Talk:Semi-submersible naval vessel

Proposed name change to define scope

I propose renaming this article Semi-submersible vessel, which makes the title more idiomatic in English and better defines the scope to be about semi-submersible boats, as well as ships. It would be about self-propelled vessels that can partially submerge, whether to present a smaller profile for military purposes or to perform a work function, as with a heavy-lift ship. A parallel name-change suggestion is at Semi-submersible to change that title to Semi-submersible rig. See: "Semi-Submersible Ships and Semi-Submersible Rigs: A General Overview". Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 12:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

As already explained in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Surface-underwater ship, I do not think that these two sujects sit well in a common article. The heavy lift function is better where it is - the links can be covered by appropriate hatnotes or 'See also' Davidships (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for checking in here, Davidships. You may have misunderstood. There is no proposal to merge the two articles. Instead, the proposal is to rename this article, Semi-submersible vessel, and the Semi-submersible article, Semi-submersible platform. I hope that this proposal works for you. If not, I would look forward to an alternative that you prefer. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 21:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, you seem to be proposing above the combining of the heavy-lift vessels mentioned with the collection of military-type vessels that this article is about ("It would be about..., whether to .... or to ...."). That is exactly what I am opposed to. As for what this article is called, I have no particular opinions. Perhaps in expanding it the sources used will reveal the most appropriate name; it would be better approached in that wequence. Davidships (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

So, you would be comfortable with Semi-submersible naval vessels, then Davidships? That seems to be what this article is primarily about. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 22:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Very. Pity no other inputs, though. Davidships (talk) 12:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Vyacheslav84 seemed to be comfortable with the initially proposed name change at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Surface-underwater ship. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 12:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

At your discretion. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Scope?

Should this article be confined to those vessels that only partially submerge? For example, isn't the SMX-25 really a submarine, since it was conceived to submerge completely? Submarines of WWI and WW2 also ran on the surface to arrive in theater and then submerged to engage their targets or to elude enemy fire. User:HopsonRoad 01:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Initially, it was planned to describe all the ships that are fighting like surface ships, but can Dive like a submarine. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Vyacheslav84. That would then properly be described in an article about submarines. The "semi-submersible" niche distinguishes it from submarines and surface ships. I have made mention of both in expanding and developing the article. Currently, there is very little on actual semi-submersible military vessels. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 14:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much! It's good that the information was not lost. By the way, submarines with artillery stood out in a separate class, unlike only torpedo or mine submarines? --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Links for incorporation into the article

I'm storing useful links for developing this article here: User:HopsonRoad 22:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Blog: 'Unmasking The Columbia River's Mysterious Stealth Boats" Tyler Rogoway
• Daily Mail: The 'top secret' stealth boats designed for Navy SEALs that are regularly spotted on the Columbia river
• Warboars.org: SEALION II News Articles
• Oregonian: Oregon Iron Works' stealth boat projects draw national attention
• Defense Industry Daily, LLC: US SOCOM’s CCM Fast Boats
• NSW Maritime Mobility BY SCOTT R. GOURLEY - JULY 18, 2014 has US Navy images.
• US Navy: Maritime Surface Systems Brief—Has images.

Daily Mail is currently persona non grata as a reliable source. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning that, GraemeLeggett. That would leave only the Oregonian, among the sources above—the others being blogs. How does one learn which news outlets are regarded as reliable in the Wiki community? Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 21:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Apart from picking it up through experience, I'd start at Reliable Sources and the RS Noticeboard. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

It is necessary in the article?

Seeteufel - It is necessary in the article? --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 11:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be about a semi-submersible vessel. User:HopsonRoad 22:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Question

Can necessary the submarine section be moved to an article about submarines? --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't follow what "Can necessary" means. However, if you look at the Submarine article, I don't see a neat place for transplanting the hybridization of submarines into that article. Some skillful editing with an existing editor of History of submarines might find a home for it there. I wouldn't want it to disappear from here, however. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 13:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

This means an assumption or a proposal, because these ships can completely sink/dive. At your discretion. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for writing back, Vyacheslav84. I gather that you meant, "Perhaps...". I like this material here, even though it's slightly dissonant with the title, since, instead of the vessel being a surface craft, acting like a submarine, it's the opposite—a submarine acting like a surface vessel. I'll add a "See also" at Submarine, linking back here. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 14:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Ок! --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

You could burn all the "hybridization" of submarines, and it wouldn't affect the article. The steam turbines of the K-clas, the guns of the M-class and Surcouf were just natural (if dead end) developments of the submarine and weren't about trying to make a surface ship of them. In the K-class only steam could deliver the power to give surface speed and it was the implementation that was poor - if they had had diesel engines they might have been OK and nothing odd would have been thought. In M-class, something cheaper and more reliable than a torpedo was needed - guns were the answer. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Attempts to give them the quality of surface ships. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand your point, GraemeLeggett, when it comes to what is strictly in scope with this article. However, I feel that the explorations of the envelope of different attributes of submarines is interesting material and the material presented is sort of the mirror image of the subject matter. So, until there's a better place to put it, I'd like to retain the hybridization material here. Technically, mention of Monitor doesn't belong here either, since it's not a semi-submersible. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 18:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)