Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 56

Archive 50

←

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

→

Archive 60

Non-notable crew

Non-notable crew

I know this has come up before, people adding non-notable crew names to ship articles (sometimes whole lists of them), most commonly seen with edits such as "CDR Smith has assumed command of USS Foo as of 1 May 2017", or "Seaman 2nd Class Bob Jones received a non-judicial reprimand for being drunk on duty and barfing on a comm panel". Unless we already have some kind of written guideance for this, could we perhaps add something, somewhere? (MOS? Project guidance?) Maybe a helpful shortcut like "SHIPSNOTCREWS", since that is what the ship articles are supposed to be about. Just a thought... - wolf 20:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we need any change to policy or MOS for this. Obviously including the barf incident would be undue. But we can't just prohibit mention of non-notable crew, because they are sometimes involved in notable incidents. When someone tries to add something like your CDR Smith example, I point them to WP:NOTNEWS. But I can imagine cases where we might want to name CDR Smith even if he isn't notable by himself; maybe if he put the ship into commission, or commanded during a notable war patrol (or, these days, a collision). Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Minor point, but I didnt say anything about "notable incidents". I'm was just referring to things such as; updating the name of the CO (or MCPO/CoB) for a destroyer or sub. This is usually a CDR's billet and the officer is almost always non-notable. Or adding a minor but noted incident that occurred to one or more ship's crew offship, and that has nothing to do with the ship. And while NOTNEWS or just WP:NOT covers the examples I gave, I just thought it would be helpful to have some guidance (and if we do, I've missed it so please let me know) that steers the content of ship article towards the ship and away from non-notable crew. The examples I've cited don't/can't cover every contingency, it just seems that every now and then I come across an edit where someone has added some sailor's name to a ship article that doesn't need to be there, and it would be nice to have an edit summary short-cut to a reason why we don't need non-notable crew added to these pages. It's just suggestion. - wolf 00:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Endorse proposers view. Lyndaship (talk) 08:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree that articles on ships should focus on the vessel, but worth noting that the history and conduct of the crew is sometimes a meaningful part of the history of the vessel as a whole. This is particularly the case in some early modern navies where (for example) the fame, social connections and longevity of individual captains was instrumental in determining if the vessel could muster enough people to serve aboard, be included in major fleets and/or be given licence to cruise for enemies versus being assigned to convoys. The captains in question aren't usually notable enough for their own articles, but are often notable in the context of the ship's career. Just something to bear in mind if we draft new guidelines that broadly seeks to remove their names. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Again, anything notable about the ship, including any otherwise non-notable crew involvement in that notable occurence, should be included. I'm not looking to prohibit any notable content related to the ship. I was just looking for something a little more direct and on point than NOTNEWS to deal with the constant, random additions of non-notable crew, (such as junior officers taking command of a non-capital ship, etc.). Something similar to WP:SHE4SHIPS at WP:NCS, but perhaps in WP:SHIPMOS, that speaks to the preference for ship article content to be about the ship and not non-notable crew. - wolf 04:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm working on a draft ship article (but waiting for a book to arrive, so not quite yet) Davidships (talk) 09:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Historical perspective is one thing, but listing active-duty run-of-the-mill officers in the ship articles does not serve any purpose unless these people have been involved in a "notable incident" or are notable enough on their own for a separate article. Tupsumato (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Related subject

Last November, we had a discussion about the "List(s) of Commanding Officers" that were popping up on various naval ship articles. The consensus was to remove these lists, as the preference was to have notable COs (if there were any) added to the article prose with a link to their BLP. Some of these lists did not have any notable officers, some were added to newer ships, such as Burke-class destroyers where the few COs a ship had, were CDRs and not at all likely to have any notability. Some pages even had lists of NCOs, such as COBs. There was some discussion about making changes to SHIPMOS to reflect this consensus, but the discussion was archived before any specific changes could be proposed. As this is basically related to the topic of this section, I thought I raise the issue again. If we are to make changes/additions to SHIPMOS about non-notable crew and/or these CO lists, perhaps now would be a good time to for proposals.

• Proposal #1: Articles about ships should focus on the ship, not her crew. Non-notable crew members, including commanding officers, should not be added to a ship article, unless they are part of a notable, reliably sourced event that involves the ship, or played an integral role in the notable history of a ship. An exception would be commanding officers that are notable per WP:MILPERSON, in which case they should be included in the article's prose, typically where chronologically appropriate in the ship's history, with a link to their bio page. This would address non-notable crew in general. The above suggested shortcut "SHIPSNOTCREWS" or something similar would apply here.

• Proposal #2: Articles about ships should focus on the ship. While a ship may have many commanding officers during her active lifespan, only those notable per WP:MILPERSON should be noted in the article. This would preclude creating sub-sections with lists of commanding officers, as the preference is to have notable commanding officers included in the article's prose, typically where chronologically appropriate in the ship's history, with a link to their bio page. This would address the specific issue of lists of commanding officers. Perhaps a shortcut such as "PROSENOTLISTS" would work here.

These proposals are not mutually exclusive. As proposer, I would obviously support both. But I'm sure other editors here could have other, even better ideas, and I would like to see more proposals. The idea is just to have some guidance to help make maintaining these articles a little easier. (This is also where the shortcuts come in; if you're going to revert someone's edits, a shortcut in the edit summary is helpful). Thanks - wolf 04:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I would go even further than these proposals. I think notable people should only be mentioned at all if their service on that ship was otherwise notable. While their postings have significance to the individual and their article usually they were merely a post holder on the ship and were not significant to it's history. To incorporate the information into the ship article text often doesn't flow easily and on many minor warships which are stubs or start class it can be almost the only fact mentioned. Furthermore now that the Royal Navy has more admirals than ships any individual who commands a frigate is likely to become notable later as an admiral which could make the text a long list of mentions. Lyndaship (talk) 10:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Lyndaship. Davidships (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@Lyndaship: Thanks for the reply, you make some excellent points and I completely agree with you. In drafting these proposals, I was trying to incorporate some opinions from longstanding, respected contributors here, whom in recent discussions on various pages, have shown an interest in having information about commanding officers (especially notable ones) included in ship articles, especially historical ships. Ships, for example, from WWII, that have a complete story and roster of COs that, while not notable during their time in command of said ship, went on to become notable flag officers. I was just trying to take these preferences into account. But I will say that I do agree with your stricter point of view, keep the ship article about the ship, and I would encourage you to put forward proposals of your own, or add 'support' comments for mine with suggested changes. Thanks again - wolf 19:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Both of these proposals seem fine to me (but I'd modify the reference to "BLP"s - very few of the individuals concerned will still be living). Parsecboy (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, and good point; I've changed "BLP" → "bio". - wolf 16:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for encouraging words so I'll give it a go.

• Proposal #3: Articles about ships should be about the ship and not individuals who happened to serve on it. Generally no individuals should be mentioned unless they are BOTH otherwise notable AND their service on the ship was is in itself notable and significant to the history of the ship. Such mentions should be in the body of the article at the appropriate chronological point with a link to their personal article. Mere service or command does not satisfy the significance criterion. Tables listing Commanding Officers regardless of them being otherwise notable or not are specifically not to be used. The above suggested shortcut "SHIPSNOTCREWS" or something similar would apply here. As I see it the problem is fourfold, firstly we have editors trying to remember their family members on articles, this is dealt with by NOTMEMORIAL, secondly we have the editors with a genealogy bent trying to put every name they can source, thirdly those editors who want their time in command of a ship mentioned even if it was anyone could have done it and indeed if a lot of non notable names are already there why shouldn't theirs be too? Finally we have completeness and inclusionist editors who want every commander listed even when it overwhelms the article( some of the Japanese WWII ships are absolutely swimming in red linked tables). This proposal would provide the basis for resolving all these areas. I am quite willing to grant considerable lattitude to those editors who feel that a notable individuals time on the ship was significant to the ship, the aim is to stop blanket adding of individuals or adding for the sake of it when it does nothing for flow of the article Lyndaship (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm less keen on this one - if the commander is notable (and I might even extend that to XO depending on the specific individual) they ought to be included in the article. Part of what we're doing is building the web - for example, if Jackie Fisher's article references his time in command of HMS Inflexible, the latter should also reference the former. Parsecboy (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your desire for completeness but in this instance I would argue that although Fishers command of Inflexible was significant for Fisher was it significant for Inflexible? Furthermore would you advocate that a mention in Fishers article is justification for mentioning his service on every other individual ships article that he served on regardless of rank? However I have said generally and said lattitude should be allowed if an editor deems service on a ship significant, I had men like Fisher and Nelson in mind where I think it is appropriate to mention in ships article their first commands etc but not for Admiral Foo Foo who commanded some frigate for a couple of years on Buggins turn before rising to the dizzy heights of Admiral ic Drains and Heads before retiring into obscurity Lyndaship (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

lassitude – noun: a state of physical or mental weariness; lack of energy. Perhaps: lattitude? —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you - I have amended my posts Lyndaship (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

It's latitude, methinks. Kablammo (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Why does his command of the ship need to be significant for him to be mentioned? He's a notable individual (as are essentially all flag officers), and if his command of the vessel is referenced (as will generally be the case for notable individuals), then it should be included. Parsecboy (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

To prevent the ships articles becoming a list of future Admirals who had once commanded or served on the ship in some capacity. Fisher is not any old Admiral so definitely meets my latitude criteria Lyndaship (talk) 17:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't know that I've ever seen that happen - at least not in anything properly developed (and even then, the fact that nobody has yet bothered to write up the ship's history is not reason to remove other valid information). There should be plenty of narrative on the ship's activities to seamlessly include whoever was the captain at a given time. Parsecboy (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I think this proposal is too restrictive. As an example I offer Henry George Bourke, whose services were essential in saving HMS Calliope and crew from certain destruction. I don't know if Bourke is notable himself (although I have redlinked him) but if not, he certainly bears mention in the article. Kablammo (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Coming here from Milhist. I don't agree with ship articles just being about the ship. Ships don't sail themselves, they have a crew, and a captain, and when in combat the captain has a large influence on the success or otherwise of the ship. My view is that ships are like any other armed forces unit, mentions of commanding officers are quite common on military unit articles, and we shouldn't collectively be issuing guidance against this practice just for ships. WP:MILPERSON specifically states that commanding officers of capital ships during periods they saw combat are likely to be notable. Therefore you would expect to see redlinks for any commanding officers of such ships during periods in which they saw combat, and in the many ship articles I've reviewed at GAN, Milhist A-class and FAC it is common to see captains of capital ships mentioned in the relevant point of the narrative, and I would question the comprehensiveness of any article on a capital ship that didn't mention who the captains were during periods in combat. I certainly would not support any move to deprecate mentions of captains from articles. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I propose that we start with Motor Torpedo Boat PT-109 then if we are going to throw a blanket proposal, "SHIPSNOTCREWS", over all ship articles! We can not have one rule that covers all ship articles. Historic ships will have mention of historic crewmembers, modern ships will not, for the most part, their crew have not had a chance to do anything historic.Pennsy22 (talk) 03:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Good points made by Pennsy22, but I think the key word here is "notable". As I said above, I'm not seeking to exclude any notable content. I don't think we need to distinguish between historic and modern in any guideline because that information will take care of itself. A LCDR or CDR taking command of an active destroyer is not notable. He is unlikely to be currently notable on his own, and his three years aboard as CO in of itself is not notable as part of the ship's history.

I specifically had Peacemaker67 in mind when I mentioned above the other editor's opinions I was trying to take into consideration. A CAPT of battleship during a naval battle in the Pacfic War is notable, as he is the CO during a notable event in that ship's history. The day he took command is probably not notable, and if he didnt reach flag rank, he might not be considered notable on his own or have his bio page here. But as ship CO during Battle of Leyte Gulf (for example) he is worth noting, with a ref, in the ship's history, (but in prose, in the section about the battle, not on a list). This would likely include Kablammo's example of Henry George Bourke and HMS Calliope (1884) as well. Ship articles should be about ships, but anything notable in that ships history, that includes otherwise non-notable crew, should be included. Cheers - wolf 05:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Obviously no support for my proposal (which I accept) but we do need to get some guideline set, we have discussed this several times and never come to a conclusion. I think we should go with Proposal 1. Oh and it would be a guideline, there is always scope for exceptions especially when a regular ships editor feels that one should be made for an individual in an article they are writing Lyndaship (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Lyndaship: Just curious if you had an opinion of option #2? While the first proposal addresses non-notable crew, the other is to address the addition of "Lists of COs" to ship articles, (which a recent consensus here was established against inclusion, but no follow-up was made with respect to guidance). This is not an "either/or" scenario, you can support both proposal #1 and proposal #2, if you so choose. Thanks again - wolf 03:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I was working on preferred proposal. I certainly support NOT having lists of Commanding Officers in the article so I support both proposal 1 and 2 Lyndaship (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of #3 as I think that that's too limiting. I am in favor of #1 and #2.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Not #3, which is indeed too limiting due to the "BOTH...AND" - it is not at all uncommon to mention an individual seafarer, captain or otherwise, in a ship article because of something they did, or didn't do - but without them becoming notable as individuals (I don't think that the weasel word "generally" is sufficient to cover this). No problem with #1 and/or #2. Davidships (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

There is a fundamental disconnect in all three proposals between notability and what constitutes an appropriate level of detail. Captains of capital ships during periods they were in combat are likely to be notable, per WP:SOLDIER, and therefore can be expected to have an article dedicated to them and a link or a redlink wherever they are mentioned on Wikipedia, including in the articles of the ships they commanded. Individual details about a notable person are not included or excluded based on the "notability" of their service on the ship or an incident they were involved in, "notability" in this case being a misuse of the term. Notability just doesn't work like that. Once a person (or ship) is determined to be notable, what goes in that article is a matter for consensus and editorial discretion, as long the level of detail isn't giving one aspect of the subject WP:UNDUE weight. I hardly think that giving the names of the captains of a ship during periods it was in combat is UNDUE. It is entirely germane to that period in the life of the ship, and they should be included if they are mentioned in reliable sources. I have no strong opposition to lists of commanding officers being included in ship articles, but prefer for them to be inserted into the narrative in the appropriate places. I completely disagree with all three proposals as they are altogether too prescriptive, in particular, the up-front assumption that ship articles should just be about the ship, and specifically exclude significant members of the crew that operated it is, to me at least, wrong-headed and undermines our collective aim to have comprehensive articles. I could get behind a significant watered down proposal that merely encouraged editors to include significant personnel in the life of the ship in the prose rather than as lists within articles. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

(break #1)

Thank you for the reply, Peacemaker67, I appreciate the time and effort you put into such a detailed response. However, I have to disagree with (and I hope I'm just misunderstanding) some of your conclusions. As I stated above, and will confirm; I am not seeking to exclude any notable content. You've mentioned Captains serving in command during combat operations and/or naval engagements... that has been covered. Perhaps the words "notable" and "notability" are being used both correctly and incorrectly. And with that, let's address option #1, as I don't get a sense that you are particularly opposed to option #2 (List of COs in ship articles). As for #1, I don't see how it would exclude any crew (be it the COs, pretty officers or cooks). Even if they are not notable enough to have their own BLP/bio, if they were part of a notable event or period in the ship's history, and that can be supported by reliable sourcing, then they should be included as "significant figures" in that section of historical narrative for the ship. And regardless of whether they already have a BLP/bio or not, we're not seeking to "limit any information" about that person. If they are part of that section of content, then any relevant and sourced info that adequately describes their role should be included. There are officers that retired as Captains, and as such, are not likely (or guaranteed) to have their own BLP/bio page on WP. But if they were CO during an particular battle, that is noted in detail, and sourcing can be provided, then they should be included in that section about the battle. This is where I believe you have misunderstood my proposals (or perhaps it's my fault, maybe I didn't explain them clearly enough) #1 is just to cut down on the addition of completely non-notable officers and crew being added to for non-notable (and/or notnews) reasons to ship articles, such as the examples I gave above. #2 simply reflects the comsensus here to avoid adding "Lists of COs" to ship articles, and instead have notable COs added to the prose (as well as non-notable COs under certain circumstances as noted above). I hope this clears things up a little. Cheers - wolf 06:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The use of the term "notable content" isn't useful here, there are notable people and notable ships. If a person or ship is independently notable, per GNG (or likely to be notable, per a SNG), then we then have an article on them/it. After that, what actually goes in that article depends on what is in reliable sources combined with editor consensus about an appropriate level of detail/weight, not on some concept of "notable content". If a significant person in the life of a ship is independently notable in themselves, I consider they should be included in the article about a ship they served on. On that I suspect we might agree. If we restrict ourselves to captains for the purposes of discussion, there is no reason whatsoever why an article cannot provide the names of captains who are not themselves likely to be independently notable (such as the captains of a corvette), as long as the information is in reliable sources. If it is not, then you obviously don't include it. I have done so in articles and don't believe it is an inappropriate level of detail or creates an undue weight issue, and therefore don't believe we should be prescriptive about it, certainly as far as ship captains go, of whatever rank. All of the above proposals seek to be overly prescriptive in my view, particularly in that they all seek to promote the idea that ship articles should just be about the ship, which I fundamentally disagree with, as I believe that captains at least should be included, along with anyone else independently notable. I'm sure there is some middle ground here, but I can't support any of the proposals as they stand. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: I'm not sure why the term "notable content" is a cause of concern for you. What else, other than notable content, would we include in an article? As far as my usage of the term goes, I would define "notable" here as content that is both worthy of inclusion in the article and supported by reliable sourcing. While I believe there is a general agreement here that purely non-notable crew do not need to be added, I can only say again that I am not seeking to preclude any content, about the ship, her crew or any incidents or events, related to the ship, that she may be worthy of inclusion and supported by RS. As for what is "worthy", I would defer to the criteria at wp:milperson, as well as wp:not for that. But with all that said, if you feel these two proposals are too limiting, how would you write them? (That is, if you were to write a wp:mosship guideline seeking to curtail the addition of purely superfluous content?) - wolf 22:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

"Notable content" aside, I'm not clear on what editing behaviour you are trying to limit here, not having seen anything like it on the mainly German and A-H WWI and WWII ship articles I review, although they quite often include captains in the narrative. See the steam corvette SMS Leipzig (1875) for an example. I see from the November discussion that it centred around modern US ships, and possibly some IJN carriers mentioned by Sturm, although I would have thought the captain of a carrier during wartime would be likely to be notable? Has it been limited to those articles, or has it been happening elsewhere? Is it just separate lists of captains within a ship article that is the issue, or are editors adding lists of XOs, Master Chiefs etc? Do you object to the inclusion of captains in the narrative where WP:SOLDIER indicates they are likely to be notable, such as carrier captains in wartime? Or are you against the inclusion of captains in the narrative unless they personally played an important part in a battle where they made a critical decision etc? What about the situation where someone was Master Chief of a carrier then went on to become notable from becoming Master Chief of the Navy? Would you oppose mentioning that in the narrative of the carrier? Then I might be able to take a crack at drafting something that tries to take into account all views to some extent. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Thanks for the reply, you make some good points and I will try to address them all. A lot of editing I do involves current/active ships, primarily USN/MSC and some RN, but also ships from other navies covered in global lists. There was a discussion here last November about that started out about "Lists of COs" in ship articles (I take it this is the one you referred to) and there was a consensus to remove such lists and instead add notable COs to the prose. My understanding of "notable" was COs that had their own BLPs or bios here (per wp:milperson, typically those that attained flag rank) and COs that were part of a notable event or incident involving the ship, ie: collisions (Alnic MC, ACX Crystal), terrorist attacks (USS Cole), major incidents (USS Samuel B Roberts, Iran Air Flt 655, Gulf of Sydra '81 & '86, USS Liberty), any notable combat operations, any notable incidents involving the ship's CO, XO, CMDMC/MCPO or other officers punitively relieved of duty or crew members charged with crimes (incidents that involve the ship, ie: CO relieved for crashing the ship, enlisted man charged with sexual assault on board - not COs relived for getting drunk at a college party or any crew charged with a crime off duty and off ship), any otherwise notable events or occurences that involve the ship, (this list is not exhaustive). I am not "against the inclusion of notable COs in the narrative, such as carrier captains during wartime".

I can't speak for everyone, and the examples I noted above notwithstanding, I don't see the need to add COs simply becasue they were CO. The example I would use (and what led me here) was the addition of "Lists of COs" to ship articles, (like the Arleigh Burke-class lists), or the individual additions to the narrative (prose, article body) of non-notable COs such as CDRs to currently active ships, such as destroyers or littoral combat ships. We had a recent AfD discussion where there appeared to be an agreement that: COs that retired as CAPT, were in command during peacetime and had no notable incident involving the ship or crew occur during their time as CO, would not be noted in the article of the ship they commanded. As for your question, an MCPO of a carrier (or other ship) that becomes MCPON (and as such has their own BLP/bio); I would not oppose being noted in the article of of the carrier (or other ship). I believe the two proposals I put forward addressed these and other concerns you noted. If you would like any clarification on any part of those proposals, please ask. I would be interested to see what you would propose to address the concerns noted in these discussions. Thanks (and sorry about the length) - wolf 09:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, I think I have a better idea of where you are coming from now. I still have an issue with how WP:SOLDIER is being handled. In my view, commanding a capital ship during a war is commanding a capital ship in combat, so I would see all officers that commanded carriers, battleships and battlecruisers in wartime (and probably others as well, such as successful submarine captains in WWII) being included in the narrative of an article. So every CO of Nevada between December 1941 and September 1945 would meet that criteria. Not all those officers would already have a bio article, some might be redlinked on the basis that they are likely to be notable (per WP:SOLDIER) because they commanded a capital ship during combat operations. In the modern sense, for example I see the CO of Independence during the Cuban Missile Crisis, off Vietnam in 1965, Granada, Op Desert Shield in 1990, and possibly some other missions being mentioned in her narrative. COs in-between these missions, I don't see being mentioned unless there was a significant incident that involved them, such as a grounding etc, which you have alluded to. Minor news references to non-notable crew I don't see being included. Do you see any issues with what I'm suggesting? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

You ask for examples @Peacemaker67: of lists of CO's etc being added outside your usual review field. Frequently I find ones like this [1] and then looking at the only blue linked one [2] you find every ship he ever served on is mentioned, quite appropriate in his bio but would you wish to include his service as a Midshipman on Azuma in the ship article for example? It's not significant to the history of the ship that he served on it as a midshipman. Likewise I can't see how a future notable CO of a ship should be routinely mentioned in a ship article, I think the acid test is can you say "Joe Bloggs commanded Foo between 1926 and 1927 AND something happened" Lyndaship (talk) 10:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Frankly Ashigara is a dog's breakfast. In the narrative it lists three clearly notable captains (who became WWII admirals) in the late 30s, but these are not the captains listed in the table? And what the hell is a Chief Equipping Officer? So I don't think it is a good example, as I don't think we can assume it is even remotely accurate. What about some FAs or even GAs that have these sorts of problems? The acid test you suggest doesn't address my concerns with WP:SOLDIER not being applied to capital ships in wartime. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict with my previous reply. Ashigara is a typical example - have a look at Myoko, Atago, Aoba. It shows the problem which exists in articles which are not GA or FA which of course are the vast majority. You could also look at the multitude of British post war frigates for tables of CO's and a mish mash - just typed a name in at random for an example and look at it [3]. WP:SOLDIER is a criteria for notablility of creating individual articles rather than inclusion of those individuals in other articles. Lyndaship (talk) 11:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

This is a wiki, therefore we encourage links between articles on notable subjects. But to answer your original question though, I would not want to see Daigo turn up on every ship he served on at every rank, because that would give him undue weight, especially at lower ranks, but it would be conceivable that his time in command be mentioned on the various cruisers he commanded, as that information is apparently available in reliable sources and I don't think that providing that information would unbalance those articles. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I understand the point Lynda and TWC are making, and agree that there are problematic ways that ship commanders (and other individuals) are being treated in articles, but we need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The SMS Leipzig (1875) example (which I wrote, for whatever that’s worth) mentions Franz von Hipper having served aboard the ship as a midshipman, and it does so for a couple of reasons. First, Hipper is one of the most notable (in the general sense of the word) German naval officers, and second, because one of the main sources for the article mentions him serving on the ship at that time. In my view, if naval historians writing about a ship see fit to include a specific individual in their history of a ship, there’s a good argument to be made that we should too. Parsecboy (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

That's actually a really good example. He was only 18 years old when he sailed on Leipzig, but went on to become quite notable. I believe this would be one of those individual cases that I mentioned below, that while on its's face, could be be excluded, upon tp discussion would actually be included in the article. - wolf 01:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes indeed we should encourage links between notable subjects but they should be relevant and significant links. Our debate here is defining what are relevant and significant links. Like Wolf I would wholeheartedly consider Hipper's service on Leipzig relevant and significant, I would not feel the same about Bloggs who merely made admiral of something relevant or significant to the Leipzig article. I think a key consideration in framing the policy is defining who can be mentioned and who should be mentioned in the ships article, if it's worded that notable individuals can be mentioned in the prose as opposed to should I'm quite happy to accept other editors judgment on inclusion Lyndaship (talk) 09:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

This is far too prescriptive. Who is relevant to the history of a ship will vary depending on a range of factors. I oppose making a hard barrier to inclusion, see my suggested wording below. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

(break #2)

(edit conflict) @Peacemaker67: I take it from your comments, which are basically focusing on issues covered by proposal #1, that you are generally ok with proposal #2? (precluding "lists of COs", and others such as XOs and CMDMCs, MCPOs & CoBs. The preference being that crew that are to be included in the article should be added to an appropriate section of the article prose.) If not, let me know. As for your comments, I do generally agree, for example, COs of capital ships, typically a senior CAPT billet, during a war, will most likely be notable, per one wp:soldier criteria or another. But I think we need to distinguish between "during wartime" and "during actual combat operations". Eg; during WWII, CAPT Bob is CO of an aircraft carrier for 8 of the 14 momths she spends at Puget Sound. He never leaves port. Retires as a CAPT, and does not meet any wp:soldier criteria for his own bio. Does he merit inclusion in the article? Per your comments, it would seem he does (CO+capital ship+war= inclusion), but I would say no. I'm not as strict as some, nor as lenient as others here, when it comes to who's "notable" or worthy of inclusion. You present more of a blanket guideline for inclusion, under which I'm sure many, maybe even most, crewmembers would qualify for inclusion. But then Lyndaship makes some really good points about COs being noted who have really done nothing to merit it. I have tried to strike a balance with proposal #1, but if you still have concerns about it, perhaps you could suggest some re-wording? Regardless of how it's written, this will only be a mosship project guideline (if at all). There will always be individual cases we can't account for either way, but I think the talk page can address those by local consensus or DR, as they come up. Cheers - wolf 01:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Not quite. I think #2 should be adjusted to be less prescriptive, as follows:

Articles about ships should focus on the ship. While a ship may have many commanding officers during her active lifespan, as a general principle only those who captained a ship during combat operations or during major events in the life of the ship, or persons who are independently notable per WP:MILPERSON should be mentioned in a ship article. It is strongly recommended that this should be done as part of the chronological narrative of the ship's career rather than in a separate section. Notable persons should be linked to their biographical article, or redlinked if none yet exists.

Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion. Articles about ships should focus on the ship. While a ship may have many notable individuals (including Commanding officers) serving on her during her active lifespan, as a general principle only those who captained a ship during during major events in the life of the ship, or persons who are independently notable should be considered for mention in a ship article. It is strongly recommended that this should be done as part of the chronological narrative of the ship's career rather than in a separate section. Notable persons should be linked to their biographical article, or redlinked if none yet exists.

• I've changed the definition to cover all individuals and not just CO's. I've removed combat operations as I think it's covered by major events. I've removed the MILPERSON criteria as people who are independently notable for other reasons should still be considered. I've changed should to should be considered Lyndaship (talk) 10:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

It's good to see some other suggestions put forward. I'll hold off commenting on these recent ones, to see what comments/suggestions others may have, like Sturmvogel 66 for example, and hopefully a few more... - wolf 09:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with Lyndaship's version if we can drop the first sentence. I think it is labouring the point unnecessarily, and there are valid reasons to include people and other relevant matters in ship articles. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

In general I find coverage of ship captains to be pretty damn sparse, which goes double for those from non-English speaking countries, so I'm very dubious that ship captains during wartime could generally meet the WP:GNG standard for notability based on their wartime service. I'm not opposed to mentioning one or more if they did something worth noting at one point or another, but I don't want license granted for those people who seem to think lists of commanders are really important to incorporate all of a ship's wartime captains into the article for the sake of completeness. Imagine a ship stuck in the backwaters during a war doing absolutely nothing, so that all your sources tell you is where she was during the war with very little other info, but with a sentence about each change of command that dominates the text. That would be the situation with almost the entire IJN during WWI or practically any Allied cruiser on convoy escort duty during WWI.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The first line has to be in. Otherwise we will end up with every training ship with a list of famous admirals who served aboard as midshipmen. I'm currently seeing some of that pop up here. The larger unit articles are going to start looking like city and town articles with a section of just "notable people" who served aboard in some capacity. Llammakey (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

What if we 'water-down' the first line a little? Perhaps; "Articles about ships should mainly or primarily focus on the ship"? I have to agree with the others here that without that, it's a free pass to add every. single. non-notable. commander. We just had someone try to add a list of COs to USS Tornado. That's a couple of LCDRs on an active patrol boat. I'm seeing stuff like this all the time on active USN and RN ships pages. Anyway... jmho - wolf 23:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

How about we address the problem directly? What if we amended it to read "Articles about ships should not place undue weight on matters regarding the ship's crew." because that is what appears to be the issue, rather than insufficient focus on the ship? And drop the capital from Commanding? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I suggest "officers and crew". Kablammo (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I usually use "crew" as all-inclusive; officers, NCOs and enlisted. jmho - wolf 04:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

As for the first sentence, consensus appears to favour it. Speaking of consensus, should we see where we all stand? Would someone like to take this on? Bring the proposals for consideration up to date and being them forward to start a straw poll? - wolf 04:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I only just suggested an alternative opening sentence, on which nobody has yet had a say. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I can't agree to Peacemaker's suggestion. That is way too subjective and would lead to non-notable commanding officer lists being written into every ship article. How can you argue that a list of four non-notable commanding officers for a destroyer escort during World War II be undue weight? They all commanded a ship during wartime, which is a notable event during the ship's lifespan. If a ship is like a business, only notable CEOs get mentioned or those notable persons who performed actions while with the company. If "X" actress worked at McDonald's before she became famous, that is not included on the McDonald's page. Llammakey (talk) 11:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

That's not exactly an apt analogy - we don't have articles on every single McDonald's franchise. A better analogy would be, say we do have articles on every franchise, do we include the fact that Steve Easterbrook started his career at McDonald's Franchise X and once managed McDonald's Franchise Y in those hypothetical articles? I think we all agree that we should. And I think we're all in agreement that Joe Bloggs, a middle manager in McDonald's corporate headquarters, should not be included unless he invented a new way of frying the french fries while he worked at that particular franchise. At this point, I think we're mostly quibbling over wording that, at least to my mind, doesn't matter all that much so long as it's sufficiently clear. What we need to do is state that notable commanders or other crew can be included in the prose, but that lists of every commander, XO, etc., are advised against.

All that said, I think the first line about "focusing on the ship" is fine - articles should focus on the ship, but that doesn't mean that they are restricted from covering anything else that may be relevant. And what is relevant is determined by context, what's in the sources, and if need be, consensus on an individual basis. Parsecboy (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I prefer "Articles about ships should focus on the ship" as the first sentence as I feel its a clear unambiguous sentence summarizing the rest of the guideline. I am willing to accept inserting "primarily" or "mainly" as Wolf suggested into it if that would achieve consensus. I can't support Peacemakers alternative proposal as I feel it could result in further disagreements about just what constitutes undue weight. In reality I can't see any of the regular editors here adding a mention which another regular editor feels should be removed, as Parsecboy has said context and consensus is all. Lyndaship (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Here's some food for thought: how would we treat things like these recent additions to USS Illinois (BB-7) under the new guideline? I would be inclined to remove the paragraph, since it's not all that relevant to the ship (who even is the ship's sponsor, anyway?) and it's not included in general references that focus on Illinois. Parsecboy (talk) 11:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I would have thought this was giving undue weight to the information. The name of the sponsor is ok, and who she was, and even the photo of the launch, but the rest is undue. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Mmmm interesting. It seems a sponsor in the US has more relevance than the person who launches a ship elsewhere. However unless they are notable in their own right I don't see the point in mentioning them as its just a dry name for a reader to pan over. By the current proposal (although it refers to crew on her as opposed to individuals associated with the ship) I would hold as shes not notable she should not be considered for inclusion. Certainly the added section should go but the pic is fine. I'm also dubious about the silver service section. I guess even if we had this new guideline and this sort of thing was added despite it, the final decision would be by consensus Lyndaship (talk) 12:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I generally only name the sponsor if they're notable (usually this means, in the articles I typically write, some European noble or senior naval or military officer - to go back to the Leipzig example, the ship was christened by Albrecht von Stosch, who was the Chief of the German Imperial Admiralty - I reckon he's worth mentioning) - this is a case of "some rich dude's daughter", which doesn't pass the bar to even mention her name, at least in my opinion.

I could also stand to lose the section on the silver service - it was already in the article when I rewrote it back in 2015 and I just left it there, but I'd be happy to have it axed. Parsecboy (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

(break #3)

On USN ship pages (especially 20th/21st century ships), it seems to me that most, if not all sponsors, are either notable themselves, or are selected because they are related to someone notable. A ship only has one sponsor, so it never really seemed a big deal to me to mention them as part of the keel laying-sponsoring-christening-launching-commissioning section of the page. But I don't have strong feelings about it either way and will go with the majority on this. As for that paragraph that Parsecboy noted on the Illinois (BB-7) page, had I initially come across it, I would have significantly trimmed it (if not flat out removed it). Just my 0.02¢ - wolf 23:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and nuked both sections - the name of the sponsor is still present in the section of prose that deals with the ship's construction (which is how I always deal with these things also), but an in-depth discussion about some trinket (or a set of dishes) seems to be exactly the sort of thing we should be getting rid of, if the goal is that articles on ships should "focus on the ship". Parsecboy (talk) 00:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm Sturmvogel_66 and I endorse this message!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't endorse this message! The story of the ship is much more than just about the ship itself. Most everything above, in all of the various discussions is trying to put every ship article into the exact same cookie cutter template. The unique things, even some small things like the presentation of dishes and trinkets, make a ship unique. They didn't happen to every ship. These things might not be as exciting as the ship going into a battle and miraculously surviving despite being torpedoed 20 times, but it does provide another glimpse into the history of the ship, and the times that it served. By eliminating such information Wikipedia ship articles are far less robust and interesting. Zcarstvnz (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll connect to what @Zcarstvnz: said and insist on the importance of those seemingly secondary aspects. Sure if there are more anecdotes than macro-scale events an article may not be considered something to be inscribed inside an encyclopedia. However, to deliver real knowledge mere information on the geographical travels, dates of refurbishing or technical specs is not all that different from lists of "unimportant crew members". They are the necessary backbone of the development of the topic, but deep insight comes from the understanding of the human element behind the metal. If correctly referenced, little happenings or apparently anodyne habits can highlight the culture, the atmosphere breathed in the enclosed quarters of a ship. It also allows to truly insert historical perspective inside ships, that are different because of their crew's identity other than stages of technical evolution.

Shouldn't forget that Plutarch, the master of biographies, said that "Frequently, a small thing—a phrase or a flash of wit—gives more insight into a man’s character than battles where tens of thousands die, or vast arrays of troops, or sieges of cities.” Writing about the story of ships is not that different from a man's biography.Kapiski (talk) 17:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Zcarstvnx made what is basically an WP:ILIKEIT argument. The point of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia articles should be written in pursuit of that goal. Our primary responsibilities as editors is to assemble reliable sources on a given subject and then determine what should be included in an encyclopedic article on that subject. See WP:NOTEVERYTHING, specifically the line "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful."

Kapiski, what useful insight does the fact that the shipyard workers gave the ship's sponsor a trinket made out of scrap metal tell us about Illinois? Parsecboy (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The donation of silver for the wardroom is the norm, likewise giving a sponsor a gift. Think of it as the equivalent of a goody bag. Neither occurrence is worth mentioning in a ships article. They are not secondary aspects, they are trivia and a distraction to readers Lyndaship (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

This discussion about content in a particular article doesn't really belong here. It should be moved to the article talk page, so that future editors will be able to find it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about that - the article is an example of the kind of material that should or should not be included in ship articles, and as such, it's useful to discuss here. Parsecboy (talk) 01:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I see the "usefulness" of either Zcarstvnz's or Kipiski's comments, that seem to show a lack of understanding of what this discussion is about, if not a lack of understanding what this encyclopaedia is about. But, perhaps there's more to come... - wolf 03:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Parsecboy. The issue of undue weight or inappropriate detail is what is being discussed here, and these two editors are expressing a view on that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

fyi

There is a discussion at WT:MILHIST#Ships that touches on similar issues. - wolf 02:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

wrap up?

There hasn't been anything added to this discussion for a week now, so should we look to wrap this up? Can we say we have consensus here? Thoughts? - wolf 00:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to conduct a survey on Lyndaship's last version just to confirm consensus. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

Articles about ships should focus on the ship. While a ship may have many notable individuals (including Commanding officers) serving on her during her active lifespan, as a general principle only those who captained a ship during major events in the life of the ship, or persons who are independently notable should be considered for mention in a ship article. It is strongly recommended that this should be done as part of the chronological narrative of the ship's career rather than in a separate section. Notable persons should be linked to their biographical article, or redlinked if none yet exists.

Do you support adding this to the Ship Project's guidelines (WP:MOSSHIPS)?

• Support as proposer - wolf 17:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Seems fine to me. Parsecboy (talk)
• I can live with it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support Lyndaship (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, but only because of the limitation of mentions to the captain. It is often appropriate to list someone in an article who accomplished something significant in connection with the ship, but may not otherwise be notable. To use an example I gave several weeks ago, Henry George Bourke was instrumental in saving his ship (just as Jeffrey Skiles was important in the "Miracle on the Hudson"). Neither has a separate article; both names now redirect to the craft on which their actions took place. To limit such mentions to captains goes too far. I agree we don't need a list of every captain, but neither should we restrict the names which are mentioned to captains. Kablammo (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Kablammo: I don't see how this proposal is strictly "limited to Captains". It only says "in general...". On any given, individual article, there may be exceptions, such as the one you noted. - wolf 21:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

That was my understanding as well. Parsecboy (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose on the basis that people mentioned in the article have to be "independently" notable. There are many occasions where a crew member takes a notable action in relation to their ship but then disappears into obscurity. If there are reliable sources mentioning that occurence (and individual) we should not be setting up a higher bar than WP:V and WP:RS for inclusion of article content. From the perspective of deleting a biographical article the AfD discussion may conclude to merge the sourced content to the ship article but then this guideline would activate and declare that the content of the "non notable" individual should be removed. If the text of this guideline is rephrased to acknowledge that prevalence of source material trumps the guideline then I will withdraw my opposition.

As a side issue, your previous discussions imply that some editors don't want general lists of crew members on ship articles. If that is your core concern I would suggest a guideline to recommend moving lists of sourced crew members to separate "List of commanding officers of Foo" articles and then link to the list from the ship article. However, I suspect that the crew of smaller ships would struggle to meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, so the content may be merged back to the article anyway. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@From Hill To Shore: - notable, sourced events in the ship's history will still continue to be documented in the ship's article. If that particular event includes relevant mention of a crew member, than this proposal would not preclude their inclusion. If you've read through all the discussion (and I realize it's lengthy), you'd see this is aimed at reducing the notation of non-notable crew for no other reason than simply being a part of the crew (eg: "LCDR Some Young Guy assumed command of USS Foo II for a period of three years during which absolutely nothing notable happened. Young Guy then retired as a completely unnoteworthy junior officer."

On the "side issue" of lists, there was and is a consensus here that the preference is to have notable commanding officers added to the prose of the ship article, as opposed to an organized list in a sub-section, or a stand-alone article, and this proposal basically addresses that. So I hope that addresses your concerns. Please remember that this is a Wiki-Project guideline, not Wikipedia policy. Any specific article entry that you feel this could adversely affect can easily be addressed on article's talk page. (IOW, here would be no need for RfCs for project-wide policy-changing consensus). Cheers - wolf 02:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• Weak supportOppose I still don't like the first sentence, but it is not enough to make me oppose. There is no need for "independently", as that is encompassed by notable. Also Commanding should have a lower case c. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• Moving from weak support to oppose, in favour of the amended one by Lyndaship below, which removes the first sentence and improves it considerably. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support - now if there was only a way to take out casualty lists in incidents such as here and here Llammakey (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• How about WP:NOTMEMORIAL? Parsecboy (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• I had done that, but got reverted. The Americans are fastidious in honouring their dead. This kind of thing falls under this proposal too, since no doubt these lists of dead can be cited with reliable source, but with this guideline, plus NOTAMEMORIAL, makes it a lot easier to eliminate this cruft. Thanks though. Llammakey (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• We’ll see how long that lasts, I guess. Parsecboy (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• I'm Ok with it.Crook1 (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Given that a lot of what appears to be discussed above lines up with Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide (specifically #people), would it perhaps be more worthwhile instead to consider promoting the existing how to guide to an official Wikipedia community vetted policy or guideline? As it stands, if that how to guide had official community vetting as a policy or guideline it would solve all of this because the people mentioned in the article meet none of the criteria given on the aforementioned page for inclusion in military history related article by themselves or as part of the crew. Promoting that how to guide could also forestall a lot of other issues along these same lines in our articles in the long term. Just throwing that out there for everyone's consideration. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  Hey TomStar81, thanks for reply. Can you perhaps let us know where you stand on the proposal? (support/oppose) and what you would like to see happen next, as far as everything you mentioned goes? Thanks - wolf 08:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think this is necessarily about WP:SOLDIER. This is more about including (particularly lists of) non-notable people in ship articles. To use an army example, mentioning in the Royal Scots Fusiliers article that Winston Churchill commanded a battalion of the regiment during WWI is quite ok, but mentioning the names of other non-notable commanding officers of battalions of the regiment is generally not. It is the mentioning of numerous non-notable people in ship articles that has raised the ire of editors here. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I suppose the wording in the proposal is alright for community adoption, though I dont know if it'll solve the problem as a whole. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

OPPOSE Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. What harm is there in having a list of commanding officers? Eric Cable  !  Talk  15:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

because you end up with articles like this USS Coronado (AGF-11) Lyndaship (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

...that after EricCable edits the page, it looks like tbis. For any closing admin, it should be noted that Eric only came here after edit-warring at the Coronado page, over this and a massive gallery of of images. FYI - wolf 06:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Question - take this paragraph from HMS Endeavour, which was present in the version that passed FA:

Midshipman Jonathon Monkhouse proposed fothering the ship, as he had previously been on a merchant ship which used the technique successfully. He was entrusted with supervising the task, sewing bits of oakum and wool into an old sail, which was then drawn under the ship to allow water pressure to force it into the hole in the hull. The effort succeeded and soon very little water was entering, allowing the crew to stop two of the three pumps.

Jonathan Monkhouse was not Endeavour's captain and is not notable independent of this event. How would this paragraph be affected by this new guideline? -- Euryalus (talk) 07:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

As an unexpected instigator of a noteworthy event in the ship's life he cannot be excluded from the narrative (as with the examples given by Kabblamo above). Despite "general principle", the push of the proposal is too strongly against inclusion of a person who is not independently notable, nor likely to be so (ie redlink would be inappropriate). Davidships (talk) 13:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

To address the valid concerns many editors have expressed I would like to reword the proposal as follows:

While a ship may have many notable individuals (including Commanding officers) serving on her during her active lifespan, as a general principle only individuals who are independently notable or were significant (including command) in a major event involving the ship and are named in reliable sources should be considered for inclusion in a ship article. It is strongly recommended that any mentions should be done as part of the chronological narrative of the ship's career rather than in a separate section. Notable persons should be linked to their biographical article, or redlinked if none yet exists. Lyndaship (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I have to ask, are these changes needed? (And what changes were made?) We have an active proposal on which numerous editors have already contributed comments toward forming a consensus. We should have this proposal closed first, then consider new proposals if necessary.

As to the comment above that seems to have lead to this sudden change, I have to ask; who is "Jonamthan Monkhouse"...? Would it make any difference to the article if it read "A midshipman proposed fothering the ship..."? But even beyond that, the current proposal (without the changes) only says "as a general principle". If, in a particular article, an otherwise non-notable crew member is mentioned in sources, and editors feel that name should be included in the article by a local consensus on that article's talk page, then this proposal does not prohibit that. The article noted in the above question could serve as an example of that. I also believe this concern was addressed earlier.

Overall, this has dragged on for some time now. The proposed wording has already been changed several times. If we keep changing it to address every comment or question, it's difficult to imagine this will even be resolved, especially with any kind of effective guidance to add to mos:ships. - wolf 19:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support amended version. Thank you Lyndaships, that has better balance and feel about it. Davidships (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose the original proposal, support the amendment by Lyndaship - Thanks for the reply, and yes I think it makes a difference. The problem we're trying to address is spammy lists of non-notable officers in articles on modern naval vessels. However the proposal we have is too broad in application and too prescriptive in content. The above example demonstrates this point - the proposed new rule removes reliably sourced material, reduces the clarity of the article and does nothing at all on spam or wordcount. It also opens the door to "Who's on first?"-style confusions when we seek to refer to more than one person who held the same rank aboard a vessel (eg. a midshipman, another midshipman, a third midshipman who is not the first midshipman, etc). Lyndaships' alternative covers the general advice about non-notable personnel but removes the focus on captains and allows for the circumstance where mentions of others may be relevant to the ship's history. Suggest this an alternative to the original words. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support Lyndaship's amended version, which drops the first sentence I was objecting to, and improves the guidance about people involved in major events who are named in reliable sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• oppose new suggestion. "Ship articles should focus on ships." That has to be in there somewhere. Waxing poetic about some insignificant midshipman is not encyclopedic, it should be in a long-form book somewhere where insignificant details can be extrapolated on. Encyclopedias use summary style and WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:NOTAMEMORIAL. Llammakey (talk) 12:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Well let's restore that as the lead sentence of the revised proposal: "Ship articles should focus on ships." Mildly, the example I used above is in fact about the ship, which almost sank on the Great Barrier Reef (and would never have been notable as the vessel of European discovery of Australia if she had).

Re WP:NOTMEMORIAL: worth reminding ourselves of the text: Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. The midshipman aboard Endeavour is no one's relative or acquaintance; they are not the subject of the article; and their proposal - in saving the ship from sinking - is both notable in the history of the vessel and reliably sourced in the article. Note also that notability requirements apply to articles as a whole, not individual sentences within them (see WP:Noteworthy). In fact the relevant guideline for whether to mention the midshipman in this instance is WP:Due, but if we assume the issue of the ship nearly sinking is indeed relevant to the ship, then the argument comes down to whether we use the midshipman's name or just call him "a midshipman." Either would be fine I suppose, but anonymising him saves no space and risks causing confusion if we mention other midshipmen elsewhere in the article. Neither option shortens or lengthens the article or changes any key details; one is simply clearer than the other and assists the reader slightly more.

Again,I support the idea of removing spammy lists of captains or other officers from modern ship articles, where they contribute nothing to the ship's recorded history except a name in the logbook. Certainly also agree that ship articles must be about ships, with only so much supporting context as is required to give the ship's history an explicable context. FWIW I reckon that's achieved with the Lyndaship wording plus a new first sentence making plain that a ship article needs to focus first and foremost on the vessel itself. Bit other views very welcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:USS Fitzgerald and MV ACX Crystal collision

There is currently a discussion regarding the inclusion of a list of non-notable victims of the accident on the articlel's talk page. Interested editors are invited to join the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion??! Hardly. I'm staying away from that bear-pit. What I will say is that that one and the Titanic one above point to an urgent need to clarify the original intent of NOTMEMORIAL and whether it should be expanded to include article content. Until that happens the shrill and intolerant argumentative nature of such "discussions" will just get repeated and repeated. An hour ago I was interested, but not now.Davidships (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. This is a constant source of discussion, debate and argument. It comes up almost every time we have a mass casualty event. I am considering drafting an RfC to try and get some kind consensus on this topic. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, please. This constant need to memorialize non-relevant names, based purely on emotive, non-encyclopaedic reasons has become a massive timesink and needs to be definitively addressed on a policy level. - wolf 03:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I wish you would draft a RfC. Looking at one of the editors who has been very active in this discussion contribution history I see that he has recently been involved in no less than four similar discussions. NOTMEMORIAL has been widely accepted as a reason for non inclusion of names but it actually doesn't say that so we do need a clear policy Lyndaship (talk) 09:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Ping Lyndaship, Thewolfchild, Davidships, Parsecboy I have opened a discussion at the Village Pump here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Project coordinators and project page update?

Does WP:Ships have project coordinators? Could we also look at whether the Project Page can be updated similar to the WikiProject Military history Project Page? Thoughts Regards Newm30 (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that a banner be created similar to File:WPMILHIST gold caps.png, but in an SVG format. It could be "WikiProject SHIPS" in a blue hue and could have a outline image of a sailing ship before the words. If I do not hear any suggestions of comments by Thursday, I will request creation of an image at WikiCommons Image Workshop and reply here once created for further comments improvements on the image. Regards Newm30 (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Why - how does this aid the encyclopedia? Or is it just to make the page look pretty?Nigel Ish (talk) 10:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Nope. Nice try though. Besides it was pointed out at an RFC for MILHIST that coordinators have no role to play besides guiding. They have no admin roles, and their vote counts for no more than any other editor's. Llammakey (talk) 11:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't hear a whoop of enthusiasm. If the image lab have, ahem, nothing better to do, then no objection. But it's only cosmetic I suppose - the project page works perfectly well without looking glamorous. Davidships (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh well sorry to try and improve. Waste of time Newm30 (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Romanian Navy or Romanian Naval Forces

I had just started creating a category for Ships of the Romanian Navy to go with the Romanian ship names one I had created when I discovered that they are all already set up but as Ships of the Romanian Naval Forces. Looking at the parent page that was changed from Romanian Navy to Romanian Naval Forces back in 2006 with the explanation of correct name as used by the institution. A quick google shows that is indeed the translation of the Romanian name (Forțele Navale Române). I would prefer to use Romanian Navy to be consistent with how we have titled other countries navies but would like to hear others thoughts first. The talk page of Romanian Naval Forces has no relevant content Lyndaship (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

A quick search of "naval forces" seems to show that there are other articles for other countries titled as such, eg; Turkish Naval Forces, Latvian Naval Forces, Czechoslovakian Naval Forces, Uzbekistan Naval Forces, Albanian Naval Force... to name a few. Hope this helps. - wolf 21:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

"Romanian Naval Forces" is the literal translation of the Romanian name. However, the English page for the navy's website uses "Romanian Navy" in several places, and the website itself is at "navy.ro". This could just be the preferences of the webmaster. But per WP:COMMONNAME, we need to know what the majority of reliable published sources use, and use that term. - BilCat (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

"Romanian Navy"; 61,300 Google hits

"Romanian Naval Forces"; 14,800 hits

FYI - wolf 22:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

German ship photos need categorization

There are a bunch of German ship photos at C:category:World War II ships of Germany that need to be assigned categories. I've already done the destroyers and torpedo boats, but there are plenty of photos of submarines, cruisers and battleships that might be useful to illustrate articles on those ships if people knew about them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I've gone through most of the remaining surface ships - don't know if there are categories for the tenders and minesweepers - if they are, they aren't in the World War II ships of Germany category tree. That leaves the U-boats, if somebody wants to tackle those. Parsecboy (talk) 14:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Why separate templates?

Howdy all, wondering if anyone can shed some light on this. I'm curious as to why ship templates are broken up into multiple templates {{Infobox ship begin}}, {{Infobox ship image}}, {{Infobox ship career}}, etc as opposed to just being one template? Not pushing for any change here just curious. I know there are a few template series still out there like this but most have been converted over to a single template. Apart from the obvious pain of having to convert the template and then all the subsequent pages, is there a reason that this hasn't been done? I'm guessing there some history here that I'm not aware of so if anyone can clue me in that'd be awesome! (Not I also posted this at Template talk:Infobox ship begin. Figured I might get responses in both places.) --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Because some ships have multiple careers (Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre); because some ships get reworked so have multiple characteristics (HMS Courageous (50)). Yeah, these could be rewritten as child templates of {{infobox}}.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 09:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: just for clarification, would you support such a re-write? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Meh. Is the ship infobox (including its templates) broken and in need of fixing? I don't think so. Would converting it break current functionality? Perhaps. These infobox templates allow editors to insert custom fields into the infobox structure which functionality is, I suspect, not supported by {{infobox}}. I know that that functionality is used though I do not know how often.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Move Request

At Capture of the Anne. See here for discussion. - wolf 02:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Suggested move/rename after revision

Talk:Partizanka after major revision gives reasons for a move/rename of the article. The original was a bit of a mess with a work of fiction, a Crime Club detective novel, used as a reference for a voyage. That is gone. Request some eyes on whether that move is justified and a move if so. 72.196.202.60 (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see... Partizanka is a ship article, and there is some discussion about renaming to "SS Shawnee (1927)". It wasn't clear why this was posted at wt:ships, but I get it now. - wolf 03:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. S.S. Shawnee in the Atlantic Coast passenger/freight service with some cruising (owned by Atlantic, Gulf & West Indies Steamship Lines (AGWI Lines)) for an interesting look at that pleasant 1930s mode of traveling from New York to Florida and sometimes the Gulf and Caribbean. Then United States Army Transport Shawnee including service with an "X" number in MacArthur's quite large local fleet supporting New Guinea and other operations for a time. The short time as Partizanka is interesting. A reference I kept, after deleting a "voyage" that was from a fictional detective novel reference, is in Portuguese. I read enough of that to see that there was some diplomatic activity between Portugal and Yugoslavia on acquiring the ship after collision damage. It apperars it may have been considered part of a Yugoslav navy, though my understanding of Portuguese isn't sufficient to pin that down. Anyway, it appears Tito was involved in its reception and the Portuguese agreed to the sale in part because he'd broken with the Soviets. I'd like a bit more on just what the Yugoslav interest was in migrants to Australia and possibly South America. Was it commercial, entry into world maritime commerce? Political? Perhaps someone with good sources for that area can fill that out. 72.196.202.60 (talk) 04:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships) - proposed amendment

Please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships) based on issues being raised at Talk:Capture of the Anne. Regards Newm30 (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Infobox ship class overview

In the infobox there are two fields that are a little ambiguous, first is the "Total ships completed" field and second is the "Total ships active" field. My questions are, are these both aplicable to war ships? Or should we only use "Total ships active"? A ship can be launched but it's still under "Total ships building" until it's commissioned? Would "Total ships completed" only be used for commercial ships? Sorry if I'm missing something obvious but the numbers don't add up on the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer article and I would like to get them right.Pennsy22 (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

This issue was raised a few weeks ago at Template talk:Infobox ship begin#Parameter question. FYI - wolf 11:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much Thewolfchild, I guess I should have done a search of the talk pages before I asked.Pennsy22 (talk) 08:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

RFA Sir Tristram (L3505) - Roll of Honour

There is a discussion at the above mentioned article which editors may wish to comment on about having a Roll of Honour section for the names of the two sailors killed on the ship during the Falklands war Lyndaship (talk) 08:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

You can save your time, I'd already intended to reply to Lyndaship saying that I accepted their argument. WCM_email 19:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Blohm+Voss

Hi, could use some help at Blohm+Voss, where an IP editor is insisting that B+V are a metallurgical company via edit warring, not responding on their talk page, the usual stuff. Many thanks in advance. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

IP was still edit-warring, so I've blocked them for 24 hours. Let me know if the reverting resumes once the block expires. Parsecboy (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Move proposal

There is a move proposal concerning a large number of ships at Talk:MS Symphony of the Seas which editors may wish to comment on Lyndaship (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Question

I was thinking of accepting Draft:SS Tokomaru (1893) but I would like a second opinion if the subject is notable enough for a standalone article and if so is it good to accept now or more sourcing needed? Thanks. JC7V (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The ship meets the general notability guidelines for this project, but I would like to see some technical details e.g. to describe how big the ship was. Tupsumato (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

6,238 GRT - definitely notable. The article needs to be filled up a bit more though. Crook1 (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Don't need the year of launch - there were no other steamships named Tokomaru. Crook1 (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Lloyd's Register for 1930 and 1934 has plenty of info that can be used to expand the article. Needs a section describing the ship (dimensions, engine details etc). Other info such as Code Letters, ports of registry, owners etc can be added to infobox and history sections. - scrub that, different ship! Plimsoll Ship Data is an excellent source of info for ships in service 1930-45. Mjroots (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@JC7V7DC5768:, Crook1 was wrong, there was more than one ship named Tokomaru, another one was also built in 1893 in Japan. Mjroots (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Mjroots, which ship is that? Miramar only has one. Crook1 (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

You sure that the name is "Tokomaru" and not "Toko Maru"? The latter seems to be quite a common ship name and in line with Japanese naming. Tupsumato (talk) 21:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I just checked Lloyd's for 1912-1913 - there is only one ship Tokomaru, and no ships named Toko Maru at all. Crook1 (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Crook1 There's TokoMaru built in 1919 by Yokohama Shipbuilding, 2,843 GRT, became KibiMaru No.16, later Unyo Maru No.3 (linked in my first post). Also Toko Maru built in 1908 by Rickmers, 4,168 GRT. Toko Maru built in 1934 by Mitsubishi, 399 GRT. Toko Maru built 1937 by Nakata, 772 GRT and Toko Maru built in 1940 by Osaka Iron Works, 2,748 GRT. Mjroots (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

There's a brief account of Tokomaru's sinking on page 17 of Monograph No. 29: Home Waters Part IV: From February to July 1915 (PDF). Naval Staff Monographs (Historical). Vol. XIII. Naval Staff, Training and Staff Duties Division. 1925. - apparently the ship was on passage from New Zealand with a load of cargo including frozen meat when she was torpedoed.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, Mjroots, I see, they were crossed out, so I didn't check. But all the ships you mentioned are named Toko Maru not Tokomaru. Crook1 (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The 1919 vessel is listed as "TokoMaru". For the sake of ambiguity, treat them all as the same name. "Toko Maru" seems to be the most common version. Mjroots (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

"TokoMaru" is just the way that LR typically printed compound former names in that period - the Japanese ones are all really "Toko Maru".Davidships (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

IHS Sea-web query brought up 72 entries for "Toko Maru" from 1950 to 2009. Some of them have a number in their name, but there are currently seven vessels named just "Toko Maru" in service. Tupsumato (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

It is a confusing coincidence that there is a Maori word Tokomaru which looks like the transliteration of the Japanese 東光丸 (Toko Maru). In addition to absence of Tokomaru from shipping sources noted above, there was no other use of the name on the British register prior to 1940 (New Zealand ports were British ports of registry over that period), see [4]; there is, though, currently a bulk carrier Tokomaru Bay (IMO 9604782). If a ship article on a Toko Maru appears, some hatnotes would be useful (at present there is only a redirect Toko Maru). Davidships (talk) 14:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Also Toko Maru (9578402), Toko Maru (9380439), Toko Maru (8980567), Toko Maru (9138484), Toko Maru (9046722), Toko Maru (9011117), Toko Maru (8520604)... Tupsumato (talk) 06:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

List of ships named Toko Maru anyone? Mjroots (talk) 08:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

There are well over 70 of them listed in Miramar, including those that also have numbers, like Toko Maru No.2; and there are over 70 that have IMO numbers. So probably about 100 in all - I do not think that that would be of any use to anyone. However, I can make a Shiplist for Toko Maru covering those that are already mentioned on WP, probably about 10, mostly in lists (eg shipwrecks) and which can then be cross-linked to SS Tokomaru. Davidships (talk) 11:34, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

As you can see, I've had a go. Davidships (talk) 03:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Suggest rename USS Governor R. M. McLane (SP-1328)

The Maryland police steamer, Governor R. M. McLane 1884—1945, only spent a brief time as a Naval Reserve vessel in a dual role as provided by the Maryland legislature and agreements with the Navy. As a part of the "Oyster Navy" (Maryland's State Oyster Police Force) the steamer had more armed engagements with oyster pirates than as a naval vessel. Several other notable events involved the steamer, including the first meeting of Maryland and Virginia officials on board to agree on uniform regulations and a detailed survey of Maryland's Chesapeake waters and much later resurvey and planting cultivated oyster beds. To avoid confusion with the governor some "ship" indication in the title is needed. SS Governor R. M. McLane with or without year? 72.196.202.60 (talk) 06:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps best to comment at Talk:USS Governor R. M. McLane (SP-1328)? Davidships (talk) 13:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

That was done. This was for review here and assist with rename move if agreement. 72.196.202.60 (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

No criticism intended. It was a heads-up to those looking here that you had indeed already started a discussion in the right place, the article concerned. Davidships (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Did you know: a ship is on the DYK part of the main page right now

On 18 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Blue Origin landing platform ship, which was recently created. The fact was
... that Amazon founder Jeff Bezos aims to land rockets on a moving ship?

The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Blue Origin landing platform ship. You may subsequently check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Blue Origin landing platform ship), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Multiple ships with same name

I am thinking of creating an article on a ship and I know that there are several other ships of the same name. Not sure if the others are notable. Should I create the page at the primary name, or should I create a list-type article at the primary with the new article at a disambiguated title? SpinningSpark 18:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd probably just create the page at the primary name - if the others prove to be notable, it can always be moved. If you were more sure that at least some of the others are notable, it would make more sense to go the other route. Parsecboy (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

As Parsecboy says but if you gave the name of the ship we could answer better Lyndaship (talk) 18:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

CS Alert, which played an important part in cutting German submarine telegraph cables in WWI. SpinningSpark 19:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest creating the article as CS Alert (year of launch) as there's more than one notable CS Alert Lyndaship (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Just a cautionary word about using CS as a prefix. The British Post Office's fourth cable ship Alert was renamed C.S. Alert in 1969, spending most of her working life under that name. At least eight British cable ships have been similarly named since 1969. Davidships (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Warship Comment

There is a RfC at Talk:Warship about the proper definition and scope of the article title. All WikiProject members are invited to participate and give your valuable perspectives at the talk page. Thank you! —Madrenergic^talk 17:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)