Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 73

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Archive 76

panama canal crossings

i am trying to rescue Swayne & Hoyt from the misery of mediocrity and given that they traded between the US West Coast and Gulf Coast heavily, it follows that a list of canal crossings is necessary to have. I can work with the official record, but for some reason they (archive.org, google) are not OCR'd properly for all pages that are rotated. not a big thing, OCR is in the hands of the people and if need be that can be handled. i am hoping i can save myself the trouble though.

the other reason i am asking is, i find it hard to find arrival and departure bulletins for ordinary ports (big ports like buenos aires), even for single events where there is no issue with proper quoting. if someone can point me in the right direction there. Nowakki (talk) 07:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

What is that table of departures and arrivals currently in the article meant to represent? Are you intending to list every single arrival and departure or is this some sort of sample to demonstrate the average speed of passage? From Hill To Shore (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

this to show the process of the establishment of the route in detail.

my intention is to add a complete list on a separate page if that is doable without much work, so that the next person does not have to ask the same question i am now forced to inquire upon. and then i intend to conform with all available information access limitations that wikipedia desires to impose on me. Nowakki (talk) 08:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

nobody? Nowakki (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The idea of preparing a page which lists the ports/canal dates for every voyage for a shipping service that lasted 40 years seems entirely outside the scope of WP. And what use would it be for the article, since any conclusions that could be drawn from the data, by any editor, would be inadmissible as Original Research. Davidships (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

and if the list existed in a published work, conclusions drawn from the data would be inadmissible too.

the list would not be redefining the scope of wikipedia, it would just be there as a bonus.

anyway, by answering my original question of sources to work with, you are not giving up your right to remove the list for cause if it appears on wikipedia. Nowakki (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Davidships: do you perhaps know of another place where i can go with this?

i have been looking into this Swayne&Hoyt issue for less than a week, have already found 3 existing wikipedia ship articles that are incorrect, in one case missing a whole decade of service, what i perceive to be a moderately unusual question about THE big canal on the planet is being ignored and people are accusing me left and right of attempting to calculate the speed of ships on the ocean based on arrival and departure dates. have i maybe been flagged by wikipedia: do_not_cooperate? is my user name an offensive word in some foreign language? Nowakki (talk) 08:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Having read what you have written so far I am still none the wiser as to what it is you want or why? NB use of the shift key would help! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

fully digitized, i.e. one step beyond OCR'd pdf, of panama canal records and important ports of the world for the time from 1918 to 1940. Nowakki (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Then that isn't something to be included in Wikipedia. Wikidata is probably a better fit for that sort of thing. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, which summarises information from secondary sources into articles on each topic. List articles are allowed for collecting some forms of material into an organised table but only around a specific theme. Adding multiple data sets (themes) into a single list article (and then using Wikicode to sort and retrieve that data) goes against the core purposes of Wikipedia list articles. If you are wanting to record and retrieve large tables of data then that is one of the purposes of Wikidata. If you are wanting to digitise sources in the public domain, then Wikisource may be a better fit. From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

one step at a time. i just want the records to look through them. i have crappy pdf now and i am looking for splendid csv. Nowakki (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

To your question above, I have nothing to contribute - the only source for such data on ship movements, that I am familiar with, on the British side of the Atlantic would be that published in the daily newspaper Lloyd's List but, good though it is, its reports are probably not comprehensive for American ports/Panama.Davidships (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

well i am asking not you, i am asking the project and again i am met with only low key competence and a cherry on top of getting explained wikipedia policy for the thousandth time. people, who i assumed would be in an elevated position, are really only good at this boilerplate nonsense. Nowakki (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Insulting people while not explaining what it is you actually want is not a good way to proceed. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

i want a wiki project that if it was an intelligence agency would score at least one goal against the FBI Montana field office junior soccer team. if it takes a few insults, then so be it. Nowakki (talk) 10:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I think we are now getting into WP:UNCIVIL territory Lyndaship (talk) 10:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Nowakki, I think what you are looking for is Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. They have access to databases and a place where you can ask for that kind of documentation. That is where you can get access to things like the Miramar Database, and other large databases. Most of the editors here have very specific interests and the OCR document might be a little too wide of a source for any one of us to have. However, those at Wikipedia Library might be able to get you access to it through an institution. Llammakey (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

a good wikiproject is supposed to deliver on these types of requests.

which makes me wonder, how many experts on the topic are even around in here. i am not asking other editors with very specific interests. Nowakki (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

ship launches

List of ship launches in 1918 is being made worse for arbitrary OCD reasons.

The standard layout of these pages is not good to begin with. Nowakki (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you please articulate what you mean by, "made worse for arbitrary OCD reasons?" I can't see any prior discussion on the article's talk page so it is unclear what the specific issue is. From Hill To Shore (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

before https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_ship_launches_in_1918&oldid=1132814663

after List of ship launches in 1918

i am referring to the order of columns and the purging of row coalescing. Nowakki (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Mjroots:, the user who made the edits in question. The first step should have been to talk to them directly. BilCat (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a standard format for lists of ship launches used across the majority of the 330 lists. I'm merely putting non-standard lists into the standard format. A slight variance in date format can be tolerated. With the 1918 list, this includes the removal of bare urls and flagcruft. A major reason that standardisation is good is that it makes editing easier when working from book sources such as Mitchell & Sawyer's The Empire Ships. For the record, I do not have OCD. Mjroots (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

there will be more flags on that page once you are finished. Nowakki (talk) 09:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nowakki: - see WP:FLAGCRUFT. One flag per entry denoting the country of origin is sufficient. Mjroots (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mjroots: stop doing whatever it is you are doing. you have removed the distinction between USSB requisitioned ships, you have removed the tonnage values with just "cargo ship". big failure. Nowakki (talk) 07:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nowakki: - tonnages are not needed in lists of ship launches (or lists of shipwrecks). That sort of information is relevant to ship articles. As for USSB requisitioned ships, entries could state "For [company], but requisitioned by United States Shipping Board." This information was not in the list at the time I reformatted it. Mjroots (talk) 07:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Not needed by whom? I have long thought (but have failed to raise specifically) that bare "cargo ship" or "tanker" without an indication of whether it is 500, 5000 or 50000 tons is a major shortcoming of the shipwreck lists; size is of greater significance than, for example, the multi-level geo-political destination at the time of loss. Davidships (talk) 08:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

USSB requisition and contract is a pertinent distinction for 1918. regardless of whether the original owner is included. think of it as 2 departments of the USSB. which department handled the construction is something you would want to keep in the table. the page is useful as

1. a reference for individual ships

2. to derive statistics (that includes statistics a reader derives on the fly or by el cheapo column sorting). Nowakki (talk) 12:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Uniformity of lists of ship launches

Can we establish a consensus that lists of ship launches should all be of a standard format? I would suggest that the format in use over the majority of lists, as shown by the list of ship launches in 1918 is adopted as the standard. I note that there is some variation in the way dates are handled. I'm not overly worried about this, but if we are to standardise dates, then the format adopted in the list of ship launches in 1942 is a good one. Note that lists split by month are only necessary when there is a size issue, and need not be a requirement for every list. Mjroots (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

yes, that is desirable. but the pages should be generated by a script. at this point in time it would be important that data is entered in a way that all the pages can be parsed without the need for an AI or overcomplicated spaghetti code script. The eventual layout can then be decided later. this does not mean that there has to be a tightly controlled backend or that procedures must be put in place to control access. it just means that useful operations can be performed after spending 30 minutes writing a script and then throwing it away.

It would be easy to write a script that can handle the 1942 list as-is and the 1918 list as it was. it's also easy to remove tonnage figures automatically, but it is impossible to add them automatically. Nowakki (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The 1918 list seems grossly over-linked in blue and red. I doubt whether it is necessary to link any of the country names. And why does (almost) every ship that doesn't already have article have to be red-linked, and in bold - a large number of ships on this table can never meet WP:GNG for the simple reason that nothing ever happened to them, except that they were launched and broken up. It would still be helpful, I think, for an indication of size to be included alongside the ship type (where there is no link to a specific ship-class article). Davidships (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Linking of country names - the United Kingdom is different to today's United Kingdom. Germany isn't the same as today's Germany. There are plenty of other examples. As for the ships, until one researches them, whether or not GNG can be met cannot be known. Some plain cargo ships turn out to have really interesting histories. Mjroots (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mjroots: the information you removed got to go back in. Unless you show me that a standard was established that explicitly stated that wikipedia is supposed to be a dumbed down archive of ship launches. Blind adherence to a standard that was not designed with foresight is no argument at all. Nowakki (talk) 11:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nowakki: - I refer you to my comment of 07:52, 25 January 2023 above. If you want to add that information, I have no objection. My main objection was the non-standard format of the list. Mjroots (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mjroots: you removed it, it's your responsibility to put it back. Nowakki (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Just going to pipe in here, that per WP:BRD no consensus has been reached for the re-integration of your format Nowakki, just your info. You and Mjroots both agree that your info is acceptable, not the way you structured it. So until you can get some support for your article design, your edits cannot be reverted wholesale. You can go back in and add your info to what was until you arrived, a stable page or like I said, seek support for article design. Llammakey (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

it's his mess, he has to clean it up. i spoke to him when he was in the middle of doing it and he kept on going.

the edits can be reverted. and he can take another crack at it.

1. i was there first. rollback starts at the end

2. what's more important? information or format? Nowakki (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

No it's your mess. There was an accepted format for these list articles established long ago. You chose to change it without discussion on the few you edited. Your info was good and has mostly been retained but your format was awful. Please change the other ones you edited to the standard format Lyndaship (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, I've marked all vessels that were requisitioned by the USSB, to differentiate from those ordered by the USSB. Mjroots (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

the tonnage figures... somehow there should be a way to compare the table to the statistics below the table so that one can know how complete the list is.

as for the 1919 list, that page was generated by a perl script. I can trivially change anything about it. Nowakki (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Tonnage figures have not gained consensus yet. I'm leaning oppose, but if they are to be included then I think that they should be under the ship's name, using <br> to force a line break. Mjroots (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

where was a consensus reached for the changer to the owner column? Nowakki (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

What change to the owner column? The "Notes" column is where who the ship was built for is mentioned. Mjroots (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Lyndaship: looking at the density of entries i was under the impression that they are toy lists that nobody cares much about.

The standard format is bad. If you get behind this, that's on you. "Cargo ship" seems like a good idea to you? wood or steel? coal or oil? sail or steam or diesel? we are in the 21st century and can search millions of books in milliseconds with hundreds of busy beavers working for free. i think we can do better than to dumb down a list made in 1918.

There is a problem, but my actions only uncovered it. Nowakki (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Lyndaship: not only is the list much more useless now, but you are also forcing somebody going through crappy pdfs to feel like you do not value their time. if you work with a source, you will want to try to extract as much useful information from it in one go. it's just a matter of efficiency. and it leads to the recognition of conflicting claims sooner, and so they can be resolved sooner. Nowakki (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nowakki: Reading through the discussion here, you want to insert a large amount of data to improve the value of entries. To me, that sounds like a perfect case for using Wikidata. If the current consensus remains that the Wikipedia list articles aren't the right place for this information, then import it into Wikidata instead. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

List of ship launches in 1919 is terrible. This format concentrates on USSB to the exclusion of everything else, and emphasises US geographical details over other nationalities. These lists are meant to be worldwide, and not just cover the US, and the format of all lists should not be dictated by things like wartime shipbuilding programmes which will only occur for a few years. In addition, for civil mass production types, classes/types are mysteriously hidden behind Easter eggs - why hide Design 1014 ship behind jargon like "7,500 dwt steel cargo" while not doing the same for Wickes-class destroyer. If there is consensus for additional information, then it should be shown separately than the class, and there needs to be consistency and consensus about what fields are shown - Tonnage? If so which tonnage? Displacement? Dimensions? There isn't room for the lists to include every piece of data, so we shouldn't be including things without consensus.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nigel Ish: this was the list before Nowakki edited it. Apart from the flagcruft in the operator column, there wasn't much wrong with it. Yes, it was non-standard, but an easy fix at the time. Mjroots (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

well i thought these lists were abandoned. if people care so much about them, why are they in such bad shape. Nowakki (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

It is conjecture that the versions you first edited were in "bad shape." Just because a page doesn't conform to your ideal doesn't mean that the consensus of editors will agree. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

it is what i conjectured at the time. Nowakki (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

btw, steel/wood and tonnage specification of one form or another is consensus in all the sources i work with. hardly ever will you find somebody write just "cargo", whether it is a list or just the mention of a ship in a piece of prose.

Wickes could be written as 1200 tonner. those are all minor differences. i fail to see how such a minor deviation makes a thing terrible and i fail to see why petty compliance with a certain consistency is obviously a good thing. Nowakki (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Nowakki - you do realise that the 1919 list will need to be reformatted similar to the 1918 list, don't you? Mjroots (talk) 08:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

i realize that you would probably borg drone your way through it if necessary. there is no urgency. give me a few days to schedule it for myself, i will let you know when it's done. Nowakki (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll continue working from Mitchell & Sawyer. If I need to add to the 1919 list from that source, then I'll reconfigure it. Otherwise am happy for you to do it. Mjroots (talk) 07:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

After three days of "borg droning", the 1919 list has been bashed into shape. Mjroots (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

I was coming here to ask for a second pair of eyes on List of ship launches in 2023, when I noticed this ongoing discussion. Given that I don't really have any competence in this area, I'll just note that I was struck by what appeared to be a near-complete lack of a selection criteria: This is a chronological list of some ships launched in 2023. seems way too vague. -Ljleppan (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ljleppan: It's a chronological list (i.e. Jan-Dec) of some ships (i.e. it doesn't claim to cover every ship). Seems straightforward enough to me. Mjroots (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mjroots: The part where it says some is the problem. Which some? Per WP:LISTCRITERIA: Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources.. A vague some is pretty much as far as one can be from unambiguous and objective. Note also that Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence. For example, [..] List of Norwegian musicians would not be encyclopedically useful if it indiscriminately included every garage band mentioned in a local Norwegian newspaper. One easy fix would be to change the selection criteria to e.g. ...a chronological list of ships launched in 2023 notable enough for Wikipedia articles. per the example at List of Norwegian musicians. Or maybe you could come up with some criteria based on size/tonnage. Whatever the criteria, it should be unambiguous whether some ship belongs in the list or not. Ljleppan (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

In theory, all ships are eligible for inclusion. In practice, this is not possible. Ships not notable enough for stand-alone articles are eligible for inclusion in lists of ship launches. Mjroots (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd imagine that type of list would often clash with the size guidance in WP:CSC's third point:

Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers. The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources. For example, Listed buildings in Rivington. If reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten notable buildings and two non-notable buildings, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable buildings. However, if a complete list would include hundreds or thousands of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list.

E.g. List of ship launches in 1943 (which uses the same vague some has a cool 63K of wikitext. Ljleppan (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ljleppan: My earlier post obviously wasn't clear. I'll spell it out. Taking the 1943 list as an example. "Some" is used because it is impossible to document every ship launched. With the 1943 list, particular difficulty will be experienced with the Soviet Union, Empire of Japan, the Repulic of China to name but three. Add in Africa, the rest of Asia, South America and the rest of the world and you see the problem. This is why we say "some" ships, not to mean that only (wiki)notable ships are included, but that it is not possible to list "all" ships. Mjroots (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not following how that addresses my concerns w/r/t the use of some in this way being explicitly against the WP:LISTCRITERIA guideline (and WP:CSC, even if that is not an exclusive list). Ljleppan (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ljleppan: I've been thinking long and hard about this one. The answer is that guidelines may not cover every possible situation. As it's only a guideline, it may be ignored if there is good reason to ignore it, such as the case here. Mjroots (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Mjroots: and what is the good reason to ignore the guideline, beyond that it's the way you'd like to do it? Ljleppan (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

correcting upstream sources

I know it's against general orders to do too much research, but it cannot be helped and inaccuracies start piling up in what are ordinarily considered to be sources of information to wikipedia.

As a general example, if one looks at the propulsion section of ships on navsource.org chances are pretty good that it's not correct or missing almost any amount of detail. Since navsource does not provide inline citations, a dispute resolution is not easy to accomplish without getting in contact with them, which would be inefficient.

Shouldn't wikipedia, or this project in particular, publish a page listing those inaccuracies as a starting point for them to correct their records at their own pace or a basis for dispute resolution? Nowakki (talk) 08:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

No. That is not the job of an encyclopaedia. Try suggesting it to navsource. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

what i am asking to do for my country: add to the list.

what i am asking my country to do for me: set up the list. Nowakki (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

As Murgatroyd49 said, this is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. Here’s a suggestion: if you come up with an idea, imagine picking up a copy of Britannica and thinking if you’d ever see it there. If not, then it probably doesn’t belong here either.

I have, however, occasionally contacted the NHHC to have errors in their DANFS entries corrected, to positive results. So if you find an error in an online resource, feel free to contact them to have it corrected. Parsecboy (talk) 11:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

i can imagine the encyclopedia britannica hosting a secret web service where they are so kind as to list the errors they have found in other people's work instead of just sitting on it, confident that humanity will eventually get 20th century history right in the 22nd century, with even more computers and larger hordes of tireless fact-checking encyclopedia editors.

anyway, i am not going to bother unless it gets streamlined. wikipedia does not like win-win scenarios. i am not surprised. Nowakki (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, I guess you'll be sadly mistaken if you ever pick up a volume of Britannica.

Here's the thing you seem to fundamentally misunderstand. Wikipedia articles are digital versions of the articles in a copy of Britannica. Nothing more. We are not your WP:WEBHOST for whatever pet project you have. If you want to compile a list of errors somewhere, feel free to register a domain somewhere and start writing. There are plenty of hobbyist sites out there that run all kinds of projects like that. But none of them belong here. We are here to build an encyclopedia, that is all. Parsecboy (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

i don't think you get my point.

if wikipedia blacklists an external source for whatever reason, then it is still an encyclopedia.

if wikipedia blacklists certain navsource URLs or particular claims on a navsource page, it is still an encyclopedia.

if wikipedia did this, navsource would be interested to obtain a copy of that blacklist (presumably). Nowakki (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Blacklisting sources is not what you proposed. We also already have a process to do that. If there's a particular source you want to have blacklisted, that is also something you are free to do so. But we aren't going to compile a list of errors on other websites because, again, that is not our purpose. Parsecboy (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

it's also not our purpose to blacklist sources and evaluate their fitness, but it still happens as a side effect.

clearly you are not sharing the vision here. if wikipedia cannot deliver on the tools, then i don't care about errors elsewhere. the problem remains unsolved. Nowakki (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: if you want i can make the German battleship Bismarck article look more like what i see when i open the Encyclopedia Britannica. Nowakki (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for once again proving my point that you fundamentally misunderstand what an encyclopedia is. Why, exactly, are you here? Parsecboy (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

i just proved that point? I am dangerously close to ignoring you for good if you don't stop with the cryptic nonsense. Nowakki (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes; you (presumably) threatened to cut an article to the length of the Britannica entry, without realizing why our article is the length it is compared to Britannica's. Or why that threat completely misses the point of what we're talking about here.

To be less cryptic, we were discussing what type of content is appropriate for an encyclopedia, out of nowhere, you bring up article length, as if that is in any way relevant. It's not. Britannica's articles are short because of the legacy of having been a print medium; and even though the articles have since been digitized, Britannica doesn't have the manpower to write more thorough articles like ours. We do. But the fundamental purpose of the articles is the same, as is their construction. That is why I brought up Britannica. You will never find a list of errors found in other sources there, which is why you will never find one here. Parsecboy (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

you are obviously right. what i said was out of place.

back on track: your argument is still not a good one. britannica could have compiled such errata as a side project.

what happens when you find an error in a upstream source. you go to a forum such as this one and ask a question. maintaining a list of factual errors on navsource in project space is not inappropriate for wikipedia, just like it is not inappropriate to ask a question about a factual error on navsource in this forum. Nowakki (talk) 05:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

You are missing the point. A list of source errors is something that Britannica had absolutely no interest in publishing, not least because it would cost them money, but more importantly, its audience doesn't give a hoot about such a list. Britannica articles are summaries of the knowledge available to its authors, not places to argue or even discuss issues with the topic. At most you might get something like "scholars disagree about X and Y" or "there are two major theories about X and evidence is lacking to decide which is better". The audience that Britannica is aimed at doesn't care that reanalysis of artifacts from site Z have proven that A's theory about trade links in the Paleolithic are unsupportable because Y; they're only interested in a high-level summary of the topic, not the disputes between specialists.

All that said, nobody cares what you do with your sandbox pages; feel free to populate it with whatever you care about. But people do care about what goes in article space and we have rules about what is and isn't appropriate that you seem to have trouble grasping. And a compilation of mistakes in sources is not something appropriate in an article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

the whole idea of that being in article space is something you manifested yourself.

anyway, i though it was a good idea to do something useful in a collaborative manner and increase the prestige of wikipedia while at it.

thought others might feel the same. Nowakki (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Renaming Brazilian ship to Danish ship

Hello,

After much thought, I think the article Brazilian research ship Barão de Teffé should be renamed to "MV Thala Dan" for the following reasons:

• it was the name originally given to the ship;
• the ship has serviced more years under Danish flag (25 years) than under Brazilian flag (20 years);
• under Danish flag, the ship gave the first part of its name (Thala) to several physical features in Eastern Antarctica: Thala Rock, Thala Island, and Thala Hills;
• as Thala Dan, the ship was celebrated by 2 stamps issued by the French Southern and Antarctic Lands and by the Australian Antarctic Territory.

I thought it was better to enquire here if my opinion is also yours before proceeding to any renaming. Thanks for your advice. Pepys (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Support change - after reading the article, I agree with the OP. - wolf 22:06, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

No objection. It is a reasonable, though not overwhelming, case (but only wins the WP:stamp collectors !vote by 2-to-1). No need for a ship prefix, and please move the content back into Thala Dan, where it came from in a merge, to preserve the page histories. Davidships (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

please move the content back into Thala Dan, where it came from in a merge, to preserve the page histories: to do that, can I simply copy the whole text in Brazilian research ship Barão de Teffé to the Thala Dan page, and redirect Brazilian research ship Barão de Teffé to Thala Dan? But then, should I add an "R from merge" template to the #REDIRECT line?

(Of course, I will modify consequently the lead section once the text is transferred.) Pepys (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

No, WP:CUTPASTE moves are not acceptable, since it separates the article content from the page history (which is how crediting authors is achieved, a requirement of the CC/GDFL licenses Wikipedia uses). You have to use the "Move" button at the top of the page.

On the subject of the article title itself, I see around 1100 hits for ship "Barao de Teffe" and a little more than double that for ship "Thala Dan", which also suggests the latter is the better choice. Parsecboy (talk) 13:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Bringing notice to ship RfD. - from January

Please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 26#Landing platform vessel. It's been relisted 3 times now and could definitely use some input from some of the regulars here. Cheers - wolf 21:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Query for Commons

Can anyone help out with narrowing down what we have here? Hoping to sort out:

• Identity of ferry in the foreground
• At least the nature of the ships in the background
• Date (which is currently "between 1921 and 1966", the years that the Astoria-Megler ferry service existed.

Jmabel | Talk 00:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

https://evergreenfleet.com/oregon-ferries/

"Tourist No. 3" looks like a bingo. Nowakki (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I would hazzard a guess at WW2 era, the three ships closest in the background look like small escort vessels, corvettes or similar. The one to the left of the ferry carries the pennant number 712 which is possibly a submarine chaser built by Fisher of Detroit. A memeber of the SC 110 ft class they were delivered from 1943 onwards. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

It looks more like pennant number 212 to me. The "7" is shaped like the third number and you can see some of the white bottom line that is partially obscured by something. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The "212"/"712" ship looks like a Landing Ship Medium to me. The ship to the immediate right of the ferry appears to be a PC-461-class submarine chaser.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the pennant number being 212. Either way the photo is almost certainly taken around 1943-45. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:59, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

This could be post-war. If it was LSM-212, it was decommissioned in 1946 and placed in the reserve fleet. It was sold in 1959 and broken up in 1963.[1] One of the United States Navy reserve fleets was on the Columbia River and the image above is at Astoria near the mouth of the river. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

They do seem to be moored well away from shore - does this match with ships laid up in reserve?Nigel Ish (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

All the photos I've seen of US reserve fleets show the vessels tied up alongside each other in rows. The two presumed sub-chasers to the right are flying flags from the jack staffs and the right hand one might be flying an ensign from the stern, suggesting they may be still in commission.

At least it narrows down the date of the photo to 1944-59 Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I have copies of Christian postcards 322 (Nelscott, OR) and 412 (Seaside, OR), which were presumably photographed within the same timeframe. Both include mostly pre-war automobilve, but at least one 1946/1947 model-year in each (most companies made minimal changes between the two years, so it's hard to distinguish). With that information, I would assume the photo was taken in 1946. Fairlane221 (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Looking for input from the community...

...regardind the renaming of USS Chancellorsville (CG-62) to USS Robert Smalls. The new name was just announced last week, but the Navy indicated it may take some time to make the change, as a the ship is currently in Japan. Not clear if they meant physically, as in re-painting the stern of the ship, or if they meant by way of fanfare, eg: having some sort of ceremoney, or officially, which already seems to have occurred, if you go by CG-62's entry in the Naval Vessel Register. Or all of the above, some or none.

Due to the change in the NVR, I made some edits to to the article to reflect the new name, but some have questioned if more should be done, and if so... what? One editor suggested just moving the article to the new name, but there are some potential issues with that, as the ship under the original name has some 35+ years of service, but since the change to the NVR (1 March), nothing noteworthy involving the ship appears to have occurred. There is also a potential wp:commonname issue. We could look at other ships that have had their names changed, ships with WP articles of course, and changes within the past 20 years. Some ships that come to mind are HMS Ocean (L12) (which is now Atlântico), and MV Astoria, to name a couple. If anyone can add more ships with name-changes under the circumstances noted above, or can suggest any policies or guidelines that apply, or related RfCs with a consensus, or if you just have a suggestion, please contribute. Thanks - wolf 04:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

As the Naval Vessel Register has been changed on 1 March to the new name [2], the renaming has officially happened and the article needs to be renamed now. --GDK (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

NB - The other ship being renamed for the same reason, USNS Maury (T-AGS-66), has already been boldly moved without discussion (and, in my opinion, clumsily edited). Davidships (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I I would argue that a new article only makes sense when the ship is decommissioned and transferred to another nation. So when the HMS Ocean was sold to Brazil, the British decommed the ship before the sale. It ceased being a British warship.

In the case of the Robert Smalls, the ship remained in active service with the US Navy. The commissioning pennant never came down (this only happens during a Change of Command or a decomm). So I do not believe a new article is warranted, simply a name change. Not to draw too crass of a comparison, but we don't have a 2nd article for Elliot Page after his transition. Same ship. Same crew. Same missions. All that changed was the name. 216.24.45.9 (talk) 12:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Leave the name of the article alone as the ship has spent almost all of its considerable life under the original name. Changing names within the same navy isn't a big deal as changing navies. Just make sure that there's a redirect from USS Robert Smalls.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned above, USNS Maury (T-AGS-66) was boldly moved to the newly announced name of Marie Tharp. But unlike Chancellorsville, this name change hasn't been made to the NVR entry as of yet. I've restored the name for now, as a contestd move if anything. But also as mentioned above, the page was poorly edited and is in need of some copy/editing. Also, I think we should have a central discussion here for both ships, as they are nearly identical situations, in need of likely identical resolutions, and it would be good if we could have a consensus for these resolutions. (JMHO) - wolf 13:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Non-military comment: With the number of Confederate statues being taken down I think this may be the USS "change it quick what's the next name on the list?" Sammy D III (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

There is only the two ships, Chancellorsville/Robert Smalls and Maury/Marie Tharp. At issue is how to go about addressing these changes. As Sturmvogel pointed out here, (and somewhat in line with already mentioned wp:commonname), a the cruiser CG-62 has only been known as Chancellorville for over 35 years, and will only be known as Robert Smalls for 2 or 3 years. All of her sourced history has been under the original name. In fact, the only mention the new name has had in sources is the name change. How do we suddenly just change the page name under those circumstances? I don't know if we can, or should, but I do know that other options are available. We can redirect the new name to the page. We can create dual careers in the infobox. We can clearly note the name change in the lead and the proper chronological section of the history. We can then start building the history from that point as sourced info about the ship comes available (deployments, base reassignmemts, incidents, etc.). The new name can be easily found and clearly documemted. Or, we can create a separate article. Both have been done before. - wolf 14:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Why a separate article? There is only a name change, no change in mission or owner. Other (civilian) ships are always listed under the current actual name: e.g. MV_Astoria, which is the current name of the Stockholm best known for her part on the Andrea Doria disaster. --GDK (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but "always" is not true, nor should it be - see Exxon Valdez, Aegean Goddess for example - and it was discussed in general just a month ago at right here. But I agree strongly that there is no case at all for splitting into separate articles, which would be distinctly unhelpful to readers - that's what the seamless application of redirects is for. Davidships (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:NAMECHANGES, specifically: "If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match." DOD-related sources will obviously use the new name, which is where most coverage of the vessel will happen for the remainder of its life (barring involvement in an incident of one sort or another), so it seems to be a safe bet that we should re-title the articles with their new names and divide the service history section as in the Moskva/Slava example. Parsecboy (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Just pointing out that (as I'm sure you well know) sometimes years go by (if not entire careers) between sourced events being added to the histories of some of these ships. And even if a new event occurs and the new name is used, more often than not the source will at some point mention the old name as well... and so kicks-in wp:commonname, another equally relevant wiki-policy. I'm just saying that with that in mind, we should at least consider other possibilities. - wolf 15:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

No it doesn't; COMMONNAME only kicks in if sources refuse to use Robert Smalls and only refer to the ship as Chancellorsville; that's the point of COMMONNAME (and why we kept Myanmar at Burma for as long as we did). A source simply mentioning that Robert Smalls was previously Chancellorsville is completely irrelevant to what we name the article. Parsecboy (talk) 10:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Where in commonname does it say that? - wolf 23:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Say what, that a source mentioning the old name in passing doesn't count toward determining the COMMONNAME? Why do you think the policy would need to spell that out for us? Parsecboy (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Concerning USNS Maury/Marie Tharp: The US Navy press release clearly states: "... announced that the Pathfinder-class oceanographic survey ship formerly named USNS Maury (T-AGS 66) has been renamed USNS Marie Tharp (T-AGS 66)." Why should there be any doubt? While the wording of the press release on the Chancellorsville renaming was not entirely clear, this press release on the Maury renaming leaves no doubt. --GDK (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, the announcement for Chancellorsville said the Navy didn't know when the actual change would happen, and yet they changed it in the NVR that very same day. The announcememt for Maury says the change has already taken place, and yet the NVR remains as it was. But this isn't a debate about whether or not these ship names will be changed... we know they will be. This is just a dicussion on what to do with the ship articles, as similar situations have been handled differently in the past. I'm sure once we have a consensus on a way forward, all the appropriate changes and updates will be made to all the relevant articles. - wolf 15:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Both articles should be changed to the new names in accordance with WP:NAMECHANGES without any further delay. We're 10 days overdue for CG-62 and a couple of days for T-AGS-66. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I would think that a required move is the best way to go about this to obtain consensus - as there are commonname issues associated with the ships' careers under their old names - particularly for Chancellorville where the career under the old name is likely to be far, far longer than under the new name.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:NAMECHANGES overrides such objections. The names should be changed, forthwith. Redirects will of course cover the previous names. I simply do not understand why people are objecting when the correct names now are so clear and obvious. We have acres and acres of precedent for listing older ship names, sometimes several times, in infoboxes, and text is much easier than infoboxes. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:NAMECHANGES doesn't automatically overide the above objections. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain that? Parsecboy (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

If you read it, there are a number of caveats that could be applied. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and what specifically is your argument? Vaguely waving at a policy does not prove a point. Parsecboy (talk) 11:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

(>cough cough< sorry, must caught a bit of dust, please do go on...) - wolf 23:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, yes, your old habit of making personal attacks. If you keep this up, we'll head to ANI. Parsecboy (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Just a small, lighthearted post. I'm sorry you felt attacked. I'll strike it out. Have a nice day. - wolf 00:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment on the content, not the contributor. Why is that so hard for you to understand? And the “I’m sorry you were offended” is a non-apology I will not accept. Parsecboy (talk) 01:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The caverts do not apply here, as Parsecboy has well explained: NAMECHANGES says "If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match." Parsecboy addressed any concern about any caveats by pointing out "DOD-related sources will obviously use the new name, which is where most coverage of the vessel will happen for the remainder of its life.." Everything else flows from those DOD sources! I do not understand the reluctance here.

Can you specifically explain your reservations Murgatroyd49, whether stemming from NAMECHANGES or other issues? Buckshot06 (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

How can we go by "what has been written in sources about these ships since the name change(s) were announced" if they were just announced in the past few days? Has anything even been written about either of them, since their respective name change announcements? (That isn't about their name changes?) - wolf 23:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

• You all can wikilawyer all you want, cite all the policies and guidelines you need to. The Navy renamed the ships to erase promotion of Confederates. Any attempts to defend these old names reads to me as racist. The right thing to do is to update the page names. The official names online have been changed. What are you waiting on? Standard practice is, when a building, city, country, or even a ship is renamed, we'll follow suit. ɱ (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
  • "You all can wikilawyer all you want, cite all the policies and guidelines you need to. The Navy renamed the ships to erase promotion of Confederates. Any attempts to defend these old names reads to me as racist. The right thing to do is to update the page names. The official names online have been changed. What are you waiting on? Standard practice is, when a building, city, country, or even a ship is renamed, we'll follow suit." User:Ɱ Endorsed. Heartily endorsed. What are we waiting for? Buckshot06 (talk) 03:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
• I've moved the article. WP:NAMECHANGES is the relevant policy section for this case, as it speaks directly to this scenario, and it's extremely clear on what's supposed to happen. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

And I had come here to suggest that perhaps an RfC would be the best way to go. - wolf 05:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The guideline seems to quite clearly support moving the article to the ship's new name. Nick-D (talk) 05:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Someome memtioned wp:namechanges earlier and when asked for clarification, we were given an answer that fails wp:crystal. If Ed17 had said during this obviously still active discussion on the issue (and not after the move), that they also believe wp:namechange applies, then someone could've asked him to clarify as well. Instead, he decided to arbitrarily take it upon himself to change an obviously controversial and contested name, instead of allowing this community process to continue, or make use of other processes such as RM or RfC. But I guess whatever we "racists" might have to say doesn't matter... - wolf 05:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I mean, WP:BURO, so feel free to take it to a RfC. I was acting on a clear policy, not an essay or even a guideline, and so I would be extremely surprised if an RfC ended in a consensus in favor of reversing the move. (Unrelated: That's the first time WP:CRYSTAL has been raised in this discussion. What specific numbered provision there covers this situation? I'm not seeing one?) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Now you're looking to discuss? You already moved it, why weren't you taking part in the discussion then? Or at least waiting for a conclusion? - wolf 06:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be support for this change in the discussion above. Nick-D (talk) 06:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

As everybody who disagrees with immediate undiscussed changes is being accused of being a racist then there is no point in discussion. Anywhere. If editors are calling other editors racists then they need to take it to ANI or Arbcom. This is not acceptable.Nigel Ish (talk) 06:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Only a single editor has made such a claim, so that's rather over the top. I agree this kind of language is not helpful. Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually two editors - the one who originally raised it and the one who heartily endorsed it.Nigel Ish (talk) 07:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (×2) Not to memtion the chilling effect being openly called a "racist" could have on participation from anyone other than those pushing with the general attitude of: "just move the page now, no discussion needed!". I wish Nick-D took that into consideration when he said: "There seems to be support for this change in the discussion above.". - wolf 07:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

One editor claiming that any who disagrees with their own point of view is a racist is one too many. BilCat (talk) 07:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I went a little too far, I think. Try "Any attempt to repeatedly defend maintaining the old name risks accusations of racism." That probably sums up my thinking better rather than my above wholehearted endorsement of MJ's statement [and if anyone can copy in that letter for me, please, help me out!!] [partially copied over from my talkpage]. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Notice that the article has not just been renamed but also rewritten to remove mention of the original name from the history section, even for actions that took place before the ship was renamed. Is Damnatio memoriae now how we must deal with ship renamings? If so, how does that effect Wikipedia's claim to be an encyclopedia?Nigel Ish (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Everything that the ship does after it was renamed should be with the new name. Conversely everything the ship did before it was renamed should use the old name. This isn't WP:DEADNAME, people! I've rewritten the lede and the infobox to clarify things a little and to minimize any naming confusion. I think that there is at least one misplaced Robert Smalls in the main body, but I'll let somebody else clean that up.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Progress

Okay, nice to see consensus on the USS Robert Smalls article. The RM to reverse the move seems doomed to fail. Is there any obstacle or objection to moving USNS Maury (T-AGS-66) -> USNS Marie Tharp? ɱ (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC) I suppose the Naval Register still needs to be updated. ɱ (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

If you want consensus then you should withdraw your personal attacks and accusations of racism.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Neither of those claims are accurate. I was stating how certain comments read to me. Nevertheless, this is off-topic from my comment above. ɱ (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Is there any problem on waiting for some word of an official renaming ceremony, or the NVR? Newly named Marie Tharp is on operations in the PG/IO right now.. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Why even bother with this discussion? People here are being called racists just for taking part while others aren't even bothering with discussion, or consensus, etc., they're just summarily renaming articles, and then completely re-writing them, as unsourced, deliberately false and confusing messes. That is until a half dozen other editors had to step in, get them to stop, and then have to clean up after them. What a farce. - wolf 04:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

NVR now says USNS MARIE THARP (T-AGS 66) (ex-MAURY). --Dual Freq (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

barkentine

i was about to add a few ships in the 1900 to 1910 range to the list of ship launches.

some of those were four-masted barkentines. since they were used as cargo ships, i feel compelled to add them as "cargo ship".

i just want to know the policy. Nowakki (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd just list them as "barquentine", using the modern spelling. Mjroots (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Only modern if in British English, but I haven't checked whether an MOS:ENGVAR is established there. Either would be preferable to the (to my ears quaint) "merchantman" used in some of the earlier lists.Davidships (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Ship identification needed

Can anyone identify this ship, scuttled at Marseille in August 1944, please? Mjroots (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

According to this page, it's the SS Cap Corse. If so this page says it diplaced 2,444 tons, was launched in 1929, and "1944 scuttled at Marseille and scrapped in situ". Alansplodge (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Alansplodge. She's not listed in Jordan. Have added an entry to the list of shipwrecks in August 1944. Mjroots (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Found actual date, so moved and tweaked as 125 pax/1400 dwt. Alansplodge - just a heads-up that that tonnage is not displacement, but Gross register tonnage, the usual merchant ship measure. Davidships (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

That explains the absence from Jordan, which only covers vessels in excess of 2,000 GRT. Mjroots (talk) 04:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Jordan, which covers vessels over 2,000 GRT, seems to have missed that one. Mjroots (talk) 09:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Request - Chatham Islands - name

Any help welcome thank you. I thought this might be the place to ask. The Chatham Islands were named after what? - the brig HMS Chatham (1788) or Lord Chatham (Pitt the Elder) or something else. I cannot find anything except sources that copy wiki articles. What sources there are give both options. I was hoping someone here might know or know where to find out. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

It's a mess. WP has different versions in various articles. Apart from Broughton's own statement that he named Chatham Island after "the Earl of Chatham" p.142 of the archived version, (without specifying which one), there is a lack of academic referencing. I've commented at Talk:Chatham Islands and asked for help at Talk:Vancouver Expedition. Davidships (talk) 11:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I always understood them to be named after Broughton's ship HMS Chatham which in turn was named after the Earl. Sources mainly agree they were name after the ship [[3]] p.77, [[4]] p.30, [[5]] p.40, [[6]] p104. But the occasional source says they were named after the Earl [[7]] p.78. --Ykraps (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Nothing there that helps, except possibly Skinner (it's hidden from me, so what does he actually say?). Bowes (a handbook for Victorian primary schoolteachers), Akrigg (who may well be right, but only about the Chatham Islands in British Columbia), Goff (just a passing statement), Blake (another 1890s schoolteachers primer) are worthless here. I doubt (but do not exclude) that the ship was named after either of the earls - it was the navy's seventh of the name, starting in the 1666. Davidships (talk) 01:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, it serves to show that sources are at odds. This one [[8]] p.228 says "Broughton renamed the Moriori island of Rekohu after his ship, the HMS Chatham, which was named for William Pitt, the first earl of Chatham, and the Moriori island of Rangiaotea became Pitt Island". But I agree with you; British ship names were selected by the Admiralty from a list of those available for that class so strictly speaking, Broughton's Chatham was named after the previous Chatham and not an earl at all. In any event, if this is just about the article, I suggest giving both explanations and adding a footnote with sources. --Ykraps (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd suggest if it was after "the Earl", it was more likely to be the second Earl - John Pitt, 2nd Earl of Chatham - than the first, his father. He was the First Lord of the Admiralty in his brother's cabinet 1788-1794; Broughton mentions his involvement in passing in the introduction to his memoir of the voyage. His naval connection makes it seem more likely than naming it after his father, especially since it just says "the Earl" rather than "the late Earl" or similar.

(Compare the Sandwich Islands & South Sandwich Islands (the current First Lord), the Falkland Islands (the current Treasurer of the Navy), etc. Naming things after a recently deceased figure didn't seem to be as common - I can't immediately find a contemporary example) Andrew Gray (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

IP edit warring

I've got an IP continually making changes to the infobox on Japanese aircraft carrier Shinano. Can I get an admin to temporarily lockdown the article until this guy adds a source for his change? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Semiprotected for three days for persistent addition of unsourced content. It's good that they have an interest in the article, but hopefully they can be persuaded to reference their sources (if any) or discuss on the talkpage. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended to a month. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Draft:SS Chemnitz

As discussed on ANI, the article on the German Ocean liner has been moved to draft because it seems to be largely made up, possibly using CHAT GPT, with a long list of references, most of which don't mention the ship. The one ref that does mention the ship gives very different details than in the article - work is needed if we are to have an article on the real ship.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

British troopship 'Devonshire', 1957

British troopship 'Devonshire' in Grand Harbour, Malta 1957

Can we confirm the identity? Do we have an article on the above ship, or its type? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks like an ex P&O liner, possibly one of the Straths. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually a Bibby line ship built 1938 as a purpose built troopship, some info here: Devonshire Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Clydeships webpage on Devonshire. Mjroots (talk) 08:50, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

SS Atlantic (1870) 150th anniversary

This Saturday will mark the 150th anniversary of the wreck of the Atlantic and I had thought to put it in the que for being blurbed on the main page under On This Day. Unfortunately, the article is not in good shape, especially with respect to referencing and probably cannot be posted at present. Not sure if anybody has access to some decent sources but it would ne nice to be able to get this posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

wikipedia should explore the possibility of announcing more often to a wide audience in how much of a bad shape it is. Nowakki (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I might take a look at it, if I can find my reference books. As an aside, I started a draft article about the Oceanic class of ocean liners (which Atlantic was one) a couple of years ago, but it stalled and I forgot about it. You've reminded me of its existence, so I might get to work on it. However If anyone wants to copy my unfinished work and work on it themselves, they're welcome to do so. G-13114 (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: I've made some improvements to it, maybe not as many as would be ideal. But it's short notice. G-13114 (talk) 08:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Maybe we can try and post it next year. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

SS Great Britain

A query has been raised at talk:SS Great Britain#please check re the tonnage / displacement of the ship. The figures quoted look OK to me, but bringing this up so more eyes see it. Mjroots (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Notification of move discussion at Talk:USNS Earl Warren (T-AO-207)

Notification of move discussion at Talk:USNS Earl Warren (T-AO-207). An effort by an editor to eliminate disambiguators/hull numbers from article titles and those who support keeping them. Llammakey (talk) 12:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Already closed. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

FAR for USS Wisconsin

I have nominated USS Wisconsin (BB-64) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 21:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• I assume we are happy to use the standard assessment template here? From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I assume so. Many of the warships will probably pull from the MILHIST assessment and will be changed accordingly as they are edited. As for civilian ships, they are mainly tied to nations and transportation (such as ferry companies, cruise ships and icebreakers) so having them undergo the standard assessment would be proper. Llammakey (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I do have a question about set indices. We and MILHIST have the Set Index option for our assessments. Will this be affected? Llammakey (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

That's a good question. The general criteria linked in Aymatth2's post does include SIA, so it might not be a problem? (Assuming that the bannershell template recognizes SIA as an acceptable entry)

Another issue is that we'd have to update our quality scale, since SHIPS doesn't use B6. We also have specific requirements for C-class, which the general scale doesn't seem to have.

And yet another side note, our quality scale still links to the review page for A-class, but it's been marked historical since 2012 - should we just remove the link? Parsecboy (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I think we should remove it. Warships follow the MILHIST grading, since very few ships go through the GA/FA assessment through this project. The civilian ships would go through WP:TRANSPORT and they do not use the B1, B2, etc. rating at all. As for the SIA, I was wondering if for example we have the SIA option, but would the bannershell automatically set the article as a "List" article for wikiprojects that do not have the SIA option. Llammakey (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense to me too - just figured I should ask before I be bold ;)

Transport does have the B-class sub criteria in their assessment guide but their template doesn't require it to be filled out to display B-class like ours does. I don't think we need to change the actual coding of our template, since it looks like the bannershell overrides individual template quality ratings (assuming this is still correct), but we should probably update our rating documentation to adopt B6.

I know the updated bannershell allows for custom assessments for individual projects, so what we might have to do is manually override each index banner. A fun prospect for the almost 7,000 SIA pages. Which brings to mind other questions: how will those categories be populated? And assuming the bannershell rating is what does it, will that SIA category be emptied once this goes into effect? Parsecboy (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Montevideo Maru

The article SS Montevideo Maru and redirect page Montevideo Maru need to be swapped over. Quite apart from "SS" being superfluous for a ship whose name ends with "Maru", Montevideo Maru was a motor ship.

I do not know how to make this swap. Please will someone who has the knowledge do so? Thankyou. Motacilla (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Done Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Thankyou! Motacilla (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

sailboatdata.com and sailboat.guide

I figured I'd ask here first rather than going to the mess that is RSN: is there any reason we'd consider https://sailboatdata.com and https://sailboat.guide reliable sources? The first appears to be ran anonymously (only a deceased founder is named), and the latter says it's a community-curated database that collects it's data from a variety of public sources and contributions from our user community, with Wikipedia being explicitly thanked as a source. I'm seeing a bunch of relatively recently (re)created articles about sailboats sourced (practically) solely to them, e.g. Nautor 39 and Swan 39. That said, the usage seems to go way back, see e.g. Swan 391. Ljleppan (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear that neither are reliable sources, and I don’t think either would count toward WP:GNG. It’s probably also worth pinging @Ahunt and Yachty4000: since they use the sites commonly, it seems, and they should be aware of the discussion. Parsecboy (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Before I started using these sources I did some investigation of them and was confident that they are reliable sources before I started using them. They are cited in a large number of sailboat articles by a number of editors.

Sailboatdata.com has editorial oversight and is based on primary sources, primarily a huge collection of original manufacturer's factory documentation, plus secondary industry media sources, such as sailboat reviews and such. They are also open to corrections when more up to date information is found and submitted. Sailboatdata.com is pretty much the gold standard for sailboat specifications in the world of sailing these days. It is widely used by everyone from yacht brokers to sailing clubs and race organizers for information on boat specifications.

Sailboat Guide started with with the same data, but updated with information mostly from yacht sales and brokers. It is probably not worth getting all excited about, though, as it has just announced that it is shutting down soon.

I should also point of that both these sources and the articles mentioned are out of scope for WikiProject Ships, as they do not deal with ships at all, but with boats. These are under WP:WikiProject Sailing, which is where these sorts of questions get brought up. - Ahunt (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The fact that they are cited broadly in other articles doesn't tell us much, see e.g. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 361#RfC: Reliability of theaerodrome.com for theaerodrome.com which was used in 1500+ articles. That out of the way, where did you find the information about Sailboatdata.com's editorial policies and control? I can't find any of that on their website. Referencing them looks like it reduces down to "these anonymous people on the internet said..." Furthermore, the fact that they are dependent on user submitted data at all is a rather bad sign. Also, thanks for pointing out WP:SAIL, I didn't know that existed (you'll note that I'm just a passer-by in watercraft affairs). Do you reckon it'd be best to move this discussion to WP:RSN to ensure a wider community response? Ljleppan (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

When I first found the ref many years ago I wanted to assess whether it was RS, so I wrote to them and asked them how the site worked, where they got their information and they wrote back and explained their processes. The ref meets all the requirements for a RS. It is a commercial site, although I don't think it makes much money, probably enough to cover hosting and some research costs, has editorial oversight and carefully curates information from primary and secondary sources and verifies them. It is not user-editable or any kind of Wiki. Readers can send in corrections via email, which I have done so, but you need to provide RS evidence for them to make changes, such as manufacturer's data or published reviews and they do look for corroborating evidence as well. Overall their processes are very good, and as I noted you cannot really find better sources of information on basic sailboat specs than this. It is pretty much equivalent to Jane's Fighting Ships level of reliability, but freely accessible to everyone. The people there are all old sailors who run the site to promote the sport of sailing, hence the modest lack of self-promotion. It is not an ego trip.

Personally, given the discussion here, I don't see any point in dragging this through "the mess that is RSN" as you put it. By the way I agree with you in that statement on RSN - it is a mess and it produces random outcomes that in general do not help the encyclopedia. I find that discussing sources within WikiProjects, as we are doing here, produces more useful discussions and more accurate results. I am also a member of WP:WikiProject Aircraft and we regularly assess refs there and even have a list: Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Resources. Over there we avoid going to RSN for the reasons you mentioned above. Perhaps I should start an equivalent page for WikiProject Sailing? - Ahunt (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Since this is not getting any visibility over on WP:SAIL I will ping a few of the active project members there for their input here: @Yachty4000:, @Ken Heaton:, @Aloha27: and @HopsonRoad:. - Ahunt (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. I am of the opinion that the sources are, by and large, the best we have available for a relatively narrow subject. AFAIK, no favour or denigration for the massive collection of data available is evident. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  15:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping as the creater of both those articles I am surprised. Sailboat data is a great resource because it is community based on a forum that helps maintain the data. I personally don't contribute to that website only wikipedia. The problem with wikipedia is the randomness of moderation and standard. To be honest by publishing the data in an open way like wikipedia it is self moderating to a day. I enjoy creating the structure and watching it develop but also get frustrated when that structure is changed. The Swan 48 Mk3 for example was deleted from wikipedia due to notability yet AHunt for example has done hundred of much less notable boats. I can tell you now all the Swan pages were created by data in the three official books and the S&S swan book I have. However random web based references have been used to keep the moderators happy. Lets reinvigorate wiki sailing and work together.

Yachty4000 (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I should probably just clarify the above, that salboatdata.com has an associated forum for generally discussing sailboats and sailing, but that is not where individual sailboat pages originate. As I noted, they are sourced to manufacturer factory technical publications and similar sources. Readers can suggest corrections to the boat specs, but they need to supply reliable sources to the editorial team for them to be incorporated. Outside of the forum the site is not user editable. - Ahunt (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

While I would not regard these sources as reliable for the purpose of analyzing or describing the properties of the vessels in question, I am comfortable with them as sources of data about length, beam, tonnage, rig, etc. Data is unlikely to be controversial and, apart from incorrect transcription thereof, almost universally originates from the manufacturers' published specifications. No-one expects writers on the subject to independently verify dimensional or configurational data. I hope that this helps. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for the rather delayed reply, I was busy with some real-world obligations.

@Ahunt: W/r/t visibility, for future reference it might be prudent to add a neutral notice at a relevant talk page (e.g. WP:SAIL) rather than pinging editors directly, as the direct pings always leave a question of why those editors specifically.

I remain highly skeptical of these sources (especially in the context of language such as Sailboat data is a great resource because it is community based). But perhaps more importantly, I'm most troubled by the fact that there appear to be a whole swathe of articles sourced solely to these sources: even if we accept your premise that these are reliable, I'm extremely unconvinced that they contribute anything towards notability. I've tagged the articles listed above for notability for now. I do hope this doesn't turn out as a renewal of the theaerodrome, given that the cleanup of that mess is already taking ages. Ljleppan (talk) 07:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

No problem, no rush on these things. I pinged the editors above because they are the total of all the editors working on WP:SAIL in the last few years and since the admin above started this off with individual pings as well. It is not a very active project. I had no idea of their opinions on the subject so not WP:CANVAS. With the one exception of the single editor above who is mistaken about "it is community based", as I explained, the general consensus above is that it is a reliable source of sailboat specifications. As far as conferring notability, I can only add that they do not cover all sailboats built, just ones for which there was significant production (five or more) and for which there is sufficient manufacturer's documentation, magazine reviews or other reliable sources of information, so it is selective and not indiscriminate. Regardless, thanks for the article tagging, I will see if I can locate further refs on those boats from paper or other sources. The vast majority of sailboats built in any numbers have been covered by the sailing press at one time or another, so it is just a matter of locating further sources. - Ahunt (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Maru vs. Prefix

In List of ships sunk by submarines by death toll , given that the Japanese ships end in Maru, shouldn't the display of the western ships include the Prefix? So [[MV Wilhelm Gustloff]] vs [[MV Wilhelm Gustloff|Wilhelm Gustloff]]?Naraht (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Maru is part of the ship's name. The prefix is not. Llammakey (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

What Llammakey said. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough.Naraht (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-urgent work needed at FAR

Wikipedia:Featured article review/USS Wisconsin (BB-64)/archive2 shouldn't be a particularly hard FAR save (add some better description ala USS Missouri (BB-63) and incorporate some scholarly sources to reduce the heavy over-reliance on DANFS. Definitely needs some work, but for a FAR, it shouldn't be too hard to keep the star. I don't have the necessary sources. Hog Farm _Talk 03:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

USS and USNS

An editor has raised an issue on my talk page. They state that ships of the same name with different prefixes (i.e. USS ''Foo'' and USNS ''Foo'') should be disambiguated further with their hull number because they are both operated by the United States. I am unclear if the prefix already disambiguates the ships or if they need the extra disambiguation like a hull number or year of launch. Furthermore, would this also apply to the Royal Navy/Royal Fleet Auxiliary since they too share the same nation of operation. Thanks again. Llammakey (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The editor that raised the issue is addressing US Navy ships only, not ships from the RN or any other nation. (fyi) - wolf 18:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore does is this apply not only to USS and USNS, but also to USCGC and USRC and USFC since those ships overlap as well? Llammakey (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguators are used to create unique article titles. It is not possible to have more than one USS Foo article. If the 'natural' title of an article is USS 'Foo' and there is already an extant article with that name, the new article gets a parenthetical disambiguator so that the title is unique. The USS Foo article is not the same as the USNS Foo article so no need to distinguish between these articles by disambiguation. USS Foo (ABC 1000) and USNS Foo (T-ABC 1000) – with dabs – should redirect to: USS Foo and USNS Foo respectively. For completeness, redirect articles with titles using wrong prefix/dab combinations might be created: USS Foo (T-ABC 1000) and USNS Foo (ABC 1000) might both redirect to one ship article (USS Foo) or redirect to a ship list article: USS Foo or List of ships named Foo.

It is the article title that is being disambiguated; not the ship.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

What Trappist said; and to avoid any confusion, the {{distinguish}} hatnote can always be used. Parsecboy (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, that's what I was doing, but I wanted to make sure I was doing it correctly after the editor raised concerns. Thanks. Llammakey (talk) 11:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Another good reason why we shouldn't use hull numbers, we should use launch dates. This would help with disambiguation, The problem will only get worse with every passing year, it will be unintelligible by the next century if we last that long. Broichmore (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

This applies to all ships, and all navies. A disambiguator is only needed if there are two or more vessesl with the same prefix and name. Thus USS Foo, USS Bar (1797), USS Bar (1840), USS Bar (1935) etc. Also, USS Foo, USNS Foo, USCGC Foo (CGC-1) USCGC Foo (CGC-77) etc. Llammakey has been doing good work recently moving article to non-disambiguated titles where that is appropriate. Mjroots (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Grantala and Figuig

Please will someone with the right tech skills sort out a duplication of Wikidata pages for HMAS Grantala and fr:Figuig (paquebot de 1916)? The English, Farsi and Polish articles are linked, and have the Wikidata page Q5630359. But the French article has its own Wikidata page Q109037792, which makes it harder to link it to the others. Thanks! Motacilla (talk) 10:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: is a Wikidata expert. Mjroots (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Regina Maris

The Regina Maris presented in wikipedia was not a schooner. She was a barkentine. 24.113.147.58 (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? Mjroots (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The article itself seems basically correct. From 1908 until 1963 she traded as the topsail schooner Regina (three fore-and-aft rigged masts, with two square sails on the upper part of the foremast). This is clearly described in the article which notes that, after the fire and changing hands, she was re-rigged as a barkentine (foremast fully square-rigged, as can be seen in the photo. However the article title is wrong, as she was only a barkentine after being renamed Stella Maris. As, i my view, this is the name under which she was best known, I suggest moving the article to Stella Maris (barquentine) (the spelling already used in the article) or - my preference - Stella Maris (1908), which would mirror Stella Maris (1929), the former USS Vixen (PG-53). Davidships (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I support the move to Stella Maris (1908) - keeps things from getting bogged down in the rigging type Llammakey (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

+1 Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Ooops! Brain failure - certainly less than stellar performance. Should be Regina Maris (1908) etc etc Davidships (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Support move to Regina Maris (1908). Also the redirect Regina (1908 schooner) needs to be created once the move has been done. Mjroots (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Category:World War II naval ships of the United Kingdom

Category:Royal Navy ships by conflict does not include Category:World War II naval ships of the United Kingdom. And "Category:World War II naval ships of the United Kingdom" says it cannot be edited to rectify this. Will someone who understands how this works please ensure that "Category:World War II naval ships of the United Kingdom" is included in "Category:Royal Navy ships by conflict"? Thankyou. Motacilla (talk) 10:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The category has been added. Llammakey (talk) 11:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)