAR. If the box is intended for "navy" then type is a bit silly. This whole thing about colors of water is a side issue and something for text, not boxes. That seems to be a general infobox for land, air and sea forces that encourage making up stuff like this. Palmeira (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It was my updates. Initially I changed US navy from "multi-water navy" to "blue-water navy", however a user called Fnlayson changed my edit back to "multi-water navy". I therefore went around all navies that generally seemed to qualify and made sure that classifications were harmonized across the various pages. Personally I would prefer the term "Blue-water" over "multi-water" as it is a generally recognized term.

Perhaps we should go with the British distinction of the navy with "expeditionary" capabilities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.196.95 (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It all seems hopelessly muddled to me. It seems almost all nations that have blue water navies also have green and brown water navies (e.g. the US has coastal and river capability). In addition, the classification of Blue Water based on Battleship and Air Craft carrier capacity seems at odds with the rest of the description (prolonged operation across ocean). E.g the anti piracy mission at the coast of Somalia consisted of prolonged engagement of Western navies across the ocean (clearly Blue water) while many of these navies have no ships beyond Frigate/Destroyer class available (according to another definition this would limit them to Green water). It does not seem helpful to stick to these definitions. Arnoutf (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

See my above. This is silly. Check the Army pages. United States Army, French Army, Japan Ground Self-Defense Force, South African Army, Belgian Army and you will find Type=Army or it is blank. Of course someone could become a silly bugger and try to classify them by expeditionary capability or whatever. Oh wow! A cottage industry here identifying "Jungle Army" and "Desert Army" or "High Plains Army"! As above, if it has warships it is a navy. All the watercolors are distinctions for text. Palmeira (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Graeme and Palmeira above...just use "Navy" and be done with it. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I had thought that Blue water navy was a universally recognised term describing a navy having some ships designed to go anywhere -as opposed to home waters. Since historically this led to different designs in the Royal Navy & lighter armour than their short range German counterparts, it is worth retaining the term. King George V class ships performed relatively poorly in the Pacific as they weren't designed for tropical conditions or very long range operation. Armies of course can be re-equipped & retrained. JRPG (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I wish these hoary old myths would give up and die - German ships did not have a shorter range than their British counterparts. HMS Iron Duke could steam for 7800nmi at 10kn, and SMS König could do 8000nmi at 12kn.

In any event, I'd point out this line from the blue water navy article: "It should be noted that there is no definitive definition of the term 'blue-water navy' and any navy described as such is based on the writers own interpretation". If it's a vague term, it probably doesn't give the reader much real value, and we shouldn't be using it. I'd also suggest that having a line in the infobox describing the US Navy as a "Navy" is just a wee bit silly. Parsecboy (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The South Atlantic and the Med weren't exactly home waters for the RN. This is a pointless distinction unsupported by reliable sources that would formally define the term.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

As for the "Type=" in the box I agree for all the top level articles. As far as I can tell its use in such articles as "United States Navy" and "United States Army" is senseless use of an element within a general military organization box. Use is a bit like saying "The United States Navy is a navy in the United States . . ." in the lead sentence. A ship or corps or regiment or flight piece? Yes, the division was Type=Army or the ship was Navy. In my opinion Type= should be blank in every article about the top level organization. Palmeira (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Much to do about nothing. Just put navy in the box or nothing...the top organization is a navy. Lower units within that navy might be described in the box, such as a shore installation or aircraft wing. Agree with Palmeira...the top organization doen't need a type descriptor in the infobox. Cuprum17 (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. As for the lower levels? When we get into (again silly in my old fashioned view) such word salad as the Information Dominance Corps (IDC) (Who makes up this stuff? "I will dominate you with my information! Take that!") Type=Navy has a place. Palmeira (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all the input, guys. I think it's safe we have consensus. "Multi-water" is out, and from here on out, the "type" value should simply state "Navy", or be left blank. - ^theWOLFchild 05:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Ben-my-Chree

An editor has forked the civilian service of HMS Ben-my-Chree, a WWI requisitioned ferry that was converted into a seaplane carrier by the Royal Navy into a lengthy article (SS Ben-my-Chree (1908)). I see no reason for this as we don't normally, if ever, fork articles covering a single ship and length was not an issue in the original article at only 9.5K. The editor has substantially expanded the coverage of the ship's civilian service, although I'm not sure if some of the new information is really notable, and a combined total would be around 25K if they were merged back together. So I'm very much inclined to undo the fork and just add the new material to the original article. Thoughts, comments?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

And while notifying him of this discussion, I've just noticed that he's done much the same thing regarding HMS Vindex (1915) and SS Viking (1905), although, to be fair, there wasn't much civilian service info available to me when I wrote the former.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the respective articles regarding the SS Ben-my-Chree (1908) and HMS Ben-my-Chree compliment each other, as they are basically two different ships and therefore the ship's two roles are more intricately explained with reference to images from the respective roles and in context. Given that the ship was designed as a cross-channel steamer (and not a warship) the article gives an expansion on her life as such and in keeping with ships of the Edwardian period. The inclusion in the category Ships of the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company comprising 73 pages, of which I have compiled approximately 70 show a common narrative, that of the history of the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company. In my opinion forking the articles allows the clearer explanation of Ben-my-Chree's role as HMS Ben-my-Chree in the article devoted to her war service, allowing a better description in context of her war service and ultimate fate.

There would appear to be other articles in which a ship's various characteristics are explained in more detail (example RMS Titanic). Notable information regarding the Ben-my-Chree which is now available (after extensive research on my behalf) I would contend, includes the ship's design, interior, sea trials, maiden voyage and reception in the contemporary press, which if referred to in the previous article, was only referred to in a lesser description. If the respective articles were to be merged, then I feel the depth of the respective articles would be lost. Also, what would the 'merged article' be called? SS Ben-my-Chree, as she was originally?, or HMS Ben-my-Chree a role for which she was neither designed nor intended. The same applies to SS Viking (1905) / HMS Vindex (1915). In their respective context, both articles refer to 'different' ships, as they appeared as such in different times (e.g. 1908 Ben-my-Chree, 1915 HMS Ben-my-Chree) and so for Viking (1905) / Vindex (1915). --Harvey Milligan 15:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm agnostic about the article titles, so long as redirects are in place, and I certainly don't think that the additional info that you've dug up should be discarded if they were merged back together; the main question is one article or two? Take a look at HMS Nairana (1917) as an example of one way that these types of articles could be structured.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

In general, we should not have two articles about the same ship. There are exceptions, where a single vessel had notable careers under two names - USS Phoenix (CL-46)/ARA General Belgrano is the obvious example - but I don't think these two ships ought to have separate articles on their civilian/military careers. Parsecboy (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree. The two should be re-merged, and any future forks should be discussed first, either on the article talk page or here. - ^theWOLFchild 05:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Harvey, see your talk page. I see that "(talk)" doesn't appear after your name (I don't know why - perhaps someone can explain/fix)), so maybe you weere unaware that you had one! Davidships (talk) 10:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@Davidships: Harvey has customised his signature. As long as there is a link to either his user page or talk page, that is allowed. He'll be notified whenever anyone edits his talk page in any case. Mjroots (talk) 07:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for explanation Mjr. 09:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Davidships (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Cite ship register

The current live version of {{cite ship register}} is a meta-template that mimics {{cite web}} using {{citation/core}}. There isn't any real benefit to that so I have tweaked {{cite ship register/sandbox}} to use {{cite web}}. There is no difference in display as can be seen at Template:cite ship register/testcases.

It should be noted that the use of {{noitalic}} to 'undo' the styling of a ship prefix should be discontinued. The template {{noitalic}} adds hidden css styling that becomes part of |shipname= when that value is passed to the citation's COinS metadata. This constraint applies to the current live version and to the sandbox version because COinS was recently reinstated in {{citation/core}}.

too much detail; didn't read: instead of |shipname={{noitalic|SS}} Neversink write |shipname=SS Neversink or write |shipname=Neversink

Without objection, I shall in the next little while update the live template.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Done.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Help requested

I know enough about ship naming to be dangerous so I was hoping somebody more familiar could cast an eye over Lady-class ferry, Forgacs Shipyard Tomago and State Dockyard to make sure everything there is appropriate. Thanks in advance. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Made some very minor tweaks, but it all looks good to me. -- saberwyn 06:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

We have a list of 9 First Fleet class ferries which are not significantly different enough to justify stand alone articles at Forgacs Shipyard Tomago. The issue is whether is is beneficial for each to be wiklinked per [1] or should only the first vessel be linked. [2] As discussed at User talk:Rb119#Wikilinks there is some disagreement whether the list is covered by repeat link policy, more specifically its allowance of links may be repeated in tables where deemed beneficial to readers. Rb119 (talk) 07:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Saberwyn: Thanks for that

@Rb119: As I've indicated on your talk page, a list is not a table so the exemption that you claimed is not appropriate. I think a better option for identifying the class is at Forgacs Shipyard Tomago, where First Fleet-class ferry is directly linked in the lead. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hence why I have sought a third opinion. Rb119 (talk) 08:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move on SS Sultana

I've started an RM procedure to bring this article name better in line with article naming policy. I invite members of this project, editors vastly more familiar with nautical subject matter than I, to assist us in reaching best consensus. I'm especially interested to find out what members of this project think about the best move target, in case my suggestion (inspired by noted lay historian and talk page contributor Gene Salecker) turns out be less than optimal. BusterD (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Karen Knutsen

Am I getting any of this right?

• Karen Knutsen

Many thanks to anyone who can take a quick look. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Infobox formatting is ok but the article body could use some copyediting. Furthermore, you have beam in the wrong field (draught).

How is this vessel notable?

Tupsumato (talk) 09:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I added some cats, and corrected one. Mjroots (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

On hull/pennant numbers

Discussion ongoing at the MILHIST talk page. There's also a pop culture question. 08:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

A point I raised there, but which is probably better discussed here is that IMO Numbers don't change. Therefore I'd like to raise for discussion the creation of redirects from IMO numbers to the relevant ship articles. The redirect would be in the form IMO 1234567890. We have Category:IMO Number so the creation of redirects for existing articles would be a task that a bot could do, with perhaps a monthly or bi-monthly run to update. Mjroots (talk) 09:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds a good idea to me. (They would make even worse disambiguators that hull/pennant numbers though) Davidships (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this going toward any change? If not how do we head that way? I still contend the name/launch year is best for a title that is more generally understandable as well as being a clear target for more detailed disambiguation indices that are written in novice, human understanding clarity. It occurs to me that DOB for ships is something we all know in the U.S. if we go to a doctor, pick up a prescription or test results: full name and DOB. Yes, SSN was used until the risks of that were made official, and it is still used internally, but in normal use "John Smith, January 1, 1975" with sometimes an address or phone works and is understood to all. I certainly use IMO numbers and those old official numbers in U.S. and Lloyd's registries when trying to untangle some complex histories. Even then they are of limited use because few references other than registries attached those numbers to ships mentioned. I do not think they make much sense to the average searcher here. Those references do often mention year. I ran across something when I linked Bienvenido Santos to Ruth Alexander that was interesting and new to me. A bunch of acronyms and numbers as Authority control as in

That seems to be a sort of IMO for people. Perhaps we could do something similar with IMO numbers for ship people, but neither make much sense to average searchers. Palmeira (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify - I am strongly in favour of creating redirects from IMO numbers. Perhaps this could be done by a BOT from infobox entries. But I am equally opposed to using IMO numbers as disambiguators in titles - year of launch (or completion if launch year not known) is, in my view, much better. Davidships (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Fully agree. The one problem with year that I have observed, almost never with warships since navys are downright obsessive on recording such things, is with merchant type ships launched late in the year. I've run across several in which December launches tend to show up in other sources in the next year even when I can find contemporary accounts, sometimes with photos of the ceremony, in the previous year. In at least one case, even news accounts for a December launch vary on the exact day. I suspect, though have not researched, that Lloyd's uses a year for completion/registration/survey or delivery as I have rather consistently found December launches with Lloyd's using the year in which I also have a clear completion or delivery date. I've covered those dependencies in text. Initial completion date, though not quite that "meet the water" birth date, is probably better. Though launches have the ceremony most ships are just a hull then and some take some time to complete; as with one I'm working now that took years! Palmeira (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Following a request at BOTREQ, and a trial, redirects have now been created from the IMO number for all ships that have articles. If you know the IMO Number, you can use that to get to the article, such as IMO 1001049. Mjroots (talk) 07:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

In a loosly related issue, we have HMAS Anzac (G90), which strangely enough, doesn't seem to have ever carried the Pennant Number G90 (she seems to have used F61, G60, G50 and G60 during the First World War and H3A postwar, including in Australian service). G90 was used by HMS Hoste (1916) during her (brief) service. Perhaps a move for Anzac (which used to be at HMAS Anzac (1917) until moved in 2011 may be in order?Nigel Ish (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't have Cassells The Destroyers on hand, which is the source I most likely got the "G90 pennant when in RAN service" factoid from, so cannot check that specific source. The Royal Australian Navy claims that G90 was the pennant used in Australian service. In regards to the broader issue of disambiguation and how this links to it, I do not care, and will wait for the more invested editors to argue out a solution. -- saberwyn 22:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Jane's Fighting Ships 1931 has H3A as the pennant number for Anzac, although photos of Anzac in service don't show any number painted on the ship (presumably it was flown as flags. The fact that the one ship appears to have at least five Pennant numbers, with four used during less than two years of war suggests that Pennant number isn't a terribly good disambiguation method.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Its somewhat incidental to the overall discussion, but following up on saberwyn's cmt, I can confirm that Cassells The Destroyers p. 5 states the following hull numbers: "...RN: F61 (9 February 1917); G60 (18 April 1917); G50 (January 1918); G70 (April 1918) RAN: G90 (but not painted up)..." (my emphasis). Hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 12:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Which all brings us around to another confusion opportunity. Which of the many should be used? First? Last? Longest? Most prominent period? The same applies to USN hull numbers. Take an old one, USS Galveston (CL-19). The current title reflects last and it appears longest. Another author might have picked first, the per-classification Galveston (Cruiser No. 17) used by DANFS. Another such ship's title might have been picked as one in between as the "most prominent" or "well known" as with some of the WW II ships that changed classification several times. On names, I tend to lean toward launch name for merchant vessels with no overwhelming period of significance under another name. I have, and lean toward using a service name for some obscure tramp that had its moment of fame as USAT, USS, USCG or a wartime merchant name—with full accounting of others in the lead paragraph. Names are administrative, and some of those lines reused them to a confusing degree. Pennant and hull numbers are more so and more fluid, almost like a politician's title over the years from local to national office—and making a decision when perhaps a fairly prominent governor, once a mayor, and lastly an obscure, nearly unknown senator.

Again, question. Is this idle keystroke chatter and opinion or is it headed toward some sort of decision and change? Palmeira (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

For me, the sooner we use year of launch as disambiguator, the better. Shem (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Obviously I agree, but so far this is just another discussion and not anything that in my very limited knowledge (or interest) in Wikipedia "policy" stuff would seem to lead to a real change. What puts it into the ship name/title guidance here? Palmeira (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

A quick look through the archives says that we talked about it, or around it, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here - and probably a load of other places. The problem is, we never got much consensus. I suppose the start would be to call a request for comment, and the best place to do it would probably be Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships). Shem (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I keep meaning to open one at WP:TITLE, which is a wider forum and would give the RfC a better chance of gaining consensus (as opposed to dying away, like this and the Milhist discussion). I'll probably do so in the next couple days. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

That would be good. Looking forward to adding my 2p worth. Mjroots (talk) 07:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Concur. I'll keep an eye out for it - you will announce it here, I assume? Shem (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course. This is just a busy time for me, with grad school papers coming due, or this would have already happened. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 11:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Good. Should we recap the essence of what seems to be the consensus here? As I get it a unique ship name can stand alone. Where more than one ship is involved launch year is used. Hull/pennant numbers are dealt with in text. As an aside, this thing of ship's status can generate some controversy as can be seen in Talk:SS Dorchester where popular, but inaccurate sources, blunder on simple fact. It reminds me of some of the "USS" regardless of the Navy's definition discussions—though the whole United States Army Transport definition is not as bright a line as a commissioning. Palmeira (talk) 12:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible exceptions: While looking at the long lists of Navy "vessels" that improperly use "USS" some possible exceptions to dropping hull numbers may be "equipment" other than ships. An example: USS Ability (AFDL-7). These small drydocks were not commissioned so USS is incorrect, but there were vessels that had the same name with DANFS distinguishing this one as "Ability (AFD-7) iii"—note that use of the hull number there is a DANFS exception. In a quick look at DANFS usage that exceptional use of the hull number seems to apply to those craft that are often unnamed and would just be referred to by hull number alone as AFD-7. I suggest that exception be a part of any group where a type may be named or unnamed as was this non self propelled "vessel" prior (1944—1979) to naming before going out of service in early 1981 as seen in DANFS. My larger question is just why most of these are "notable" and are not just in an expanded listing at best. Palmeira (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I've heard it argued that, for US Navy ships, the hull number forms part of the name. If this is true, then we wouldn't need to disambiguate by year, because the full name, including hull number, would be unique. If this is false, we would need a debate that included renaming US ships as well. Shem (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The argument is wrong. Hull number is not part of the name as can be seen by ships with the same name and multiple hull designations and even numbers. They are not "renamed"—they are "redesignated" or "reclassified," sometimes in mass batches by memorandum and notice changing all of a certain classification to another, as to the Navy's view of their function/type. An example of mass change is with "CL/CA - Light and Heavy Cruisers." No names were changed, just the hull classifications, for the eight ships "redesignated as "heavy cruisers" (CA)" as a result of the London Naval Treaty. A quickly located single ship example is Markab which has a page here USS Markab (AD-21). Since I just picked that one at random a moment ago it is interesting what a good example it is of not very good use of hull number. From DANFS with my emphasis: 1) "Markab (AK‑31) was built as Mormacpenn by Ingalls" 2) "she was redesignated AD‑21" and 3) "she was redesignated AR‑23, 15 April and recommissioned 1 July" (1960). So, why is the Wikipage not (AK-31) or (AR-23)? A random pick? Length or most "notable" service under one hull number which is really nothing more than an administrative internal registry grouping? There was only one Navy ship named for "A star in the constellation Pegasus" and the ship was commissioned so USS Markab is perfectly good. Palmeira (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Just trimmed off that useless dab ;) Parsecboy (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Palmeira, Shem1805, and Mjroots: I've created the RfC here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

DANFS errors

See my note here if you happen to work with DANFS a lot. Parsecboy (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Heads up ye scurvy bilgerats

Behold Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Using launch dates in place of hull or pennant numbers in ship article titles. Isn't this more your domain? Herostratus (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you can see that there was part of a discussion above, and that I pointed people both at the earlier discussion and current discussion (see the last post). Best, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata – again

Re: these conversations in archive 42 and archive 43.

The editors at Wikidata have changed something that broke the connection between {{Infobox ship characteristics}} and the ship class property at Wikidata. I have asked the editor who implemented the connection if I should revert his changes or if he should fix the template and restore the connection.

The error can be seen at Southern Swan.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Possibly this change on wikidata. It seems to have particularly affected ship class articles.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Um, that link just links to this conversation.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Doh! - try this.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

And that link shows a label change. FreightXPress (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Please have a look at d:Property talk:P289#Changes to vessel class. FreightXPress (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hang on - could it be this change to {{Infobox ship characteristics}}?Nigel Ish (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

In Template:Infobox ship characteristics/sandbox I changed to this: {{{Ship class|}}} |WD=vessel class. I then edited Southern Swan to use the sandbox version. This seems to have fixed the problem. You would think that renaming something in Wikidata would leave behind a redirect so that this sort of thing doesn't happen.

I will update the live template to use |WD=vessel class.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Not good, see d:Property_talk:P289#Changes_to_vessel_class FreightXPress (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that referring to a Wikidata property by it's label instead of by it's identifier isn't a very good idea. Multichill (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

No, we should never be using identifiers in place of labels. The alphanumeric identifier P289 is meaningless to a human reader whereas the label 'vessel class' conveys meaning.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

(ec)This basically shows why it is a bad idea to import any sort of information from Wikidata - It is clear that changes are made at Wikidata with no understanding of or concern about the consequences to other projects. The infoboxes should be reverted so that they have no links to wikidata, in order to prevent this sort of random, careless change from breaking articles. The information on wikidata cannot be treated as stable, and its caretakersdon't care how much they screw up articles.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the careless renaming of the "ship class" property at Wikidata (now named "vessel class"). I will follow up to ensure this cannot possibly happen again in the future. -- Laddo (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I note that (at this moment in time) the infobox at Global Combat Ship appears affected in the same way as others were - so I don't think its fixed. But I don't get this Wikidata crap - which in my opinion is a good reason to stop damaging articles. Shem (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any errors in that page. Perhaps you got a cached version with the error?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Project Kalina

Hi, I've created this new article, but I'm not sure if it's notable enough yet. Thoughts? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

An interesting and somewhat unusual case of Navy ship naming issues.

Harry L. Glucksman (MSS-1) is misnamed as can be seen from information I just added. This was first just a case of a misused "USS" but turned out to be more as Navy did not even class this hull as a "ship" once converted. An interesting little piece in All Hands (pp. 556—57) with "MineLant tested the ship, officially considered a 'device,' . . ."—which explains why there is no DANFS or other Naval records of a minesweeper named Harry L. Glucksman. Worth a read as sitting in padded chairs in a shock mounted pilot house atop a styrofoam packed hull and massive explosions sounds like real "fun"! The original article was almost entirely from NavSource, but this is a case where that site has an error. The device had no name as such. The article should be SS Harry L. Glucksman (I do not find another record of a ship by that name). I tried to move, but the old redirect by that name prevents that. Palmeira (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Irish Willow

new article Irish Willow. slight problem with a ref. any suggestions for the article? Lugnad (talk) 09:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Ship classes

Two questions for ship classes (e.g. America-class amphibious assault ship): 1) That's a hyphen, not a dash, right? and 2) How do I make the hatnote un-italicized? The hatnote is currently "Not to be confused with America-class steamship or America-class ship of the line." It should be "Not to be confused with America-class steamship or America-class ship of the line." Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

1. yes
2. {{Distinguish|America-class steamship{{!}}''America''-class steamship|America-class ship of the line}}

   Not to be confused with America-class steamship or America-class ship of the line.

   America-class ship of the line should probably not be italicized because the class is not named for a member of the class

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

But the class is named after a ship (French ship ''America'' (1788)). Does it have to be a ship of the class if it's a copycat? Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

According to America-class ship of the line, the class was two ships: HMS Northumberland and HMS Renown, neither of which is America so the class name is not italicized. This fits the common theme characteristic specified at WP:SHIPNAME.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 02:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: This appears to be a situation that isn't covered by SHIPNAME. That ship of the line class is named after a ship; it's not thematic. It needs to be italicized. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thematic in the sense that, according to America-class ship of the line, HMS Northumberland and HMS Renown were built to designs based on America's design. Because America was not a 'member' of the two-ship class, the italics rule in WP:SHIPNAME does not apply:

When the class takes its name from a member of the class, the name is italicized

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not a thematic name - Flower-class corvette and Battle-class destroyer are thematic, since all of the ships in those classes are named for flowers and battles - Northumberland is not a type of America. The America class is just a subclass of Téméraire-class ship of the line. This is of course an exception to SHIPNAME, but we can easily deduce how it should be handled; italics are used for a class named after a ship. The class is named for a specific ship, so it should be italicized, regardless of whether the ship is part of the class or not. Parsecboy (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Parsec has said it better than I ever could. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

How detailed of a list ?

Greetings:

I have recently put together a list of all the shipwrecks in Humboldt County, California - and it's a lengthy list. I notice on List of shipwrecks of California that it says it would help to add more as the list is incomplete. My question is, do you want all these ships in that table? I'll do it but it will take some time and I don't want to have such a time-consuming edit rejected afterwards. Please advise, and please "ping" me or put a note on my talk page! Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Ellin Beltz: - it depends on how large the list you've compiled is. It might be best to leave it as a separate sub-list, especially if it overwhelms the rest of the article. You might put a shortened list of only the most notable wrecks in the List of shipwrecks of California list with a bit of text explaining them, and link the sub-list with the {{main}} template. And I'd imagine that if the other counties are developed to the level of detail as your Humboldt County list, they'd need to be spun out too. Parsecboy (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ellin Beltz: - There's no real restriction on what such a list should cover. As it's a list of shipwrecks, vessels under 100 tons or 100' should probably not be listed, unless they have a Wikipedia article. If the list gets too long, then splitting by county is the next step. AFAIK, there are shipwreck lists covering every year, so you might want to trawl through them for entries that can be added. What about offshore wrecks? How far out are you going? This should be stated in the lede. See also WP:SHIPS/R for useful sources for further research. Mjroots (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mjroots: @Parsecboy: The list I have is for near-shore shipwrecks off shore Humboldt county. We have had a LOT of wrecks due to the dangerous currents, weather; most of them are older. I realize not to overwhelm the list, but having the resource available to put all up, I thought I'd ask. I don't have the tonnage on the list, it had been my intent to pose the list with geoocoordinates, dates, ship name and type... and then pick away at details afterwards. Do please advise. I think the list might have 45 to 60 items on it at most. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ellin Beltz: - no need to have tonnage mentioned, that can be left to ship articles. The rest of the info you propose adding is what one would expect to find. Have a look at the List of shipwrecks of Cornwall to get a feel for such a list. Take care to get the flags and country links correct for the year the event happened. If in doubt, refer to the list of shipwrecks for the year concerned. Mjroots (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, the Cornwall list looks much more achievable than the plain list format. It may take some time to get flags on all the ships, especially the older ones, but I have friends who are interested in the topic and if I can only get a page up, more information can be added. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks of Humboldt County, California This is as far as I've gotten from the top of the reference pile and will continue to work on the entry. Please critique now before it doubles in size for "notable wrecks". Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I've given the list a copyedit. Per WP:SHE4SHIPS, a consistent use of "she" or "it" is needed. You decide which you prefer. You may wish to consider bolding the name of the ship which was lost - most lists of shipwrecks follow this style. Other than that, try to structure sentences together and use slightly more encyclopaedic language. Hope this helps. Mjroots (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

TFA nom needs comments

Hi all, I'd appreciate if you could comment (either in support or against) on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Rivadavia-class battleship. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

USNS Observation Island - 3rd opinion

Can I get an uninvolved editor to look at USNS Observation Island (T-AGM-23) regarding copy / paste from DANFS and attributing with {{DANFS}}. --Dual Freq (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. Although I think just copying DANFS is not best form, and certainly DANFS can be quite stilted and formulaic, there is no question as to copyright. At the same time, there is lots of misunderstanding of just what is covered as a "government work"—even in Wikipedia's copyright notices. For example, just because a photo is taken by a "sailor," even if on duty (say walking between two Navy ships in a civilian port open to the public with no photography restrictions), with personal equipment and not as a part of that duty does not make it a "government work." Things can get really complicated when contractors are involved. The CENDI page covers the ground there. Palmeira (talk) 00:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Also went back to clean up the long standing "also known as ex-MA-28, ex-YAG-57, ex-E-AG-154" as if those classifications/designations are names. That misconception and treatment of MARAD numbers (MA-28) and Navy hull numbers as names for named ships is something we need to root out of every ship article! Good to have the changes reflected in the article, but not as names. Palmeira (talk) 03:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Is this appropriate?

Bahnfrend recently added two books, both by publishers in the same city, to a new "Bibliography" section on 30 different ship articles. Since these books were recent additions to all these articles they were obviously not sources for the article, and it seems like an effort to promote those two books. However, this user has been around a while so I have to assume good faith. Do you think these new Bibliograph sections are appropriate? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Given that the articles are nowhere near complete, I don't see any issues with adding a couple of reference books dealing with cruise ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Often it's better to add works not actually cited in the text to a "Further Reading" section. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

External Links

I was today notified that a number of ship profile pages I'd added external links to had been edited to remove the links as being potential conflicts of interest - additionally, the comment was made that not much added value was to be found at the target of the external links.

As an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Capodanno_(FF-1093). As an external link, I added https://www.kcfpa.org/uss-capodanno-ff-1093, which is Capodanno's home page at Knox Class Frigate Preservation Association.

KCFPA is a non-profit historical organization dedicated to preserving history of the Knox class, with a secondary goal of returning an example of this class to the United States to be used as a floating museum. As one of the principals of this 1,000+ member organization, it falls to me to be the one to edit the ship pages on Wikipedia to add the external links. This isn't as much a conflict of interest as a manual per-page task that falls to me to accomplish as the sole IT resource available.

As there are 46 ships in the class, and each has a dedicated history/crew/photo archive section, obviously I would be editing 46 Wikipedia pages to add unique external links.

In Wikipedia's guidelines for external links, the "What can normally be linked" section, item 3: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[4] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." I believe KCFPA's link target meets this standard.

In the same guideline, none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria are satisfied by providing a link to KCFPA's unique ship profile page. In the case of USS Capodanno and several others, however, there are external links to Facebook pages which very clearly violate the spirit and letter of this section. Additionally, practically ALL Knox-class ship Wikis contain links to http://navysite.de, which is similar in structure to KCFPA but also hosts a "Ships Store" section where merchandise may be purchased.

Now I'll admit that I'm new to Wiki editing - however, it seems ridiculous to promote external links to social media while arbitrarily discouraging links to historical pages, especially without discussing with the submitter the merits or potential drawbacks of allowing such links to stay. I'd appreciate guidance on this.

Scott.yeager (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)scott.yeager

@Scott.yeager: If you work for the KCFPA, adding a link to you're organization's website is the very definition of a conflict of interest. That said, the links to appear to be appropriate, but per the conflict of interest guidelines it would be more appropriate for you to suggest the links to be added on each article's talk page, tagging the request with {{Request edit}}, and letting an uninvolved editor add the link to the page itself. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I removed a bunch of those as they didn't seem to add much value for each ship article, crew lists and a handful of photos only for individual ships. Perhaps it would be more useful in the Knox class article. That and it was clearly a COI. FWIW, navysite.de has cruisebooks and accident / incident items that I have used in the past to improve articles, but I have no objection to removing all those too. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the individual ship pages are pretty insubstantial and certainly don't outweigh the COI aspect in terms of usefulness. I have no objection, however, to adding the site as a whole to the Knox class article. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I get the COI issue, that makes sense - and thank you for your feedback. I agree that a link from the main Knox article indeed seems more appropriate - this is a revision of the original site which included more in-depth historical information for each ship, and as that info is re-incorporated into the new site I'll follow Ahecht's guidelines for submitting link suggestions for peer review... External links - a touchy, IMO subject! Thanks again for the education and information. Scott.yeager (talk) 00:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)scott.yeager

"Landfall"

The usage and primary topic of Landfall is under discussion, see talk:Landfall (meteorology) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

External Links

I was today notified that a number of ship profile pages I'd added external links to had been edited to remove the links as being potential conflicts of interest - additionally, the comment was made that not much added value was to be found at the target of the external links.

As an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Capodanno_(FF-1093). As an external link, I added https://www.kcfpa.org/uss-capodanno-ff-1093, which is Capodanno's home page at Knox Class Frigate Preservation Association.

KCFPA is a non-profit historical organization dedicated to preserving history of the Knox class, with a secondary goal of returning an example of this class to the United States to be used as a floating museum. As one of the principals of this 1,000+ member organization, it falls to me to be the one to edit the ship pages on Wikipedia to add the external links. This isn't as much a conflict of interest as a manual per-page task that falls to me to accomplish as the sole IT resource available.

As there are 46 ships in the class, and each has a dedicated history/crew/photo archive section, obviously I would be editing 46 Wikipedia pages to add unique external links.

In Wikipedia's guidelines for external links, the "What can normally be linked" section, item 3: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[4] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." I believe KCFPA's link target meets this standard.

In the same guideline, none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria are satisfied by providing a link to KCFPA's unique ship profile page. In the case of USS Capodanno and several others, however, there are external links to Facebook pages which very clearly violate the spirit and letter of this section. Additionally, practically ALL Knox-class ship Wikis contain links to http://navysite.de, which is similar in structure to KCFPA but also hosts a "Ships Store" section where merchandise may be purchased.

Now I'll admit that I'm new to Wiki editing - however, it seems ridiculous to promote external links to social media while arbitrarily discouraging links to historical pages, especially without discussing with the submitter the merits or potential drawbacks of allowing such links to stay. I'd appreciate guidance on this.

Scott.yeager (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)scott.yeager

@Scott.yeager: If you work for the KCFPA, adding a link to you're organization's website is the very definition of a conflict of interest. That said, the links to appear to be appropriate, but per the conflict of interest guidelines it would be more appropriate for you to suggest the links to be added on each article's talk page, tagging the request with {{Request edit}}, and letting an uninvolved editor add the link to the page itself. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I removed a bunch of those as they didn't seem to add much value for each ship article, crew lists and a handful of photos only for individual ships. Perhaps it would be more useful in the Knox class article. That and it was clearly a COI. FWIW, navysite.de has cruisebooks and accident / incident items that I have used in the past to improve articles, but I have no objection to removing all those too. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the individual ship pages are pretty insubstantial and certainly don't outweigh the COI aspect in terms of usefulness. I have no objection, however, to adding the site as a whole to the Knox class article. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I get the COI issue, that makes sense - and thank you for your feedback. I agree that a link from the main Knox article indeed seems more appropriate - this is a revision of the original site which included more in-depth historical information for each ship, and as that info is re-incorporated into the new site I'll follow Ahecht's guidelines for submitting link suggestions for peer review... External links - a touchy, IMO subject! Thanks again for the education and information. Scott.yeager (talk) 00:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)scott.yeager

"Landfall"

The usage and primary topic of Landfall is under discussion, see talk:Landfall (meteorology) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Ulysses (ship)

Should we have a shipindex for this shipname? I tried to suggest one Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ulysses (ship) but it's been rejected as redundant to the disambiguation page Ulysses (which being a dpage cannot accept redlinks) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@65.94.43.89: - Timtrent is partly correct. We have USS Ulysses, HMS Ulysses and MV Ulysses as shipindex pages. SS Ulysses needs creating atm. Shipindex pages are not quite the same as dab pages, and may contain redlinks. Therefore the MV Ulysses page can be expanded - this is something you can do yourself. Should an article ever get written on the superyacht, then that can be added to the Ulysses page. Mjroots (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Why do we have to have so many little shipindex pages for the same ship name? For me, it undermines the whole point of getting to the right article easily or looking for other ships of the same name. I favour the IP's approach. Davidships (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I've created the missing shipindex page, and enabled easy finding of all vessels mentioned. Mjroots (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but what is the answer? WP:SHIPMOS has "If there has been more than one ship with the same name, create a ship index page for the generic ship name." Then it would appear in the search dropdown and every ship article would be just one click away (even if the prefix, if any, is not known). Davidships (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm neutral as to the original proposal, with the proviso that if all four shipindex pages are turned into redirects, then the page should be title either "Ulysses (ship name)" or "List of ships named Ulysses", the latter of which would be my preference. According to our naming convention, Ulysses (ship) means a full-rigged ship named Ulysses. Not beyond the realms of possibility that there was one (or more). Mjroots (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The latter suggestion would be in line with current existing like List of ships named Noordam or List of ships named HMS Victory. Parsecboy (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but nobody searches for a ship like that. Agree re full-rigged vessels (I am aware of at least a couple). But I don't think that that constraint need apply to the plural, so "Ulysses (ships)" could be good, though for clarity I would favour Mjroots' suggestion "Ulysses (ship name)". Perhaps we should have a discussion at WP:SHIPMOS? Davidships (talk) 09:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

No, but people do type in HMS Victory, and when that's not the article they're looking for, there's a handy hatnote that points them to the index. Since there is none in this case, the primary locations can simply redirect to the consolidated index, rather than having 4 separate ones. Parsecboy (talk) 10:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure which bit you are saying 'No' to, Parsec. Davidships (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I was agreeing that no one searches for ships by typing in "list of ships named..." to the search bar, but also pointing out that the point is irrelevant. They won't type in "[prefix] [ship name] (ship name)" any more than they will "list of ships named..." There either will be redirects from the primary names (i.e., the names readers will type into the box), or there will be a primary topic with a hatnote to the index. The format of the indices don't matter to the average reader, since they will only ever get to them via redirects or hatnotes. Parsecboy (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

- If we're in agreement, List of ships named Ulysses is the way to go. The four shipindex pages can be turned into redirects and the motor yacht added from the IPs proto-article. If no objections I'll do this in the next day or two. Mjroots (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not agree at all. I am looking for a simple practical way to meet the need of someone wanting information on a ship (especially a merchant ship) named Ulysses. That doesn't do it - there are two better suggestions above, of which my preference would be for your own "Ulysses (ship name)". There are less than a dozen "list of ships named..." articles at present, so it's a good time have a proper discussion about this in a wider context and go for something really useful. That's why I favour a discussion at WP:SHIPMOS. Davidships (talk) 09:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Davidships: OK, why not start the discussion then? WT:MOSSHIP is over there. Mjroots (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, been travelling - have done that now. Davidships (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone want to assist with finishing and polishing an already DYK appropriate article?

I started working on User:Ryan Vesey/Xerotine siccative in mid 2011 (Xerotine siccative was a paint thinner that caused explosions on a number of ships in the late 19th century) and have never been able to finish the article. It meets the DYK requirements already, but I really want to have an article that is both polished and as complete as possible before I submit it. I haven't been active much in the past 3 years and don't know if I'll ever find the time to finish it myself, but I hate to see it sit in my user space, unseen by anybody. Is there anyone here who is interested in taking up the project? I don't believe I ever fully got through the House of Commons papers that I used as a source, so those should provide a good amount of information. I'm leaving messages at WikiProject Chemistry and WikiProject History as well, since editors there may have an interest. Ryan Vesey 20:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The article looks quite informative as it is, is there anything in particular you thought the article needed before submission to DYK? Gatoclass (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Skeppsläst

Is the skeppsläst equivalent to net tonnage as a concept? So that one läst = 2.448 NT? --Gwafton (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

That's an obscure link - on Northern Sami language wiki! The Swedish one, skeppsläst, has more, but is not at all clear (and has been tagged 'clarify' for a couple of years). The Finnish article, lästi, does at least look more authoritative (if uncited), even through the mangle of Bing Translator. It seems to be a mass measurement of 1 last = 2.448kg and considered the equivalent of 1480 tuns/3870 litres (= 137 cu ft) and used from 1726. This was replaced in Sweden by the "nyläst" (new tonnage) of 4.250kg in 1865 and then in 1874 by the British system of the registered ton of 100 cu ft. At least, that's what I think it says; but then I think that is your language anyway. Davidships (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Oops, I always forget that Swedish is sv in Wikipedia. The conversion ratio is clear. But is it equivalent to net tonnage so that it is measured in the same manner? The question is related to a shipyard article which I recently started. I made a list of delivered craft and the source only gave the tonnage in läst, so I converted it into net tonnage. But is it correct? Or is läst measured differently than net tonnage? --Gwafton (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think it depends on which period. My understanding of the sense of the Finnish article is that it was a cargo deadweight calculation (ie 1 last = 2.448kg), although there was a approximation of this to 1480 tuns. But I am definitely no expert on this at all - and your conversions might be considered OR. Why not contact the editors of the Finnish article? Davidships (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the tonnage related terminology at all. As far as I have understood correct, net tonnage means the cargo weight. But in my understanding the läst number might potentially also cover the crew with their personal belongings, drinking water, food, fuel etc. In this case I should not just convert the läst directly into tonnage. The article (Åbo Skeppswarf) does not exist in Finnish and unfortunately there is no ship related Wikiproject in the Finnish Wikipedia, so I cannot ask it there. Maybe the users in the Swedish Wikipedia can answer my question. --Gwafton (talk) 06:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Net tonnage is a measurement of volume, not weight. NT uses a very specific (and complicated) formula that results in a unitless number, but that number is primarily a function of the cargo volume in m^3, as well as other factors such as the draft, depth, and number of passengers. Any number given in kg is not equivalent to Net tonnage (it may be closer to something like Deadweight tonnage or Displacement). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for this point. I changed the tonnage into läst and added an explanatory footnote for those readers who want to know how much it makes in metric or imperial units. I guess it is the best to put it this way. --Gwafton (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

RFC on Proposed Supercarriers

An RFC has been posted at Talk:Supercarrier on whether to add a new section, Proposed Supercarriers. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Wawona listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Wawona to be moved to Wawona (ship). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

MS Ulysses listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for MS Ulysses to be moved to MV Ulysses. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Landing ship, infantry listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Landing ship, infantry to be moved to Landing Ship, Infantry. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Excess of images in USS PC-552?

Looking at USS PC-552, are the images a bit excessive? I count 69 images on the page, including about a dozen that are just WWII era "support the war effort" type posters and cartoons that don't have anything directly to do with this ship. Thanks. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 00:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say about 98% of the images in that article should be cut. And really, a 120+kb article for a 450-ton patrol boat is a wee bit much... Parsecboy (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I concur. Way too many photos, many of which would require considerable stretching to connect to the subject of the article. Beyond which this seems to be a case of taking WP:NOTPAPER to extremes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I boldly removed a large number of totally unrelated images. While looking through the text, I've grown to suspect we may have some major copyvios here as well. Don't have anything yet to base this on other than just general style. The whole page looks like a ship reunion scrapbook. It needs major work, and I suspect the primary contributor User:Argonauthistorian6 may not be happy for the help. I'm awaiting the response. As it is, the page is a mess. On the other hand, this user seems to know a lot about an obscure vessel, including knowing about personnel and primary sources. I'd like to keep that sort of interest on the page, if its not merely personal experience. BusterD (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I've pre-emptively communicated with the new user, hoping that we can work together. Let's do our best to encourage such energy and help the editor to see what a good page can look like. BusterD (talk) 03:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Wedding photos? Definitely modeled after a crew memorial site. Cites of "Various" not really references to open sources. Looks like a lot of original research and tapping personal files—fine if that knowledge finds truly open source records, but not if one has to personally go to archives to read. Palmeira (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I think we have his answer, perhaps someone more diplomatic than I can explain the scope of wikipedia on his talk page a bit better. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

This was inevitable. I've attempted to calm the person down, but they don't yet understand what we do here. I've restored their version to the sandbox, so they can see that nothing is lost. Perhaps the user will read my reply and better see how we can help. BusterD (talk) 01:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

They've collected quite a few primary sources and apparently also did original research interviews of crew members as well. I don't want to be the one that explains why that's not appropriate for wikipedia either. That's the kind of thing I enjoy reading, but it's not proper here. I think they need a blog or personal web page for that stuff. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This article is just out of control. I sympathize with the creator but this is an encyclopedia, not a ship memorial or online cruisebook. I am going to start cutting this thing down to size in the coming days. And yes I expect that will mean some major redactions. If the original author or major contributors want to help, I would appreciate any input. But seriously, this thing is a wiki-train shipwreck and we are just going to have grit our teeth and start deleting stuff even if it causes some ruffled feathers. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC).

As someone who's been away from keyboard for a few days, I've got to compliment several users who have made vast improvements and made this article much better. I'd especially like to commend User:Dual Freq and User:Ad Orientem who have redacted and reworded much of the page, trying their best to avoid taking useful information out. It's honestly much better. BusterD (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

HMS Zephyr ramming

The National Maritime Museum's records for HMS Zephyr (1895) mention that she was rammed in Portsmouth harbor on 18 August 1904, but with no details of by what or resulting in what consequences. I cannot find out anything else about this accident other than a few hints from snippet view on Google Books that it occurred. Has anyone any details of this incident?Nigel Ish (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

She was rammed by torpedo boat No. 68, whose ram bow penetrated the engine room, but apparently no lives lost. A collision mat was used, presumably to cover the hole. Zephyr was docked for repairs, the torpedo boat apparently was undamaged. The info is from British newspaper archives, I would add some links but it's a while since I used the site and have forgotten the procedure, I will endeavour to pass on the links tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, here's the two links I found: [3][4]. Let me know if you can't access them and I will see what I can do to remedy that. Gatoclass (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Sadly I don't have access to British Newspaper Archives.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you click on the links? I don't know how BNA works, but newspapers.com gives you access to the link through a member's account so you don't need to be a member. Gatoclass (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

No - it just comes up with a subscription page - it doesn't even say what newspapers the links are from.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Fixed now - I had to create an account and use the 3 free pages which you get with a new account. ThanksNigel Ish (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Nigel Ish: You could potentially get free access at WP:BNA. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)