Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 59

Archive 55

←

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

→

Archive 65

Motor Torpedo Boat PT-109 and other such boats

Is "Motor Torpedo Boat" really part of the name? Or why is it capped? Sources mostly have it lowercase. Why not just title it PT-109 (motor torpedo boat)? For less famous ones, something like PT-109 wouldn't be ambiguous. Is there a relevant convention or guideline? Dicklyon (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I think it should be Patrol Torpedo Boat PT-109, as that was the correct designation, and the reason for the PT in PT-109. There is an example, but using Motor Torpedo Boat, at the bottom of WP:SHIPNAME#Naming articles about military ships. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Interesting; it also says "but be sure the ship type name is correct". The example "German submarine" is fine, but why the caps for "Motor Torpedo Boat", and why not "Patrol torpedo boat"? Doesn't say. Ideas? Dicklyon (talk) 04:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it's because US PT boats in WWII were in Motor Torpedo Boat Squadrons (abbreviated USN-style as MTBRON 1 etc., nicknamed "Ron 1" for short), and as a military unit name it was naturally capitalized. They are listed under the heading "Motor Torpedo Boats" (all caps in the original) in "US Warships of WWII" by Silverstone, first published in the 1960s. I'll also comment that the name in general use for a ship type is not always derivable from that type's hull classification symbol, such as CA for heavy cruiser or AV for seaplane tender. Not saying that we are obligated to follow this style, just mentioning the origin and perpetuation of this designation. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 06:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. So what do you think would be an improvement? Motor torpedo boat PT-109? PT-109 (motor torpedo boat)? Patrol torpedo boat PT-109? Or something else? The current title suggests a proper name where there is not one. Dicklyon (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• It's US, so should be PT, not MTB.

If it had been a RN boat, MTB would be correct and should absolutely be capitalised.

Why is it that the only edits I ever see from you are you popping up at a random range of articles and announcing, "I know nothing about this topic. Watch me enforce a renaming of all articles across it!" Andy Dingley (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

You're free to look at my contributions if you want to analyze where we intersect and where we don't. Dicklyon (talk) 03:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Dicklyon Patrol Torpedo Boat is the proper name of the type. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

OK. But why is it so rare to find it capped in sources? Is patrol torpedo boat also a common generic term? Dicklyon (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I would have thought in most sources it would be introduced as Patrol Torpedo Boat, then PT boat thereafter. I have no idea what you mean about patrol torpedo boat being a common generic term, it is a very specific proper name for the type of high-speed torpedo-armed boat of about 80 ft used by the USN in WWII. Other navies had their own proper names for similar types of small combatant vessels, such as the British Motor Gun Boat or MGB and Motor Torpedo Boat or MTB. It depends on what sources you are referring to. I would be looking to definitive and high quality texts like Norman Friedman's Small US Combatants for guidance on this, not books that just mention PT boats in passing. I don't have a copy of Friedman to hand, but @Sturmvogel 66 and Parsecboy: might. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Just noting that most books don't cap it. So if it's a proper name sometimes, it's a generic other times? Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what you are trying to get at with "generic". It is the proper name of the type, and only refers to one type of small combatant boat built for and operated by the USN, as I've explained. Naturally, when introduced in any given book, they would capitalise it and introduce the PT initialisation, after that they will probably refer to it as a PT boat as shorthand. But as I said, we should be relying on definitive texts on the subject, not random Google Books results. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

By "generic" I just meant not proper, that is, not capitalized. I'd be interested in seeing books that cap it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

It's about six years since we last had one of these capitalisation discussions, see Talk:Motor_Gun_Boat#Requested_move_20_October_2013, Talk:Harbour_Defence_Motor_Launch#Requested_move_20_October_2013 etc GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Wow, what a mess. I certainly agree with Andy that the Royal Navy prefers to cap all their boat types. But some of these are not really just about Royal Navy boats, right? Like Motor Launch is a confusing inconsistent mess. Dicklyon (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, see what damage people cause when they start blindly decapitalising stuff, because wikidogma says "words must never be capitalised", and with no understanding of the subject. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Friedman does not capitalize motor torpedo boat or patrol torpedo boat, apparently viewing them as generic terms like cruiser or destroyer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Sturm. I managed to get a snippet on the Osprey book on PT boats, and it doesn't either, so I would support a move to Patrol torpedo boat PT-109, and consequential moves of any other PT boats with articles. The British boats seem to be a different case. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I must modify the above in that I had a better look at the Osprey US PT boat book by Rottman, and he says (on page 6) that USS was part of their official name, along with their Bureau of Ships hull number. In which case, IAW WP:NCS, individual PT boats should really be at <prefix><hull number> USS PT-109 etc rather than the other alternatives, and we should modify the MOS to that effect. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is that the PT boats weren't actually commissioned, so they wouldn't get the USS prefix. Parsecboy (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

What terminology does DANFS use, completed or commissioned? And does that differ from that used by larger US ships?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, we have at least one source that says USS was officially used for PT boats, and Rottman also says they were commissioned (p. 18). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

DANFS only has an entry for one PT boat I can find, and that is PT-109. It calls it "Motor Torpedo Boat 109", doesn't use USS and doesn't refer to a commissioning date. However, other ship entries don't use USS either, for example USS Pruitt (DD-347) is just referred to as Pruit (DD-347) in its entry, not as USS Pruitt (DD-347). Frankly, I don't think that DANFS really progresses this discussion much. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary, the fact that DANFS doesn't include a commissioning date is rather telling, especially for a boat in the 1940s. Also consider, for example, this list of vessels damaged or sunk during WWII from the NHHC; they clearly differentiate between commissioned warships that receive the prefix and those that don't (i.e., all of the PT boats, among others).

As for Rottman, I don't know anything about him, but the Ospreys are hit-or-miss; I wouldn't put a lot of faith on him alone. Parsecboy (talk) 12:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Certainly that list draws into question the USS prefix. Bulkley [1] reckons each squadron was commissioned, rather than each PT boat individually. So I guess we are back at either Motor torpedo boat PT-109 or Patrol torpedo boat PT-109. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

As a slight aside - talking about ships whose commissioned status in the USN (and hence use of the USS prefix is uncertain, how about USS Richard Bulkeley (1917), a Naval trawler built for the Royal Navy in 1917 and loaned to the USS in 1919 to help in clearing the Northern Barrage - she had a US Navy crew when she was mine and sunk in July 1919, but I havn't seen any thing definitive about whether she was counted as a commissioned US vessel (or even remained a commissioned RN ship) at the time of her loss.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

She was acquired 31 May 1919 on loan for U.S. Navy service as a minesweeper and commissioned the same day

— "Richard Bulkeley", Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. Navy Department, Naval History and Heritage Command

Thanks - I'd somehow missed the "...and commissioned the same day" bit in DANFS. I'm still not sure whether the article would be better at HMT Richard Bulkeley, as she served most of her life under RN control, during a war, even though we don't have very much info on her service, or as USS Richard Bulkeley, where service was very short (less than 2 months) but there are accounts of her sinking.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother changing it now, just ensure that there are redirects from HMT Richard Bulkeley, HMS Richard Bulkeley and a link from Richard Bulkeley. If it were to be changed then I would suggest moving it to Richard Bulkeley (1917) and making HMT Richard Bulkeley, HMS Richard Bulkeley and USS Richard Bulkeley redirects. Just my 2d worth. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not advocating a name change in this specific instance, but... The policy is quite clear at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA we should name a ship article in its best known (most notable) form. The policy says use consensus, but (when in doubt) returns on a google search would probably be better. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships) should refer to that policy for guidance. Broichmore (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• That's because they're also generic terms. That doesn't mean that some uses (most obviously the RN, maybe the USN here too) are more specific than this, and refer to more specific classes where they are treated as proper names. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and did the case-fixing move, without prejudice for what a better name might be. Dicklyon (talk) 15:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it is with prejudice, I don't see you have the consensus for the change. As I pointed out elsewhere it is standard Engineering practise to capitalise titles on drawings. That is no different for song titles, which you seem to think are precious. I don't understand why you're making needless changes, creating needless re-directs and wiping out stat scores, over such a trivial issue. I'm not against style guideline as such, but...

When in doubt the Article writers judgement call should be respected. Substance over style. I don't get it how can there be an objection to caps in this case when there is a project page entitled Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters? This is a nonsense, how can Motor torpedo boat PT-109 be correct when it is a particular of Motor Torpedo Boat.

This stems from this piece of contradictory nonsense in MOS:THECAPS, which needs changing. In English-language titles, every word is capitalized, except for articles, short coordinating conjunctions, and short prepositions. First and last words within a title, including a subtitle, are capitalized regardless of grammatical use. This is known as title case. Capitalization of non-English titles varies by language.This is not applied to Wikipedia's own articles, which are given in sentence case:[a] capitalize the first letter, and proper names (e.g., List of selection theorems, Foreign policy of the Hugo Chávez administration).

Motor Torpedo Boat PT-109 is a title, the fact that it is also an article title, is neither here or there.

The project is in English. We need to conform to the English language not the other way round. If this Under My Thumb can be an exception then so should drawing / engineering titles. Which are of course works. Broichmore (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: I take your not answering my points as agreement that I'm right. I have moved the article back to its's original name because you changed it without consensus, in addition the original name was correct. If the policy is wrong in any way or open to the wrong interpretation then it should be change. You are an expert on said policy, please change it. Broichmore (talk) 09:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm just going to stay out of this nonsense. You guys sort it out. Dicklyon (talk) 13:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I had changed the title back to upper case and Dicklyon has called that into question, and from reading this discussion it looks like the correct name for this page has yet to be found. For such a historical topic the encyclopedia should get it right. There seem to be several names deemed correct or incorrect, and aside from the common name for this topic (which would be just PT-109 with no descriptor) all additional names can be boldfaced as alternate names. But the title should be clarified and labeled correctly. Have the participants in this discussion settled on the most likely name? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Randy, the one you changed was Motor Torpedo Boat PT-59; there are still some others that I lowercased that have not been reverted. I agree it's a good idea to focus on PT-109 first, but it needs to be decided whether to treat it like the rest, versus special. I have no opinion on that either way. Dicklyon (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

As I said earlier the policy itself says In English-language titles, every word is capitalised, except for articles, short coordinating conjunctions, why cant the policy be changed to follow the acknowledged rules of the English language? Broichmore (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Good news: Policy can be changed. Just go propose it at WP:VPP. Dicklyon (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks. I will, once I get the time to learn the whole procedure. Broichmore (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

PT-109 is certainly, I'd guess by far, the common name for this page. Probably should be moved to that while the other PT-109 entries stay at a disamb page. This discussion should continue on what to call the boats and in what casing, but calling the page PT-109 works for all the titling criteria. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I also moved some pages to include a hyphen between the PT and number, as that's what sources usually do. For the type and case, I suggest Torpedo boat PT-59 etc. Maybe I'll get back into it if nobody from the project wants to take the lead or propose something different. Dicklyon (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I've noticed that your only giving lip service to democracy here, yet still pushing hard for an immediate name change at Talk:Motor Torpedo Boat PT-109. This is still actively under discussion. Please don't bulldoze this change into place until this discussion has matured. You conspicuously have yet to tell us why the rules of the English language can be or should be ignored in this matter, by this contradictory and superficial policy. Broichmore (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

No, we don't work by democracy. We make proposals and discuss them. The RM discussion that you link is the way a multi-article move discussion is formalized, when the moves might be controversial. It is conventional for editors who care to say Support or Oppose, with an explanation, or to present alternatives there. Please join. Dicklyon (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

May I point out that if you refer to our List of patrol vessels of the United States Navy you can see the thinking behind how the USN defined designators for vessels of this type. It is consistent. First (the useage), second (the qualifier), third (a further method of subdivision). Example PHM, Patrol Missile Hydrofoil. You can see the applied logic through all the designators listed, and they are in caps. Yes, it's clunky, but it is by design. Presumably because its clunky its not often echoed in free speech or prose. As an aside it's well documented elsewhere that the US in common with the French revolutionaries favored any method different from the old order, justification enough not to follow the logic of similar in the Royal Navy. Broichmore (talk) 10:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

It is fairly common practice to capitalise the words when explaining as initialism or acronym (although not all the entries in List of patrol vessels of the United States Navy are strictly so, that is probably better for visual consistency), but that doesn't establish what is appropriate in running text or descriptors. Davidships (talk) 11:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

At the WP:VPP discussion (notified below) I made the comment there, quoted as follows. Disclosure: I arrived here after a post to my TP but I am reasonably an "interested party" following my post at VPP. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

There are many misconceptions about what a proper noun/name is, including a false view of equivalence between capitalisation (a matter of orthography) and what is a proper noun (a matter of onomastics and grammar). A proper noun is not descriptive yet such a designation is. Consequently, asserting that this disignation is a "title" actually has more merit than asserting it is a "proper name". My version of Fowler (2nd Ed, 1990 reprint) refers to capitalisation of titles in such a way as to make them separate from proper nouns (section on capitalisation). This type of military double-back speak (Boat, Patrol, Torpedo) is a designation format (complete with the capitalisation of which the military is fond). It is used in equipment tables and like for everything from the common nail upward (nail, bullet-head, 10 ga, 2 in long, wire, plated). While a "designation" may be considered a synonym of "title", it is not a "title" in the same sense of the guidance on titles of works. Further, if it were the title, it would (probably) be written by the designation, Boat, Patrol, Torpedo, and not Patrol Torpedo Boat, since the latter may be common usage but is unlikely the formal designation. The OP's proposition only has any chance of being compelling if it is used as the title of a work and I am not yet seeing any evidence that would support the arguement being made that it is. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

What contemporaneous sources use

• Katz Jr., Michael D., Our Fighting Ships (1943), which was made available to US servicemen during the war, contains brief descriptions and photographs of U.S. warships and auxiliaries. It has a section entitled "Motor Torpedo Boats"[2] and identifies them as "PT x" (with x standing for the number; it is not clear to me if there is a space between the "PT" and the number), and without the U.S.S. prefix, in contrast to the larger commissioned warships.
• Samuel Eliot Morison, in his 15-volume History of United States Naval Operations in World War II, uses the style "PT-x", x being the boat number.

Kablammo (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree they seem to be called motor torpedo boats much more often than patrol torpedo boats, then and now. But most people here seemed to want to get away from that that. Dicklyon (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Looking at Peter Scott's book, written immediately after the end of WW2: The Battle of the Narrow Seas: The History of Light Coastal Forces in the Channel and North Sea 1939-1945, he uses "P.T. boats" in numerous cases - though he does not seem to refer to any individual numbered boat. I mention this as Scott seems quite precise in his terminology elsewhere in the book and he was sent to Cherbourg as Liaison Officer with American coastal forces in August 1944. He does not (as far as I can tell) refer to them as "Motor Torpedo Boats" at any point - reserving that for British craft of that designation.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

RM discussion open

Broichmore's comments above remind me that I should have explicitly announced here my new proposal at multi-RM discussion Talk:Motor Torpedo Boat PT-109#Requested move 12 August 2019. Sorry for the few hours of delay on that. Please bring ideas if you don't like the one I proposed. Dicklyon (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

This was decided in favor of Patrol torpedo boat PT-59 and such. Dicklyon (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

PT-305 in the news

We probably need an article on the restored PT-305. Dicklyon (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

That could be your third ships article? Broichmore (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I stubbed it in. Needs work. Dicklyon (talk) 04:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Diving bell caps similar case

Caisson Diving Bell Barge

This discussion, in part, derives from a dialogue at User talk:Dicklyon#Air lock diving-bell plant about Dicklyon renaming Air Lock Diving-Bell Plant which I still think was un-called for as it was properly titled with caps; on the basis it's an Admiralty vessel with a proper name. Apparently the Engineering convention of using caps for titles is not covered by Wiki guidelines. I disagree with him on this. The barge was given a proper name as it's a unique creation in the same way as is, a song title, book or musical composition. In any event, the author of article should have the last say on the matter. By the way, changing a title to sentence case wipes out the stat count of user Views. Also while I'm at it, Dicklyon, has still not explained to me why WP:Manual of Style/Trademarks is not written as WP:Manual of style/trademarks? -Broichmore (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I answered on 15 June where you asked about why title guidelines don't apply to pages in WP. And I don't think you showed anywhere that "Air Lock Diving-Bell Plant" was "an Admiralty vessel with a proper name". You said "The titles vary that's why I combined them." Which is it? Dicklyon (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Saw this section when I was commenting above. The editor implies in the discussion that they named the article themselves using a composite name, so in this case Dicklyon is correct. It is not a proper name, although named in good faith, but a creative combination of two descriptors. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

He did say that, but there are a few sources that use that exact name, too (like here, in a sentence, lowercase and generic sounding). Dicklyon (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The Admiralty bought it as a Caisson Diving Bell Barge, I went with a simpler title for the masses, is all. As the author I should have the last word? Broichmore (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll keep out of further comments, as not a ships expert. This has been brought to the right place, and further comments and a final decision would probably best be reached here. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

or Special Boat built for operating Air-lock Diving Bell

Broichmore, what you did is WP:OR. Follow what the sources use. If the source called it a caisson diving bell barge, then that is what the article should be called. If you want to rename the thing, write your own book. We use WP:RS to distinguish titles, not whatever we make up. 11:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC) Llammakey 11:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Were it so simple. Where is the sense of good faith? I always try my best to follow policy. There was no OR as such, what I did was amalgamate multiple similar titles from different sources. The fact that there is a different Admiralty title surfaced late in the game (and even later in my mind). Just to make it complicated the Admiralty title has never been in common usage. Still, I well take your point. Policy can never be perfect. It's not cast in stone, it should evolve with the project. Broichmore (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

On this subject, I refer to my comment above on caps for the title of a "work". Such capping would apply to the actual title used for the work. There may be some exceptions for commonly used alternative titles (falling to WP:COMMONNAME) per the fuller guidance pertaining to titles of works but my recollection is that these are usually shortened versions of the fuller name, IAW standard conventions (ie conventions outside WP). A composite name would not, therefore, fall within such. As such, it would appear that the present name should probably be decapped, since there is unlikely to be evidence in sources (per MOS:CAPS) to support it being capped. What should be the title of the article is another question and I would need to consider arguement for a change if it is proposed. However, I am neutral (ATM) on whether a change is required. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:VPP

At Dicklyon's suggestion I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style - a contradiction in the use of Capital_letters. No doubt someone will want to change it to a more elegant title. Feel free. Broichmore (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't so much a suggestion as an unlikely possibility. Doesn't look like it's going anywhere. Dicklyon (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I thought it went well for a WP discussion, certainly you discount it totally, because it's not telling you what you want to hear; on what is a trivial matter at the end of the day. Clearly there is insufficient interest to get the numbers to make a needed policy change. Making changes to the English language, instituting a rule where there was not one before is akin to Original research. I'm astounded your getting away it. Broichmore (talk) 11:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not the one who put the Wikipedia capitalization guidelines in place, but I do follow them. And yes it's telling me that "there is insufficient interest to get the numbers to make a needed policy change" which is what I expected. The change you suggest would be incredibly disruptive across all topic areas. Dicklyon (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not advocating any change to the titles that's the point. The English language rule is that there is no rule. Just as there are anomalies for a whole host of other issues. Example: spelling, depending on country, Oxford or Cambridge, newspaper, or country. This topic started because I could not see the point in changing the title, from caps to small, when the industry I come from uses caps as does the majority of the English speaking world. I was defending my title from unneeded change.

The rule (rather publishing practise) is to be consistent on a page, You know that. Just as you know it's not the projects remit to creatively make one; which is unofficially Oxford University's if not the Queen's privilege. This whole topic is over something 99.9 percent of the population doesn't notice or care about. Its the kind of false rule that makes the language rigid, English is the most powerful language in part because of its flexibility. However your actions or policing on this nit picking piece of uniformity, plays havoc with software links and redirects, destroying the follow on of reader scores which is exactly how you annoyed me (on my DYK submittal) in the first place. For you to imply that I am putting forward some disruptive notion is absurd, given your renaming tiles is exactly that. Oh, and by the way I said as much (about no rule) 3 days before your last comment in the other place (WP:VPP). Still thanks to your intransigence and advocacy of this style instruction, clarification was needed; it has focused on the notion that the policy requires changing to that of no rule as described here. Result no disruption or at least a brake on it. Broichmore (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Where we are now

Dicklyon After just reading all that's been said in various different places, we seem to be not much further forward than the discussions of 2013. See Talk:Motor_Gun_Boat#Requested_move_20_October_2013, Talk:Harbour_Defence_Motor_Launch#Requested_move_20_October_2013 etc. Indeed I just noticed an interesting conversation with Andy Dingley for the first time at Talk:Air lock diving-bell plant, where you persist in the notion that the bell is no different to a washing machine. My question is, where do we stand now? It would seem there is no clear consensus for your proposals, never mind mine. So it's a stalemate. Do you agree to no change as such, or are you to persist with your usual attitude of, having decided the answer already, and remaining uninterested in any sourcing or evidence to the contrary, paying only lip service here, of imposing your dogma that all capitalisation must be removed. There is a thread here and in other similar discussions of when the dust has settled just starting again, ploughing your own furrow. No doubt deterring fledgling editors from ever attempting an article again. I certainly don't relish having to go cap in hand to you every time we name an article. Broichmore (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I'm proposing any changes. I just go by WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. Most new articles get created with title-case titles whether they're proper names or not, so there's always work to do. Dicklyon (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes indeed you carry on with an agenda sanctioned only by yourself, something that is unwanted and against the norm of the English language as we know it. Do you honestly think that every creator of an article doesn't put thought into the style of the title. So every time you change it your doing something without that persons agreement. Many against the one it would see. Some of us know when to let stupid rules lie. Broichmore (talk) 10:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Title is too verbose

Why "Motor Torpedo Boat PT-109"? Surely the common name is just PT-109 (as Randy noted) and the disambiguated name should be PT-109 (boat), in the same style as PT-109 (film) and the rest. "PT" in the name already tells you that it's a patrol torpedo boat. Regardless of capitalization, I wouldn't want to see HMAS Sirius (O 266) renamed to "Her Majesty's Australian Ship Sirius" or "Her Majesty's Australian ship Sirius" or "Fleet Replenishment Vessel HMAS Sirius" or "Fleet replenishment vessel HMAS Sirius". Pinging Dicklyon even though lower-casing change went through. Note I wrote most of this before seeing that several people at that talk section mentioned the short name option, and the closer's suggestion of a separate RM. Yes, that would mean revising the guidance at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Ships with hull number only —Pelagic (talk) 05:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

As a counter-argument, I note the analogy between "US torpedo boat PT-109" and "Japanese battleship Yamato". But in the latter case we also have a "Japanese corvette Yamato", so there's a disambiguating function there. Is there also an analogy to "Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr." or "His Royal Highness, Charles, Prince of Wales"? Pelagic (talk) 05:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• What does "too verbose" mean? WP doesn't get to edit names because it thinks the designated name is "too long"! Andy Dingley (talk) 09:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  I think he means that prepending "Motor torpedo boat" is excessive for a boat named PT-109. The boat's title is short, yet we make the article's title long. I tend to agree. My original proposal was a bit shorter, but still trying to respect the project convention. I have no strong opinion on this though. Dicklyon (talk) 04:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Firstly the full official title is "Motor Torpedo Boat PT-109" as it is on its main page. "PT-109" is a tad better than a nickname, on its own it could be the recipe for a loaf of bread. Strangely that's why it has its own diambig page PT-109. Secondly Dickylyon despite his obviously great intelligence and abilities consistently doesn't understand what a title actually is, and that in the English it is in caps. Witness, right here a shortened version of an official name is a title. Duh! Scattered all over the project (easily found and too numerous to mention) are discussions on this titles topic where he has failed to get clear consensus and yet he continues to pedal on. Dick stop wasting everyone's time and test your sophist theories by changing this page en:Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters to letter case and see where it gets you. Once again, in his own words, (thousands) the majority of article creators use caps. They are all wrong and he's right he thinks. Broichmore (talk) 12:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

There is a pretty broad consensus behind WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't make it right. For a rule to be continuously argued about after it is drafted year upon year is a giveaway that it was wrong in the first place. Good legislation puts to bed dissension, and becomes as natural as breathing. It was poorly drafted, wrong in part, and riddled with contradictions to begin with in 2002 and 2008, in the projects infancy, by a handful of self elected people (mostly gone) and has hung around like an Albatross ever since. Obviously it was prudently ignored in part by the many in favour of natural English, because nothing gets changed here. How ridiculous Nutbush City Limits is approved in caps because it's a song and yet the place is Nutbush city limits; or here the most famous PT boat in history is small case in a title. So what if history books and the USN give out contradictory ways of handing the title, that's to be expected because in English there is no hard and fast rule. You're lucky we're not following the style guide in Debrett's Correct Form published in 1976, or all titles would be in caps. As soon as we follow established English usage the arguments will melt away. Broichmore (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Lyon-class battleship FAC

The FAC for the article is getting a bit long in the tooth and would benefit from another review or two, if anyone has the time to take a look. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Cool, but never heard of it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Friant (ship)

Hi everyone! About a month ago I created the article Thomas Friant (ship), and it hasn't been reviewed yet. Could someone please review it, so it can be included in Wikipedia?

Regards: GreatLakesShips (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Nautical for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Nautical is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Nautical until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Lists of Shipwrecks

These lists have as an inclusion criterion the wording "The list of shipwrecks in xxxx includes ships sunk, foundered, grounded, or otherwise lost during xxxx". A number of editors have interpreted this to mean that ships temporarily grounded and refloated should be included. If we are in consensus that such incidents do not constitute a shipwreck and should not be I will change the criterion wording to "The list of shipwrecks in xxxx includes ships sunk or otherwise lost during xxxx" to resolve the ambiguity. A secondary point is should there be a cutoff size wise for inclusion, I have seen entries for boats (boatwrecks anyone?) as small as 6 tons in the lists Lyndaship (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but I think a ship needs to be wrecked to be considered a shipwreck. Parsecboy (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

It needs to be a permanent grounding or whatever to count, IMO. And the ship needs to meet the general ship notability requirements to be included.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

IMvHO, the ledes may need expanding to better cover the scope of the various lists. As the editor who has probably done the most work on these lists, my opinion is that groundings should be includable, especially for sailing vessels and the earlier (C19th) steamships, which had less powerful engines. Some grounded vessels, although refloated, are subsequently condemned. Although not always recorded,it is possible to imply this by their lack of subsequent mention. I very strongly object to Sturmvogel 66s suggestion that only vessels notable enough to have an article should be included. These lists are ideal for those oterwise unnotable vessels, such as the hundreds named Elizabeth, to have their entry on. As for the comment by Lyndaship, it is not always possible to identify the size of a vessel from the information available. Mjroots (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

A wreck is surely the final fate of a vessel. Grounding can vary substantially in severity. The merchant fleet of Britain very often took the ground every time they were in port until locked basins (such as in Liverpool and the Port of London) became common. If you sail in shallow waters that are littered with shifting sand and mud banks, grounding is not unusual. OK, different story if your local port has, for instance, rocks called Les Charpentiers just outside! (Fécamp - the Carpenters - some very sharp rocks.) Additionally, I question the purpose of including non-terminal (for the ship) groundings in a list of shipwrecks. What are we trying to achieve by including it?ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

NAABSA (Not Always Afloat But Safely Aground) ports still exist, see for instance Ridham Dock. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

"Shipwreck" of course has several meanings - firstly the physical remains on the land or sea bottom of a ship after loss; secondly the actual circumstances of the loss. In that sense some people limit that to circumstances where it arose from hitting something else - a reef or the land, but also in collision with another ship - while others will use it to encompass all types of actual total loss. Reading some back discussions here and on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shipwrecks it seems that the lists started as the first meaning (ie diveable) but soon morphed in the second - and a very important resource it has become. However it has later strayed beyond that to include ships which were not lost, as raised by Lyndaship - I found a couple of grounded-and-refloated examples in a randomly chosen list - and believe that even captured ships which go on to a continuing life (and perhaps post-bellum restoration to previous owner) have been included, which seems weird to me. Those that more "incidents", and should be beyond the scope of these lists.

I agree with Mjroots regarding the approach to notability - it is the same that we use for other purposes, eg ships set indices. But smaller vessels can be included if they are also the subject of articles (or sections of them). Davidships (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Davidships: - captured ships have their own lists, separate to the shipwreck lists. Mjroots (talk) 04:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good - I read an old discussion about that, but didn't find any later change. Davidships (talk) 10:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I've done minimal editing on the lists, and on a few articles about wrecks. It seems to me that, apart from some ships that have sunk and been re-floated, a wreck is a ship that has been lost. And I do believe that minimal notability should be a usual criteria for inclusion in the lists. At the very least, a reliable source (not a dive shop site) should be cited. - Donald Albury 05:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd count a ship declared as constructive total loss (CTL) following a grounding as a "shipwreck" even if it was refloated and towed to a scrapyard shortly afterwards; otherwise we need a cut-off time for wreck removal as well. On the other hand, CTL following a collision while afloat would not count. Tupsumato (talk) 05:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

In my book, all CTLs count. Mjroots (talk) 08:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, as long as they are losses. But not, for example, the 2015 fire on Le Boreal at List of shipwrecks in 2015#18 November, which was back in service six months later and is still trading for the same owners. Davidships (talk) 10:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

In the case of Le Boreal, the ship was abandoned at sea. In maritime law, that made her a derelict ship. That is sufficient to enable inclusion, regardless of subsequent repair and return to service. Mjroots (talk) 12:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

But is a derelict ship a shipwreck? To me, as I said above, a ship needs to be wrecked (i.e., permanently destroyed/disabled) to be considered a shipwreck. This is in accordance with standard dictionary definitions: Merriam-Webster, Dictionary.com, Cambridge, etc. Using those definitions, a derelict vessel would only become a shipwreck once it came ashore or foundered. Parsecboy (talk) 13:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mjroots:: That's not in the article, uncited and OR. One of the article references notes that ten remained on board, and that is corroborated by the French inquiry report on p34. Davidships (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Everyone being taken off Le Boreal is not uncited OR. It is verified by the source referenced in the list. Mjroots (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Technical point. The source says that the Master ordered the evacuation of 347 passengers and crew, not that ALL passengers and crew were evacuated Lyndaship (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I've been thinking - the category that the shipwreck lists come under is "Maritime incidents in (year)". Therefore it is appropriate that these lists cover maritime incidents as well as shipwrecks. We could rename all lists to cover this, or just expand the ledes as I suggested above. One difficulty when researching material to add to the lists is that it is not alway apparent that a vessel is a wreck from the first source one comes across. Some vessels do not become wrecks for weeks or months. By adding an entry to a list on first contact, it is much easier to expand the entry as further information becomes available. From a writer's viewpoint, this is far preferable to the approach of not adding an entry, finding a vessel was subsequently wrecked, and then trying to go back and find the original event which led to the subsequent wreck. Mjroots (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

If we're going to include things that aren't shipwrecks by any normal definition of the word, then the lists need to be retitled, not simply have different criteria spelled out in the introductions. Parsecboy (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

So, "List of shipwrecks and maritime incidents in..." then? Mjroots (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

You could probably just do "List of maritime incidents in xxxx". Parsecboy (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I was greatly taken with this suggestion at first but on reflection I think it's going to cause more problems then it solves. A shipwreck is clearly defined (especially if CTL's are not included), a maritime incident is much more wooly. Will we see people seeking to add every time a ship was bombed, every time someone fell overboard from a cruise liner, any time some Greenpeace people bothered a whaling ship etc? Ok we could word the criterion to "Maritime incident resulting in the loss of or serious damage to the ship" but would we get into debates about did the grounding cause serious damage? Lyndaship (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, Lyndaships. What is a "maritime incident"? Just think of the range of incidents perfectly properly found in actual ship articles - collisions, allisions, dismasting, groundings, arrest, piracy, novovirus outbreaks, murders, mutiny, unsuccessful warlike acts - the list is almost endless, even without "maritime incidents" that don't relate to individual ships. And each one requiring some guideline on how serious it would have to be to be included. And then including the same for the ships that do not (yet) have their own articles. Contrast that with the simplicity of addressing ship losses ("shipwrecks" in shorthand): question 1 - was the ship lost? If it is "no" or "don't know", then it doesn't go in. Piling in entries just because the first reference found indicates a possible loss, without searching for sources which show that is what happened, is not the way we should edit any article. The lists at present have real utility, but they won't if they become a global diary of every "incident" that ever happens at sea. Davidships (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I dont't mind thrashing out inclusion criteria here. From the list of examples above:-

• collisions - depends on damage
• allisions - depends on damage
• dismasting - generally not, unless vessel abandoned or sank
• groundings - generally yes, except very minor groundings
• arrest - no
• piracy - generally no, unless sunk/wrecked
• novovirus outbreaks - absolutely not!
• murders - generally no, unless sunk/wrecked. Murders after wrecking can be mentioned in text.
• mutiny - generally no, unless sunk/wrecked
• unsuccessful warlike acts - generally no, unless severe damage

To which we can add

• fires - generally yes
• capsizing - yes
• sinking / scuttling - yes
• barratry - yes
• attempted barratry - case by case basis
• capture - only if sunk / wrecked
• enemy action in time of war - generally yes

Any other scenarios? Mjroots (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

My view in principle hasn't changed - any type of maritime incident is acceptable, provided it results in actual total loss, or at least the ship doesn't return to service after repairs or recovery (always with some discretion around the edges for genuinely unusual circumstances). But just some comments on the supplementary list:

• barratry includes many things including theft or wilful damage to cargo, desertion. They vary in significance But I suppose it is only cases where there are convictions that would be considered. What does "attempted barratry" mean?
• there is a hell of a lot of enemy action during a war. For some ships it was daily, weekly, monthly. Even "generally yes" would produce enormously long lists.
• what's the difference between a "very minor grounding" and a "minor grounding" - I doubt whether any RS draw such distinctions.
• same with fires, "generally yes" has no criteria. Davidships (talk) 14:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Article naming Gedania (supply ship)

Hi Folks, I have just started this article. I have noticed this article:List of Empire ships (G). I see it is redlinked to Empire Garden. The last name of the ship was Southern Garden. Should the article be renamed as Southern Garden. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 23:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

If the ship is best known for being the oiler for Bismarck under its original name, then the article should be under that name rather than a later name. However, I'd shorten it to Gedania (ship); no need to go to specifics. Tupsumato (talk) 05:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

But surely Empire Garden should exist as a redirect to Gedania (supply ship) (or the shortened article name), and perhaps also Southern Garden. A general Wikipedia user is unlikely to discover the history of the vessel by looking in the list of Empire ships - you have to know such a list exists before you can readily find it, and probably also know what an "Empire ship" actually is. (Sorry if I am stating the obvious - that is an irritating habit of mine, but sometimes useful.)ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

It also should be called either SS Gedania or MS Gedania depending on propulsion, not just Gedania (ship) or something similar. Please also add a redirect from SS Empire Garden. Crook1 (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no need to enforce prefix-based disambiguation; "ship" is fine. Tupsumato (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

SS Gedania is better both by common practice here and common name used in sources Lyndaship (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

As she was a Kriegsmarine ship, WP:NC-S suggests that German supply ship Gedania would be the better title. Mjroots (talk) 12:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I get the logic of suggesting German supply ship Gedania, but
(1) there do not seem to be any other ships on Wikipedia with that prefix;
(2) How would a normal Wikipedia user manage to find the entry for this vessel, if this article adopted the suggested naming philosophy? For this case, there is a disambiguation page for Gedania, but if that didn't exist, it would not be straightforward to find the article.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Since she was used as an oiler to support Bismarck, it should probably be German tanker Gedania, if we were to go that route. There's German tanker Altmark and German tanker Spichern, among others. But per my comments below, I think the civilian name ought to be used, with a redirect from the "naval" name. Parsecboy (talk) 14:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Disagree with Mjroots. Her career was almost entirely civilian, she was in Kriegsmarine service for a little over a year and I do not believe there was anything notable during that period. We already have way too many ships classified as Navy vessels here just because they carried a Navy ensign for 5 minutes at some point. The article should be called SS Gedania, but the author needs to expand it to include more information about her career.Crook1 (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed - I don't see the naval service as all that significant, which is generally the bar we use (or should be using) when determining what name to use for the article title. Especially considering the very short length of time compared to her overall career length. Parsecboy (talk) 14:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

ThoughtIdRetired - redirects should be created as appropriate from all possible names, with and without prefixes. SS Gedania is also a good title, as suggested by Crook1. Another possibility for a redirect is German tanker Gedania as suggested by Parsecboy.

Another issue is that the article can be significantly expanded from sources such as LLoyd's Register and Convoyweb. Mjroots (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Quick search on Miramar shows there was another vessel named Gedania built in 1879, so the article should probably be called SS Gedania (1919) to be on a safe side.Crook1 (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

fyi: she for ships

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § "She" vs. "it" for ships

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• To elaborate on the notice - this is a discussion about if it should be mandatory to refer to ships as it as opposed to the existing guideline that both she and it are valid usages Lyndaship (talk)

Format for calendar table of contents

Further information: User talk:Frietjes § Shipwreck lists by month

After noticing that dozens of the table of content calendars like the one found in List of shipwrecks in November 1862 had the 1st on the wrong day, I created an automatic {{Calendar ToC}} which generates a very similar ToC but (1) automatically determines the month and year from the article title, (2) automatically determines which days should be linked, and (3) automatically puts the 1st on the correct day of the week. the template supports both a "flat list" format and a "calendar" format (see the examples in template:Calendar ToC). after some initial problems (mostly due to a misplaced nowrap and my complete failure to get feedback, details on my talk page) I am now requesting feedback on the precise format of the section links. in particular,

1. Should there be a link to the references section (seems useful from an WP:ACCESSIBILITY perspective, but I don't have a strong opinion)
2. Where should the link to the "Unknown date" section go? In the old version it was put in the cells at the beginning (see this example) or in the cells at the end (see this example) or in its own row (see this example). the advantage to putting in with the rest of the links is compactness. the advantage always putting it in its own row is consistency, and having the section links appear in the same order as they appear in the article.

thank you for your feedback. Frietjes (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

First and foremost, the undiscussed introduction of this template by Frietjes caused a massive page stretch on each and every one of the monthly shipwreck lists. I had to spend nearly 3 hours this morning restoring the TOCs back to their former state. We need to be sure that the re-introduction of {{Calendar ToC}} is not going to cause such problems in the future.

The positioning of the unknown date link in the various calendars was dictated by that particular calendar. We've managed fine for years without a link to the references section, but I've no objection to its inclusion either. Maybe the best way would be to put them each on a separate line at the bottom of each calendar - unknown date above references, if a uniform appearance is required. Mjroots (talk) 14:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I have created some demonstrations with the unknown date link on it's own line and here is with and without the references link. Frietjes (talk) 15:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

AFD about MS Tor Hollandia

Please consider commenting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MS Tor Hollandia. MS Tor Hollandia is a new article. I would appreciate if persons knowledgeable about sources and notability standards for ships could comment on the _topic_, not just current state of article. --Doncram (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to expand the article now that I have provided a head start. She has had three different names so I'd imagine there is a lot more out there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The excellent Fakta om Fartyg website has a page on the ship. Plenty of material there to expand the article with. It should be noted that there was a 1973 vessel that carried the name Tor Hollandia, so the article should be moved after the AfD has been closed. Mjroots (talk) 03:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you to SHIPS people above, and those who helped at the AFD. I'm afraid i might have put in a wrong photo just now, again, at this point i am really not sure. Of the ship as Ariadne in 1984. I do think i helped at the article, otherwise, but I am backing out now, and i hope it gets all fixed right in the end. Thanks! --Doncram (talk) 02:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Ive just explained about the previous photo on the article talk page and, as I said there, the Ariadne photo looks fine (and I hope that one as Tor Hollandia will also come along soon). If you look at photos in the link in Mjroots' note above you will see that this is the same ship. Hoping that you can add a bit more to this article. Davidships (talk) 03:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I've expanded the article a little. Looks like nominator is prepared to withdraw. AfDs are not always a bad thing, as they can spur article improvement. Mjroots (talk) 07:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Sister ships, Ms. Tree (ship)

Hi. I usually edit on spaceflight-related articles. This particular article is listed under the Spaceflight Wikiproject. The article Ms. Tree (ship), is about a ship that catches payload fairings. Recently a new sister ship "Ms. Chief" (almost the same exact ship) was introduced. We aren't that familiar with how articles should be formatted in the case of sister ships so we though it might be a good idea to ask editors over at this Wikiproject. We have general consensus that are both notable (see talk), but making two separate articles for each ships does not seem to be the best approach. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 03:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps best would be spin-off from the main SpaceX page called something like Support vessels of SpaceX, including all marine vessels involved - parallel to SpaceX launch vehicles. If any sections get too big they can be spun off to a conventional individual ship article. Davidships (talk) 03:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, sounds like a good idea! I guess now its best to move this discussion to the Ms. Tree talk page. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 05:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Flag of convenience - proposed move

There is a discussion at Talk:Flag of convenience#Requested move 3 December 2019 which may be relevant to this project. Davidships (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

New bot to remove completed infobox requests

Hello! I have recently created a bot to remove completed infobox requests and am sending this message to WikiProject Ships since the project currently has a backlogged infobox request category. Details about the task can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 2, but in short it removes all infobox requests from articles with an infobox, once a week. To sign up, reply with {{ping|Trialpears}} and tell me if any special considerations are required for the Wikiproject. For example: if only a specific infobox should be detected, such as {{infobox journal}} for WikiProject Academic Journals; or if an irregularly named infobox such as {{starbox begin}} should be detected. Feel free to ask if you have any questions!

Sent on behalf of Trialpears (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Ship index lists

After the November 2017 discussions on ship lists the consensus was added to WP:SHIPDAB:Discussion at WP:SHIPS in November 2017 resulted in consensus that ships bearing the same name will be disambiguated by way of lists, such as List of ships named Albatross, with naval ships such as HMS Albatross, SMS Albatross, USS Albatross etc redirecting to the list.

It would helpful to specifically include the agreement that these lists are Set Index Articles and to link to the detailed guidance. I suggest we change the text to read "Discussion at WP:SHIPS in November 2017 resulted in consensus that ships bearing the same name will be disambiguated by way of lists, in the form of Set Index Articles, such as..... For editing guidance, see WP:SHIPMOS" Davidships (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Llammakey (talk) 12:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed amendment made.Davidships (talk) 03:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

HMS Terror (I03)

Hi. I am hoping you can help me. HMS Terror (I03) served in the Royal Navy for about 25 years and had several changes in her armament as military technology developed. I've managed to source the key changes and updated the article body but I now see that the infobox is a mess. Its list of armaments contains a strange mix of initial armaments and later replacements. Should the infobox display all the guns in place on the ship at any time, or just those in place at a specific moment (for example, when it was launched, commissioned or destroyed)? Thanks. From Hill To Shore (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Generally, the box should have only the original configuration. If there were major refits, a separate box can be added for the updated specifications (but I wouldn't go overboard with every change in particulars). An example of how to do this is the box for Nevada-class battleship, which has the original configuration, one for the major refit in the 1920s, and one more for Nevada post-Pearl Harbor. Parsecboy (talk) 02:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Article assessment

There are comments at Talk:CSS Shenandoah#Article assessment for anyone interested. Otr500 (talk) 08:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Dover Patrol navbox

Hi. I've tried looking for a list of ships in the Dover Patrol but have not been able to locate one. I've drafted up a new navbox to help navigate between related articles but thought it would be worth getting your views before implementing it on so many articles. The list has been formed from ships named in:

• Dunn, Steve R (2017). Securing the Narrow Sea; The Dover Patrol 1914-1918. Barnsley, UK: Seaforth Publishing. ISBN 9781848322516.

I have linked the list to either our named article or the class article where the ship is listed (rether than redlink). However, there are many ships not included in the list (the book refers to 131 unnamed net drifters, 70 trawlers and 31 "MLs and CMBs" among others). The navbox is currently sitting in my sandbox. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

You might be able to add a few more names using Bacon's book on the Dover Patrol.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

No opinion on the desirability of having the template but I do think linking to the class article rather than having a red link when an article for the individual ship has not been created is problematical. On the one hand it does allow a reader to find out some details about the individual ship but on the other so often when an individual article is created the template is not amended to make a direct link. A red link slots right in providing the article and template both have the correct dab. Lyndaship (talk) 18:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• Some of it's in Buxton's Big Gun Monitors, but should this need to go as far as every destroyer, motor launch and drifter? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Thinking through what you have said, I have the following proposal:

1. I set up a List of ships of the Dover Patrol, which includes all sourced vessels in the patrol. If their name is sourced but we don't have an article, they are included as a redlink (with a corresponding blue link to their class article). If we don't have a source for a name but we have a reference to the number of that type of vessel then I will just add a comment like, "The patrol included at least 70 trawlers. Trawlers that have been named by reliable sources are..."
2. The navbox includes blue links to articles only and no class articles. Ships without articles are excluded until an article is created, with the justification that navboxes are a navigational aid between existing articles, not a list of information.
3. A guidance document is provided with the navbox (with noinclude tags) to direct editors to only add blue link articles to the navbox. The guidance will also encourage editors to add ships without articles to the list instead of the navbox (so long as the names are reliably sourced).
4. One of the entries in the navbox is a link to the list article.

Is this a workable solution or are there other complications that I am overlooking? From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Thinking on this some more, I'd be opposed to adding it to the ship's articles as that would then lead to some editor deciding that the 1st Battle Squadron would deserve the same sort of treatment and we'd end up with a lot of collapsed navboxes at the bottom of the articles which would track their units of assignment throughout their careers. Generally, I'm tracking a ship's history, not the various units that it was assigned to, and I'm indifferent to the other ships that served in the unit because I'd add a link in the body of the article if it was significant to the ship I'm working on.

I do think that it would be useful for the article on the Dover Patrol since I seriously doubt that you'd mention every ship that ever served in it in the article itself as many ships didn't actually have much action while assigned there.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Very good point. Some ships were allocated to certain formations for a matter of hours or days to support in particular battles. If my navbox idea was scaled up to include every Royal Navy formation, that could take up the bulk of the article for ships of limited notability. I'll scrap the navbox and just produce the list, linked from the Dover Patrol article; individual editors can decide whether to link to the article or straight to the list. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Scow or sailing scow?

Our article on the scow defines the type as "a type of flat-bottomed sailboat." It then goes on to give a bunch of examples of such sailboats.

However, if you look at almost any dictionary definition, it defines a scow as a type of barge; usually unpowered, and typically "carrying bulk material in an open hold".[3][4][5] The latter is certainly the definition I come across most often and am most familiar with; I never even heard of a sailing scow until looking at the wikipedia article.

The question then, is, should the article on "scow" be moved to "sailing scow" - which would seem to be the type described in the article? We could then use the "scow" namespace for the barge type. Gatoclass (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Two out of the three dictionaries referenced include sailboats in the definition, as does OED, and they are all watercraft with a common feature of being flat-bottomed. I don't see any advantage in having separate articles, unless an expanded article gets too long. Davidships (talk) 02:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but the article is entirely about sailboats, and even if you added material about the barge type, it would be a relatively tiny addition even though it appears to be the more common usage. So I'm still inclined to the view that this article should be moved to "Sailing scow", and the "scow" namespace used for the barge type, or perhaps as a disambiguation page pointing to the "sailing scow" and barge articles, with info on the scow added to the barge article. Gatoclass (talk) 12:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

This illustrates a bigger problems with the names of things nautical - the tendency for one name to apply to two different things. For example:
Yawl: the rig (2 masts, one stepped abaft the sternpost) – Yawl: the open boat, clinker built, often beach-launched, usually lug-rigged (and definitely not "yawl rigged") (e.g. Norfolk and Sussex beach yawls) – Yawl: decked fishing vessel, originally 2 masted lugger and then ketch rigged in later years (e.g. the Scarborough Yawl)
Cutter: the rig (single mast, 2 or more headsails) – Cutter: the naval ship's boat, next size up from a whaler/whaleboat (so, often 32ft), usually 2 masted dipping lug rigged – Cutter: patrol vessel used by customs/coastguard/etc, may be anything from a cutter-rigged sailing vessel (historic) to a modern diesel-engined ship.
Punt: Flat bottomed leisure craft propelled by a pole – Punt: a general working boat propelled by oar and sail, usually undecked (but Falmouth Quay Punt is the obvious exception).

In every case, how does an article deal with 2 relatively unrelated subjects? Either you somehow fit both into one article, or you have 2 articles with a very clear route to the other article at the start of each. Some thoughts on this might be helpful - I am no fan of absolute style standards, but this seems to be a case where some discussion of how to deal with the problem would help.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Use of the definite article

I've just been over at WP:NC-SHIP. There was a move to ban use of the definite article, no consensus to do that was reached, and yet some unknown has gone ahead anyway and changed the guidelines. Also at some point someone inserted you could call a ship, he. Broichmore (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The page history of WP:NC-SHIP doesn't show any such changes that I can see. Davidships (talk) 11:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. Next time I'm in London I'll investigate what I'm doing wrong. Unfortunately I'm abroad and looking at the site through a letterbox opening which is not helpful. Broichmore (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Image of The Enterprize in the History of Melbourne article, and others

The original is in the collection of the State Library of Victoria, and the title is: Founding of Melbourne / Landing from the Yarra Basin / August 29th 1835 [picture].

• http://handle.slv.vic.gov.au/10381/47936

--Lenore10 (talk) 07:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah. That looks like a very interesting source. I'm not planning to do anything with the Enterprise image but they have some files on other subjects I'm working on. I'll upload the ones I need to Commons. From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I've just tweaked the code on your original post so it doesn't wrap around my own comment. I've also set the file name you included so our Commons version of the image appears as a thumb. I see that the Commons version is of a much lower quality than that available at your link. I'll ask for advice at Commons on the best way to upload a replacement version. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Replacement file now available at File:The Enterprise at the founding of Melbourne, 29 August 1835.jpg if anyone wants to use it. One point to note is that the higher resolution reveals the unknown artist used the "Enterprise" spelling for the ship. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

There's also a later engraving made from this watercolour painting here, perhaps the same 1885 one in Harper's Weekly as referenced in the painting's reference file?

I've added a note re spelling to the Lead at Enterprize (1829). Another point: according to the infobox the article should be at Enterprize (1830), with a redirect from Enterprise (1830), but that launch year is presently sourced to date of original registration - that document will state the date of completion, but not usually of launch (though for sailing vessels of that era they were usually only a few days apart). Davidships (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The 2020 WikiCup is on!

2020 WikiCup

Do you want a fun and exciting Wiki challenge? An opportunity to get involved in some of the most important editing on Wikipedia? A giant shiny cup to display on your userpage? Well then you should join the WikiCup challenge! Folks of all experience levels are welcome to join. It's a good way for veteran editors to test their mettle, and for new users to learn the ropes. The competition revolves around content creation, such as good and featured articles, DYK's, reviewing such content, and more. See Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring for full details. Over the course of the year, users compete to create the most and best content in a round based format. The top performers in each round will advance to the next, until just 8 remain in the final round. Out of those, one Wikipedian will walk away with the coveted silver Wikicup. Could that user be you? Find out by signing up! Signups are open until January 31, 2020. May the editing be ever in your favor! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

FAC that needs attention

Hello all, I have an article at FAC that hasn't had many reviews and may be archived soon as a result. If you could take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ersatz Yorck-class battlecruiser/archive1 and see what needs fixing, I'd very much appreciate it. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

"Leader (icebreaker)" vs. "Project 10510 icebreaker"

Could you kindly give your comments on the name of an obscure icebreaker article here. Tupsumato (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Shipwrecks

I don't watch many ship articles, but I observe at HMS Manly (1804) and 1806 shipwrecks an apparent instance of Mdnavman to declare it had a Shipwreck in 1806. That it was grounded is of little doubt, but I doubt that necessarily amounts to a shipwreck (My guess is White was likely engaged in some clandestine hydrographic survey for nautical charts that the Admiralty might not have cared for others to know about giving the upcoming local political issues). While it was certainly an incident I contend it is not a shipwreck. I will perhaps let others decided if a grounding is a shipwreck; but my feeling I am right especially given nearly sailor I talk to who has navigated Poole Harbour will confirm they have ended up grounded (but by no means shipwrecked). While I case here of The Manly (1804) article and template may be a lack of due diligence there may be a case thee issue is more widespread. While moving the Manly to the 'incidents' section of Template:1806 shipwrecks might be a solution that leads to the issue of the naming of the Template:1806 shipwrecks which is I contend is misleading as on an article it immediately implies description of the ship. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure you have the right user there? From this old edit it looks like Mjroots added it to List of shipwrecks in 1806 in March 2016. I wasn't aware that we placed groundings on those pages but I'm fairly new to this project; there may be some reason that I am unaware of. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah. I see you are refering to this edit by Mdnavman. I'd assume the edit was based on the ship being present on List of shipwrecks in 1806. If the presence on the list article is clarified, the addition of the template to the ship article will likely be resolved as well. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we include groundings in shipwreck lists. Navbox templates for shipwrecks have two section, one for losses and one for other incidents which do not result in a loss. Mjroots (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I've moved the entry for HMS Manly to the incidents section of the template. Mjroots (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

She?

I thought I saw an RfC on the gendered naming of ships recently; in my recollection, there was a consensus to do away with the female pronouns, but I don't know at what stage I saw that RfC, or how it was implemented. What I just saw in the MOS is basically "be consistent". Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

See MOS archive 217 for the RFC (warning, long and tortuous). The result was to leave the MOS alone allowing both "it" and "she", but requiring consistency in any one article. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Martin of Sheffield. I should have just asked you first, over cocktails. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd prefer a real pint of real ale! (ie not those transatlantic 16 oz measures;-) ) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

That was a tough RfC with strong feelings on both sides. If it had passed, I think it might have done serious harm to the project (Ships that is). I am convinced that there are some solid editors who would have walked over it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem's point has a wider relevance in Wikipedia - if the whole community of editors impose something on those who actually do the work in a subject, then such an outcome seems likely. Someone with a greater knowledge than me of how Wikipedia deals with this might want to refer the point on to the appropriate place.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Notability criteria for ships

Although I'm not particularly active on this WikiProject, I have created a number of ship articles, all of them Malta-related. I mainly wrote articles to cover the ship's sinking (eg. SS Sardinia (1888), HMS Nasturtium (1915), HMS Southwold (L10) and MV Star of Malta), while others seemed notable due to the vessels' size and characteristics, as well as the media attention they received when being ordered/built/entering service etc (eg. MV Jean de La Valette and MV Saint John Paul II). I am quite confident that the subjects of all of the above articles are notable, but I couldn't find any guidelines as to what are the notability criteria when I looked through this WikiProject. Are there any established criteria for ships or not?

I am thinking about writing a number of other ship articles, but I am not sure if they would be regarded as notable or not. Examples of articles which I have in mind are:

• SS Gleneagles (1885) (link with specifications) - this was the first Gozo ferry (I think this is notable because of that fact alone)
• MV Angel Gabriel (link) and MV Hephaestus (link) - cargo ships which ran aground in Malta in 1969 and 2018
• MV Maria Dolores (2006 high-speed catamaran, link) and possibly other Virtu Ferries catamarans (plus the Virtu Ferries article itself) - these were the predecessors of the Jean de La Valette and Saint John Paul II

If there are no fixed notability criteria, could any members of this WikiProject provide advice on whether the above articles would be regarded as notable or not please?

Also, are naval ships automatically assumed to be notable? For example, assuming adequate sources are available, would articles about Maltese patrol boats (the larger patrol vessels only, not the RHIBs) be notable?

Thanks in advance! Xwejnusgozo (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Subject to verification by reliable sources, all those vessels you mention should be capable of sustaining articles. As for Gleneagles (Abel Kader), there plenty of information on the pages linked under the heading "electronic access" from here. Mjroots (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:SHIPOUTCOMES Assuming there is enough RS material to establish the ship exists/existed and there is enough sourced material to write an article, ships in the listed categories are almost always accepted as presumptively notable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mjroots and Ad Orientem: Thanks for the replies! When I have time I will go ahead and write the articles. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 12:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)