Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

list of killed sailors

In this article: USS S-44 (SS-155). Should it be removed?  Dr. Loosmark  20:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Good question. Having "lists" of commanding officers in ship articles is something that has been condemned here. Having a list of killed might run the same lines. Brad (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. If any of those are Wikinotable, then it should be mentioned in the prose that they were killed. Mjroots (talk) 09:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the list of killed. Besides "not memorial" there were no sources listed for the content. I also cleaned up the horrendous overlinking. Brad (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

On a similar note a recent edit to RMS Empress of Ireland has added the names of the 1,489 people who were aboard her when she sank. A text dump like this completely overwhelms the article, as well as the objections mentioned above, but despite my strong temptation to take it out, I thought I'd check here. Benea (talk) 07:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Another one: USS S-51 (SS-162).  Dr. Loosmark  11:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I've just removed them. Aside from the WP:NOTMEMORIAL problems, they also violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:IINFO Nick-D (talk) 11:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

(od) The Titanic people aren't going to like this trend. At least the Titanic killed/survivors have been broken out into separate articles. Brad (talk) 04:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Titanic is arguably a special case due to the very high level of interest in it. Gatoclass (talk) 05:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

and another one: USS Sailfish (SS-192)  Dr. Loosmark  13:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't be shy; go ahead and fix it. Brad (talk) 14:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments needed for a Constitution issue.

Comments are needed here regarding the lead section of USS Constitution. Brad (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Issue has been resolved. Brad (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Rogue template styles

I've been noticing a lot of templates that seem to go outside of the usual light blue color. Here's one example: Template:Princess Ships. I thought that the need for uniform colors was something this project strives for but I could be wrong. Besides the template above I've also seen red, yellow, green and white templates. Should we be making them all light blue? I think in the end all of them should be uniform in whatever color we're supposed to be using. Right now it looks like a rainbow. Brad (talk) 04:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with different colour schemes for different templates. I think it makes articles more colourful in general. Gatoclass (talk) 05:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

See WP:DEW for an essay on the use of colours in templates. Mjroots2 (talk) 09:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Where is the ongoing edit war? Brad (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for SMS Baden (1915) now open

The featured article candidacy for SMS Baden (1915) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 07:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for HMS Princess Royal (1911) now open

The featured article candidacy for HMS Princess Royal (1911) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 07:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Navweaps.com again

At WP:Featured_article_candidates/HMS_Princess_Royal_(1911)/archive2, Ealdgyth is asking to be convinced about navweaps.com, and she's really good about knowing what sources need supporting. In the last big argument about navweaps, we reached a compromise where we agreed to include other sources when we cite navweaps, especially sources that show that important authors rely heavily on navweaps. If you have any of these sources, now is the time to present them at the linked FAC, I have a feeling this is where the issue will be decided for good. - Dank (push to talk) 19:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This issue here is not so much the RS value, but the "high-quality" RS value, an undefined term. Something that Uboat.net failed to be recognized as.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

(Speaking as a reviewer/writer and not as an FA delegate) As Sturmvogel 66 says, the high-quality reliable sources bit of the FA criteria pretty much demands that if scholarly sources can be used in place of a self-published website, then ditch the self-published website. If the information can't be found anywhere else, then a nominator may have an argument for using the self-published website, if it is found to be reliable. Karanacs (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That's certainly feasible for certain things that John Campbell's Naval Weapons of WW2 covers, but there's a lot of material on Navweaps.com not covered by Campbell that I'm loath to lose access to. Navweaps.com is better than Campbell on Soviet naval weapons because he taps into the latest English-language material, plus several different post-Cold War books on Soviet artillery. And Campbell doesn't cover the Russo-Japanese War and WWI weapons unless they lasted into WW2. So that's why I want to continue to use Navweaps.com.

But let me tell you why I think it's highly reliable; I've validated most of my citations of late from Navweaps.com against Campbell's book, plus some other English and German-language printed sources, and haven't found any significant contradictions. So I rather tend to believe that if it's correct for those things that I have verified, it is correct for the things that I cannot verify because the same level of sourcing is presented across the site. Rather like the logical statement if A is true, and A=B, then B is true, n'est-ce pas? Some might say that that's an unfounded assumption, but I think that it is an entirely reasonable one. I'd just as soon not get into all the usual standards for WP:RS as I think that we all know them by now, and, at any rate, that's not the issue here. The issue is whether it is, according to some undefined standard, "highly reliable", or merely reliable. To use a counter-example, I thought uboat.net wasn't highly reliable because no sources were given on the page of each article and it lacked what I thought were some important facts, like torpedo stowage locations for some classes of Uboats. White Shadows and I went around and around trying to pin down that info which was later found in Whitley's book on WW2 submarines. None of this is true for navweaps.com.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sturm, that's a great argument for convincing me, but if you're right that there's no suitable substitute for navweaps for some of the articles you write (and I believe you), then the same will be true for (other) influential writers ... they'll use it, and they'll give justifications for using it, since academic presses and publishing houses are even tougher on web sources than we are. I've seen links that do justify it, but we'll have to pull them all together if it's going to survive the new tougher FAC requirements. - Dank (push to talk) 00:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Attracting copyeditors

A request: we need more copyeditors (the kind who are well-known at FAC already) at our A-class review. Over time, skilled copyeditors who get some experience with ship articles at A-class might become co-noms, copyeditors or reviewers at FAC, and everyone wins. My small contribution is to offer copyediting swaps, a non-ship article for a ship article, to copyeditors I admire. Everyone has something to offer to attract copyeditors ... just don't offer or ask for "you do me, I'll do you" reviews, that would eventually cause trouble at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 23:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a nice offer. I am always happy to be asked to copyedit any article. I have about a 24 hour turnaround time. There is no quid pro quo for me, as I enjoy this type of work. --John (talk) 00:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated ... still, I'm happy to return the favor. - Dank (push to talk) 01:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I'm flattered, and I'd like to help, but I'm going to be especially busy for the next while, and I have promises to keep at WP:PR. I will remember this kind offer, however, for future reference. Finetooth (talk) 04:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of battleships of the Ottoman Empire now open

The A-Class review for List of battleships of the Ottoman Empire is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 07:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy now open

The A-Class review for List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 07:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Conway's 1922-1946

I've been directed here to SHIPS after a request I made at MILHIST. I'm about to nominate HMS Liverpool (C11) for A-class review, but I no longer have access to Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, 1922-1946. The central library here in Liverpool is being renovated and the book is no longer available here in the city. Does anyone have access to the book to verify that it accurately reflects the page used in the article? It would also be great if it was possible to replace other sources, specifically to curtail the use of naval-history.com. Thanks! SoLando (Talk) 12:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I've had a quick look - the only reference in the article appears to be to the late war refit - the armament changes check out (although a further seven Bofors are mentioned, but the radar changes aren't mentioned - although they are covered by Whitley.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! The reference to radar upgrades is undoubtedly a remnant of a much earlier revision that I must have missed during the article's expansion (there was an even greater depedency on naval-history.com at that point). Is there any information in Conway's that could replace a few of the naval-history cites? I don't want to inconveniance you in any way...I have a certain resignation that the website's reliability will come into question in any FAC :-/ SoLando (Talk) 13:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Rohwer's Chronology of the War at Sea can probably replace many of the naval-history.com references.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Very true, but Conway would be equally beneficial ;-). I've so far identified four to five that can be replaced with Rohwer...but naval-history.com is still disproportionately influential. Has that website's status as an RS and SPS been discussed in an FAC? There is a clear problem with a lack of explicit attribution, although the author has presumably used primary sources (and appears to have been very reputable). I'm hoping that it's reliability has at some point been established, á la 1918-1918.net. SoLando (Talk) 20:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Conway's 22-46 actually has very little detailed operational history in it, so I don't think that it will be able to replace naval-history.com - you could try Roskill, which may have more detail.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, it wasn't so much operational history per se, more in the hope that Conwoy could help alleviate any perceived reliance on naval-history any which way ;-). I'll see if his books are available. Thank you! SoLando (Talk) 21:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

May I ask what's so wrong with the naval-history.com site? I haven't checked it recently but as far as I can remember it is quite okay.  Dr. Loosmark  07:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I personally have absolutely no issue with naval-history.com. I'm just resigned to its reliability and consistency with an SPS being raised at any FAC for HMS Liverpool :-/. The lack of explicit attribution in the ship history section might be identified as a problem, although it does seem to have developed a relationship with the NMM now and, of course, the author was extremely reputable. It would definitely be a shame if reviewers deemed it not to be a HQRS. Has it been discussed before? SoLando (Talk) 09:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm relatively sure it was declared as unreliable at some point. Have you tried searching the WP:RSN archives? If you don't see that it has been discussed, try starting a thread there. Give the site url, what it is, and why you think it is reliable (or could be reliable, ie you've never seen contradictions between published works and the site). Another option is to email the site owner and see if they will update the pages with sources – if they are copied from official records or something similar, they would certainly be reliable (naval-history.com would simply be a convenience link). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Some of the information in the article is expendable, but the damage to Liverpool in '42 in entirely supported by naval-history.net (no other source appears to note that Liverpool was partially flooded). I'm convinced official documents have been used, but the lack of attribution is such an impediment to its acceptance. A search of RSN hasn't yielded anything relevant, but a wider search does confirm the site's reliability has been discussed before (coincidentally only four days ago at MILHIST'S MARITIME task force!). An email to the 'site owner might be inappropriate at this present time as the author of the articles in question has unfortunately died very recently. I'll still attempt to contact the site and hopefully it'll be responsive. SoLando (Talk) 08:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Email sent. SoLando (Talk) 09:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well that's unfortunate, for both our purposes and them. :| Hopefully he/she provides a helpful response. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance, anyway. I've reached such a degree of pessimism that I'm tempted to adopt Woody Allen's neuroses! If the 'site was to act in our favour, it's possible the argument could be made that its legitimacy is hinged on it being a reference that, in some instances, cannot be substituted by a HQRS. I've decided, however, to purge the article of the information in question :-/. I'll preserve the deleted text on the article's talk page. SoLando (Talk) 10:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Picture of CSS Manassas

This is a problem that I do not know how to handle. The widely-used picture of CSS Manassas is incorrect. As emphasized by Chester Hearn (Capture of New Orleans, 1862. Louisiana State Univ., 1995. ISBN 0-8071-1945-8), p. 68, she had two stacks, not one. Ordinarily, this would be handled by replacing the present image by a correct one, but I have been unable to find such a picture that does not violate copyright issues. A good one - at least, I think it is good - can be seen at ddowdey@sc.rr.com. (Dowdey is a marine artist who makes his living selling prints of his work. I'm not about to undermine him.) R. Thomas Campbell (Confederate Naval Forces on Western Waters, McFarlane, 2005. ISBN 0-7864-2203-3), p. 73, shows another. He credits it to Battles and Leaders, which would put it in the public domain, but I can't find it there, so I worry that the attribution is incorrect. I know that I can just nominate the present image for deletion, but there is nothing to replace it. You know and I know that as soon as the discussion is forgotten, the same old picture will be downloaded again, and we will be right where we started. And that is the problem. Does anyone have suggestions? PKKloeppel (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

GAKK! I just wanted to link to the incorrect image, not show it here. What have I done wrong? PKKloeppel (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)  Done Fixed. —Diiscool (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

One possibility from a quick google books search: pages 264 and 196 296 of this 1897 book have etchings of the ship. Although it's hard to see, I think both etchings have two stacks. Cheers. Haus^Talk 17:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Interesting side-note, apparently the stacks were able to be retracted into the hull during battle, which might explain things. This was noted on page 265 of the above book. Haus^Talk 17:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope. I have a copy of Scharf, and his pictures show a one-stack Manassas. As for the telescoping or collapsing stacks that he mentions, I have strong doubts. They would be hard to square with accounts of battle damage that Captain Warley provided (ORN ser. I, v. 16, p. 730a; v. 18, pp. 154, 344.) Furthermore, I don't see any use for them. Collapsing stacks were used by some of the raiders when under sail, with the purpose of altering the ship's profile. That would not have been of any advantage to Manassas. (I don't know where Scharf got his information; his book is full of comments like this, many of which lack any kind of documentation.) PKKloeppel (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

See [1] the general shape in this sketch is confirmed by [2] which does not itself add much to the question of stacks but does confirm that she was twin-screw.Dankarl (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't quarrel with the general shape, although often the aspect ratio (ratio of freeboard to length) doesn't seem to match the record. My only argument is with the number of stacks, which is one of the primary means of identifying a vessel. PKKloeppel (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Well if they were retractable into the hull as Haus said, the number of stacks in a given illustration should not be an issue. Gatoclass (talk) 05:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• A foolish question, but are we sure she 'always had two stacks? The Naval Historical Center sketch linked above was made whilst refitting in 1861, and it seems pretty clear that there's only one shown there; might the refitting have included altering the number of stacks, so she went from one to two or vice versa? Shimgray | talk | 18:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the sketch shows only one stack is precisely the problem. (Don't be deceived by the fact that the Naval Historical Center is something of an "official" source. Captain Warley refers to her smokestacks (note the plural) at both the Battle of the Head of Passes and Battle of Forts Jackson and St. Philip. Those two battles span her entire service life.

As for retracting the stacks in battle, that is not only undocumented, it is unphysical. It would cause the vessel to lose speed at the very time it is most needed.

This thread is clearly going nowhere. I brought the subject up only in the vague hope that someone could supply a correct picture free from copyright restrictions. That hope seems to have been in vain. The turn that the conversation is taking does not belong here, but should be continued on the article talk page. PKKloeppel (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Book:Battle class destroyers - Help needed

I made this book based on {{Battle class destroyer}}. However, the template is ordered alphabetically, since I wanted to preserve chronology, I ordered the ships by D numbers. However, that doesn't seem right either. Can you tell me how WP Ships usually orders ship in templates like {{Nimitz class aircraft carrier}}? Or better, could someone reorder the template/books as it should be? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Also I'm having trouble deciding how to include HMS Sluys, HMS Gabbard and HMS Cadiz. Do they fit within exiting chapters, or should their be a seperate chapter called "Other Battle class destroyers"? And why it is called the Battle class if there's no HMS Battle in this class? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Headbomb, they are all named after battles and the Royal Navy chose to name the class that way instead of after the lead ship (this is actually semi-rare). This is one of the rare instances where the Battle should not be in italics. Another example is Flower class corvette, Admiral class battleship and Admiral class battlecruiser. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I didn't italicize it because it wasn't italicized in the article and I couldn't find an HMS Battle being mentioned, so at least I got that right. But what about the other issues? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I meant here, in your Q, you italicized it. As to the other issues, this one will require a bit of thought since the Nimitz class was straightforward. -MBK₀₀₄ 07:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the flag numbers, these aren't really chronological like US hull numbers are - they're relatively arbitrary, and old ones get reused. The British templates seem to be mostly organised in alphabetical order, with subclasses in chronological order - {[tl|Town class cruiser 1936}}, for example. Shimgray | talk | 18:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

that would be {{Town class cruiser 1936}} - didn't want to edit another's post no matter how trivial the edit. Within the groups they could be ordered by commissioning date or launch date. But alphabetical is fine. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion notification

There's a discussion about a link to an external website which might interest members of this project. The discussion can be found at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2019/01#gCaptain.com. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

RMS Titanic

Last night, I raised the protection level of the RMS Titanic article to semi-protection for a period of 6 months. I did this in good faith, perceiving that the level of IP vandalism was getting too high. Fellow admin Pedro (talk · contribs) took me to task over this. (see his talk archive and talk:RMS Titanic#Protection. I did suggest that he raised the issue at WP level and I would not object to unprotection if discussion overnight indicated that there was consensus to do so. Pedro did not take me up on that offer.

Therefore, I'm raising the issue myself - should the RMS Titanic article be unprotected, or should it remain semi-protected until such time as Pending Changes is re-enacted following discussion of the trial held recently. Mjroots (talk) 05:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

WT:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Looks weird

Just a pointer. - Dank (push to talk) 13:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up; I might have missed it otherwise! — Kralizec! (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

One of the users involved in this debate has begun to move articles from the current format used on the page (country type name) to his preferred 'Name (ship)' option, for example on Spanish ship San Juan Nepomuceno (1765) to San Juan Nepomuceno (ship) on the grounds that this is all that is needed for disambiguation. I am certainly opposed to these arbitrary moves as it is against the guidelines as currently expressed and no new consensus has yet emerged. I would say that it is certainly still to early to be starting moving pages against the standing conventions. Benea (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

ORP Gryf (1944)

I've rewritten and expanded this article. It needs reassessment. I've also raised a source issue on the article's talk page and would appreciate some input from members of this WP. Mjroots (talk) 07:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Asking for an assessment at WP:MHAR would be the quickest way to get the article assessed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, requested there, but still needs assessment from this WP too. Mjroots (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

They cross-assess so it's not a big deal.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ships articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Ships articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for HMS Liverpool (C11) now open

The A-Class review for HMS Liverpool (C11) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 22:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a really good read. I especially enjoy articles that use small details to provide a window into life aboard ship. The part about "the fatalities from the torpedoing had remained in the engine room and been affected by heat exposure, requiring the distribution of an additional tot of rum to the volunteer retrieval party" gives a fresh perspective on the unglamorous, grisly side of war. — Kralizec! (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

AfD

The Wherry Maud article is currently at AfD. Mjroots (talk) 12:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of breastwork monitors of the Royal Navy now open

The A-Class review for List of breastwork monitors of the Royal Navy is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

A challenge - Wherries

As I'm busy with the Empire ships at the moment, are there any members of this WP willing to accept the challenge on creating articles on the other surviving wherries, all linked from the {{Norfolk wherries}} template. There should be plenty of photos available of all the wherries, see the Geograph website if you can't find a suitable photo on Commons (photos on CC-BY-SA licence so are compatible for Wikipedia use). Mjroots (talk) 07:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Italics in article titles

(originally posted at WT:NCSHIP) According to this, it has been decided to use italics in article titles for books, films etc. Should we therefore begin using them for ships as well?--Kotniski (talk) 07:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

By my reading of the discussion, this comes down to the display of italics in the article titles; the articles do not need renaming to incorporate italic characters. The technicalities are handled by a template. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. It would involve adding a template or magic word to each article, as has already been done with various classes of article, like those named after biological genera and species.--Kotniski (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:TITLE is policy ... if it stays on the page for a week or two, I'll assume this is a done deal. It would sure save a lot of time to do this with a vetted, intelligent bot, have any been written? - Dank (push to talk) 15:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the biology people used some kind of bot. A problem in the case of ships is that the italics would often have to be applied only to part of the title (the suffix, in parentheses, is already handled by the italic title template, but here we also have prefixes requiring not to be italicized). It would be good to get the strange artificial prefix question sorted out (the "French ship X" type titles, as currently being discussed at WT:NCSHIP), but even with those gone, there would still be genuine prefixes like "HMS" which any italicizing bot would have to look out for.--Kotniski (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

{{Taxobox}} actually italicizes titles under the right conditions. Something similar could perhaps be done with ship infoboxes. Ucucha 16:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that WP:TITLE stays the way it is and we need to do the italics, this would be an elegant solution if we can find a template guy to make sure it works. There's enough information in the infobox to determine where the italics should go. But note that there's an argument about changing some article titles to for instance "X (French battleship)" or "X (battleship)" from "French battleship X", so we shouldn't work on the infobox until that's settled. - Dank (push to talk) 17:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I only count two editors arguing for the complete renaming of the articles, so I think we can safely push ahead with this. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay. - Dank (push to talk) 18:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, since my last post, three more editors have chimed in arguing for a change, so never mind. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to note the article name stays the same all they do is frig the display with a template Template:Italic title so it appears as italics. All the links and everything else stays the same it is just the appearance on the screen. Not sure it works with only bits of the title, it looks like all or nothing, but jsust to note the actual article file name stays the same. MilborneOne (talk) 18:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The mechanism is very simple: to take HMS Hood (51) as an example you add {{DISPLAYTITLE:HMS ''Hood'' (51)}} to the page. The template you mention uses this underlying function. It's probably as simple to do that for each case as write a template and use a bot. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The situation with ships is complicated (as someone probably said before) by the use of things like "HMS" and "French battleship", which should not be italicized. {{italictitle}} italicizes everything except what is within parentheses, so it would produce titles like "HMS Hood (51)". It's of course trivial to correctly italicize it as "HMS Hood (51)" using DISPLAYTITLE directly or using a different template. Ucucha 21:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

To facilitate conversation, I started a simple template to handle this at {{Italic ship title|notitalic|italic|notitalic}}. Sample uses include {{Italic ship title|MV|Mariam}} and {{Italic ship title|HMS|Hood|(51)}}. A test case is at MV Mariam. Cheers. Haus^Talk 21:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyone know how to write a template called {{shiptitle}} that will italicize everything except stuff in parentheses and strings such as HMS, SMS, ARA, French, Russian, Japanese, battleship, cruiser, etc.? - Dank (push to talk) 02:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I could try, but it's probably difficult. Ucucha 03:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

At the very least, you'd need a list of all supported prefixes. (I don't want to use this as an argument for dropping the "French ship" type prefixes, but if those were dropped - as I hope they will be, they're absolutely weird - it would simplify this task quite a bit. Though not necessarily enough to make it doable by a template rather than a bot.)--Kotniski (talk) 09:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Since I like playing around with templates, I've created a set of them which are intended to achieve the desired italicization effects, and edited Template:Infobox ship begin appropriately. At the moment they ought to work on articles whose prefixes are included in the list at Template:Ship prefix (HMS and a few others). (Of course the article has to include the infobox ship begin template.) Sometimes the article will need purging before the title shows up right. Please let me know if any odd behaviour is occurring. Other prefixes can gradually be added to Template:Ship prefix (only "single word" ones at present).--Kotniski (talk) 12:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I expanded that template with everything that shouldn't be italicized in the first 500 hits on titles including "battleship" or redirecting to such articles. That will get us started. - Dank (push to talk) 20:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

doesn't seem to work with French ship Mercure (1783).GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Not a template guy, but I just double-checked my additions and they seem to follow the go-by. - Dank (push to talk) 01:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I didn't make it totally clear - the template can only handle prefixes like "HMS", which consist of a single word. Things like "German cruiser" and "French ship" won't work, and shouldn't be added to the template (for example, if you add "German", you'll get titles like "German battleship Bismarck", which is wrong). Including the double-word prefixes would be more complicated to code - doable, but I'd rather not spend time on it right now when these prefixes are possibly (hopefully) going to be discarded anyway.--Kotniski (talk) 08:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

If anyone wants to do the "French ship" type articles manually, then you can do it using the {{Italic title prefixed}} template. You need to supply a parameter which is the number of characters in the prefix (including the middle space), so it would be {{Italic title prefixed|11}} for "French ship". I notice there's also a {{Italic ship title}} template which can be used in a slightly different way.--Kotniski (talk) 11:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking this over. Do we really need to disabmiguate by country in the majority of cases? Without the country disambiguator we would have "Foo (battleship)" as a title styel In the rare cases where we do need to dab by country, we could have (e.g.) "Foo (French battleship)" and "Foo (Italian battleship) as title styles. Doing this would allow the use of the {{ship}} template, which would then allow use of italic titles, as the prefix would simply be left blank. Mjroots (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Japanese battleship Kongō now open

The A-Class review for Japanese battleship Kongō is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Mississippi class battleship now open

The A-Class review for Mississippi class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for ARA Moreno now open

The featured article candidacy for ARA Moreno is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Navweaps.com again and Princess Royal FAC

There's a discussion on the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Princess Royal (1911)/archive2 nomination about whether Navweaps.com is "highly reliable". I've made my comments, but have received only a deafening silence in return. If you wish to use this resource at FAC then more comments are needed. Please read the article and give your comments as well; it lacks readers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The article was archived today (i.e. not promoted). There was some grumbling that people were being unfair, but the problem was that no one showed up to defend navweaps. I don't think it's going to be possible to get an article through FAC at this point that relies on navweaps unless we make the case (before we get to FAC) that noted authors rely on and praise navweaps. - Dank (push to talk) 17:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that that point was already made by Belhalla when the whole issue was raised two years ago.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That was a different question, the threshold for sources at FAQ has risen substantially. And the burden is on the nominator: if they need to hear it all again, tell them again. If they complained and don't respond to your perfectly reasonable explanation, leave a note on their talk page reminding them. If I were designing FAC, I'd design it to be more forgiving ... but it isn't. - Dank (push to talk) 20:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Article doesn't look archived to me. As someone suggested, gathering an essay and placing it somewhere will help any future battles.. at least in theory. Brad (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not listed anymore on the FAC page, so I guess the bot still hasn't run yet.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that you're more sick of having to fight the questions as I am of seeing the subject brought up again and again and again. Please assemble some sort of canned reply for this issue. Not that it would really prevent those intent on disqualifying it. Brad (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

What we need for FAC is a list of authors who seem reasonably respected who have relied on or commented on navweaps. - Dank (push to talk) 04:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

That would be very helpful. Karanacs (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS Kronprinz (1914) now open

The A-Class review for SMS Kronprinz (1914) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

FAC for SMS Goeben

The FAC delegates are very quick to archive noms that have no supports after two weeks, which just screwed my Princess Royal FAC despite the recent flood of worthwhile comments. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Goeben/archive1 needs more eyes so please comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sturmvogel 66 (talk • contribs)

The FAC delegates seem more concerned about keeping the FAC page clear than allowing articles to gain support. Why should an article fail just because it doesn't get enough comments? No reason other than page size from what I can see. Failing from lack of comments doesn't mean the article wasn't worthy but after the fail the article milestones reflects "not promoted" giving the impression that the article was somehow defective. Brad (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it has to do with less reviews on the page = more reviews for the ones that are still on there. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

For anyone headed to FAC: when you see an article at WP:FACL (the list of current FACs) you're interested in, do something you feel comfortable doing ... check the images or prose or formatting, or critique the references, and if you feel confident, support or oppose on that basis. It doesn't need to take a lot of time, and it's likely some of those nominators will give your article a look next time you get to FAC. Another approach is to offer a swap of some kind (I copyedit articles in exchange for getting people to look at any A-class articles) ... but if you're swapping favors, don't making reviewing part of the deal, because that looks like a "bought" support. Once people start reading our articles and learning some of the jargon, I think they'll see that our articles are comparatively easy to review. - Dank (push to talk) 04:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

At FAC, we judge whether there is consensus to promote or not. If there is not a consensus to promote, the nomination gets archived. This does not necessarily mean that the article "failed"; there may be nothing wrong it but not enough editors responded to help us determine what consensus was. At the RFC on FAC earlier this year, there was broad consensus to have articles archived if there was a lack of support (or lack of consensus) after two-to-three weeks. When the backlog gets really big (as it has been the last few weeks), Sandy and I are more aggressive about archiving, to ensure that all articles have a fair chance to be reviewed. Usually, these articles have a better chance when they come back; the longer a nomination hangs near the bottom of the list, the less likely that others will look at it (I think a lot of reviewers assume there must be a lot of problems with those, but that's my speculation). Karanacs (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

ship events template

{{Shipevents}} Why do you guys have four distinct lists for each year regarding ship events? For example in 2004 there were 20 launches, 11 commissionings, 14 decomissionings, and 2 shipwrecks. This is a random year, and I noticed that earlier years have waaay less entries. Only in recent years there are longer entries, and in those cases a separate article may be kept. Should I go ahead with a multiple afd? Nergaal (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

NO, they are still being populated. It is a long and tedious process. 98.194.13.148 (talk) 00:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the IP, just because the lists are currently short does not immediately mean that they will remain that way forever. Most of the launch lists are still being populated. At the same time, the others still need to be populated. They are all still under construction even though they are not tagged as such. A mass AFD would be extremely premature. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I've expanded the 2004 shipwrecks list from the Category:Maritime incidents in 2004. Mjroots (talk) 06:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

NO-- however, your question is quite reasonable and deserves a response. First, these lists are useful for browsing. Researchers and recreational readers often have only a general idea of the sorts of things they are looking for, hence various options for browsing can improve serendipity for discovering new materials of interest, above and beyond the known items that confirm one's pre-existing ideas. Second is the matter of improving retrieval for searching on the open Internet. Not everyone has access to the standard sources for shipping or maritime history on their desktop. These lists bring like items together for the search engines, and help correlate articles across merchant/naval, countries/language differences. Third, there is the difficulty of automating these lists. In theory, you could just extract the information from the ship infoboxes; however, many of our articles don't have infoboxes. Some editors don't know enough to add the infoboxes, and some historic ships don't have enough information in their articles to add an infobox without further research for the source data. And finally, a response to your initial question, why anyone would want to break this information out anyway? The one case I can speak to is the clipper ship wave in the early 1850s, when a large number of ships of a similar type were launched in a very short period. Similarly, the large decommissioning efforts after the World Wars would also show in these yearly lists, as would the commissioning of vessels for the Civil War.

See also: the earlier discussion of possible AfD for List of ship launches in 1870. Hope this answers some of your question! Djembayz (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

GAN backlog elimination drive

The Military history WikiProject is announcing that it is holding a mini-Good Article Nomination backlog elimination drive. The drive covers only the articles in the War and military section of the WP:Good Article Nominations page and prizes will be awarded for the reviews made. The contest page is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Contest/GAN backlog elimination/October 2010 and contains all necessary information on procedures and awards. Any questions may be directed at myself or posted on the contest's talk page. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Featured list candidacy for List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy now open

The featured article candidacy for List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

RV Belgica

I've proposed a split of the RV Belgica article into two separate articles. Discussion at talk:RV Belgica#Proposed split. Mjroots (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Featured list candidacy for List of breastwork monitors of the Royal Navy now open

The featured list candidacy for List of breastwork monitors of the Royal Navy is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Lists of shipwrecks

Category:Lists of shipwrecks by year
There are currently 135 lists of shipwrecks. There are a number of styles that these lists are presented in. Examples are the 1862 list, the 1916 list and the 1940 list.

Therefore, I'd like to propose that all lists of shipwreck are presented in a similar format. My personal preference is that of the 1862 list. Images should only be used where they show the shipwreck, and not just general views of the ship in question. I will notify WP:SHIPWRECK and WP:MILHIST. Discussion posted here as the shipwrecks WP is apparently not very active. Mjroots (talk) 06:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm with you on use of images, but I would favour a tabular format - across the whole year if a short list, otherwise by month. Though a briefer table than the 1916 list. Order would be date, ship, nationaility/operator, cause/notes. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

If we go that way, then images can go in the notes section. Mjroots (talk) 07:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow looking at the samples - I can understand the need for standardisation - (and congratulations to Mjroots for his extensive cleaning up the shipwrecks lists).

The 1916 list is indeed quite problematic, there is no need for all that gumph - I tend to agree with graeme - and think a tabular form without all the extra unnecessary bits would set a good standard - and the comment by Mjroots 'Images only for the actual shipwreck' I would heartily endorse - specially from the perspective the shipwreck project SatuSuro 13:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Category question

Category:Ships under construction
Do we need a category for articles on ships which are under construction? Mjroots (talk) 13:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I've found Category:Proposed ships, but that would seem to cover those that are being proposed to be built, not those actually being built. Mjroots (talk) 13:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Biography of Norman Friedman

I thought it would be interesting to build a bigraphy on Norman Friedman, who has written so many books about ships. I started a stub at my talk pages: User talk:Kevin Murray/nf Does anyone want to pitch in? Kevin --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for HMS Avenger (D14) now open

The peer review for HMS Avenger (D14) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

MS Selandia

Is there any editor who is subscribed to Miramar that can reference text in the MS Selandia article, rather than odd bits in the infobox. I want to improve the article but need refs sorting out first before I start pulling it apart and putting it back together. Mjroots (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Will reply at talk page. Kablammo (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Weasels with peacock feathers

There's no one right answer for this ... the only right answer is what people want to do, so I'm asking. Search for "they have been called" [something flattering] here. Another recent article said "the best example is ..." Every recent case I've seen was absolutely solid: the statements about what historians in general have said came from a specific expert, and they were right. The question is: when repeating what an author says about what "people say", should we say "according to ..." in the text? If not, should the supporting cite always come no later than the end of that sentence? (I'm pretty sure the answer is "yes" on that one.) I lean a little in the direction of how Cam and others are handling this, but if this is okay with you guys, I need to see some solid support here ... otherwise I'm going to lose some battles on this over objections per WP:WEASEL (which says not to use anything even vaguely similar to "people say") and WP:PEACOCK (which recommends showing how something is the best rather than saying it is). - Dank (push to talk) 16:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know how others handle it, but my attitude is that if we're repeating what "people say", we need to specify which people are saying it, and we need a source at the end of that claim to verify it. -- saberwyn 21:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre now open

The A-Class review for Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for USS Chesapeake (1799) now open

The peer review for USS Chesapeake (1799) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 05:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

SS Great Western

A user has suggested that this page be moved to PS Great Western. Discussion at Talk:SS Great Western#Requested move. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Captain lists redux

I thought we settled this issue back in May (discussion), but now Docu (talk · contribs) has gone ahead and said that our consensus is meaningless and has forced the list of COs back in to our article on USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76). From my talk page: The discussion you are referring to didn't lead to the guidelines being amended as there was some disagreement about what you state as being consensus. The discussion seems to be about smaller ships anyways. Besides, if the lists is acceptable as a stand-alone list, there isn't really a reason why it couldn't be included in the article until it's longer. Unless you can provide other points to support your view, please refrain from removing things. If you think more references are needed, just add to the list entries you find problematic. -- 签名 sig at 02:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC). I now propose that we settle this issue once and for all because now that there is one of these in an article again, some enterprising editor will decide that all of our articles need them now. I thought this was already settled, and most of you probably did as well. I've invited Docu here to comment. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently for MBK004, this is some question of "win[ning and loosing]" (per his comment on my talk page). I'm not really into entering into his "twinkle" revert game. Personally, I'm fine with my quote above.

As the removal of the list at CVN-76 is also due to factors not related to the discussion about stand-alone and embedded lists you had somewhen in past, I invited the editors of the article to comment at Talk:USS_Ronald_Reagan_(CVN-76)#Commanding_officers. -- 签名 _sig at 17:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

And in the same discussion I posted this but nobody changed the guidelines. Hard to enforce only on a consensus that never made it to the policy. Brad (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the policy: in a list form it is just addenda type information and it doesn't add to the article. But isn't the point that rather than only removing the list, the text should be edited to include the information about the COs eg along the lines of..In 2008, the Reagan, under the command of Joe Blogs, sailed for...Viv Hamilton (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Question regarding prefixes

I was wondering what was the project's policy on foreign civilian ship prefixes, more precisely foreign ferries? I created a few articles about ferries operated by Jadrolinija, Croatian state-owned ferry company, and I plan to create others in the future, but I'm confused as to which prefixes should be used in article titles. Jadronlinija has several different types of ships - the most commonly used are M/B (for cruseferries) and M/T (for ferries). Should these be converted into MF, MV or MS per English-language convention, or should the original prefix be kept and ferries such as MV Biokovo moved to MT Biokovo? Also, how do you get ship name (following the prefix) to appear in italics? Thanks. Timbouctou 06:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

For technical reasons, use of a slash in ship prefixes is deprecated. MT normally stands for Motor Tanker AFAIK. MV or MS are acceptable prefixes, so no need to move in this case. Mjroots (talk) 10:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of battlecruisers of Japan now open

The A-Class review for List of battlecruisers of Japan is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 01:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Major copyright problem in cruise ship articles

Apparently an editor to our cruise ship articles has engaged upon copyright violations under our noses for some time now. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Yankeesman312 has been opened and it appears as though significant portions of about 50 ships' articles could be either blanked or outright deleted due to copyright problems. We need to clean this up ourselves or risk losing these articles, not to mention another round of possible AFDs. -MBK₀₀₄ 07:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

More eyes needed

Your comments are solicited to complete several reviews: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of breastwork monitors of the Royal Navy/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Indefatigable (1909)/archive2 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Borodino class battlecruiser/archive1. Thanks in advance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I will trade a review of one of the above for one peer review of Chesapeake. Brad (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I've got less time than I used to and won't be able to participate at FAC, but I can keep covering A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 21:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review done, although I'll probably need to go through it once more. List of Breastwork monitors needs the most attention, IMO, so any eyes that have time to see if it meets the criteria would be welcome. Even if they don't have time for a thorough copyedit, if one is needed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

More copyediting would be welcome. I've been digging into some British style guides and learning that I have no idea what I'm doing, so I'm going to start concentrating on AmEng articles. - Dank (push to talk) 03:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I really wouldn't worry about it too much, Dank, our Commonwealth members seem to catch the most egregious problems. Besides, I need the copyediting regardless of which type of English I'm writing in.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Well ... if it's okay with everyone for me to do approximately the same things for non-AmEng articles as for AmEng articles (except for the spelling), I guess I can defend my work that way. - Dank (push to talk) 16:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Dude, all you can do is the best you can do. If you cannot get a handle on BritEnglish as well you can for AmEnglish, being a native speaker of the latter and all, nobody can fault you for it. Personally I've read so much in both styles that I don't register the differences other than the extra u's used in some words and usually forget to check for the other spelling changes when forced to write in BritEng. Your value as a copyeditor to me and all the others that you've helped doesn't lie in any particular mastery of a variant of English, but rather is the general grammatical sensibilities and knowledge that you offer to us. I strongly believe that most of my FACs would have involved a whole lot more fussing about grammar and wording of sentences without your help. Help out as much as you have time and energy to do, but don't needlessly restrict yourself. Just put a disclaimer at ACR or FAC saying that you don't do Brit English and people will understand.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree with Sturm here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

That's very kind guys, thanks. Speaking of reviewing ... several of you have the 1860-1905 Conway's, and it will help me get the GAN reviews done if someone could do a quick check of HMS Enterprise (1864) and USS New Ironsides against that source. - Dank (push to talk) 19:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Inserting: Done. - Dank (push to talk) 02:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess my copy really doesn't count, then. Let me know if it's something specific that you want clarified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Not unless you mail it to me :) My (poor) understanding of GAN is that the reviewer should make a reasonable effort to verify information; I usually read the online sources myself, and I ask for help if I see a source that I don't have at home but someone else does. - Dank (push to talk) 21:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre now open

The featured article candidacy for Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Set indices under attack?

I just discovered that HMS Victory (disambiguation) has been moved to List of ships named HMS Victory, when Wikipedia:Set_index_article#Set_index_articles suggests that the original name was correct. The editor in question also has some disturbing comments on their talk page about needing to rename most if not all of our sex indices. I've asked R'n'B (talk · contribs) to undo his move and fully discuss it. I hope this is not round two of the attack upon our conventions re our naming conventions. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently they are attempting to change the policy without discussion. I've just reverted an attempt to do just that at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) per WP:BRD [3]. This is round two apparently... -MBK₀₀₄ 05:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Slow the train, I've seen RnB around before (I think I even !voted in his RfA?) and he definitely came across as a good, well-mannered editor. We all make mistakes, so let's focus on civilly discussing the issues he has with our set index conventions and (a) what we can do to satisfy him or (b) why he is mistaken. I saw you directed him to this thread, so let's wait for his reply. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ed. Let's wait to hear from him. Nothing has been done that can't be undone. Mjroots (talk) 10:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of that, I just reverted the move. Parsecboy (talk) 11:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Hello, MBK. I'm sorry to have upset you. I wasn't intending to "attack" anyone or anything, although I was being a bit WP:BOLD. If you want further discussion, I think that's entirely appropriate. I probably should set forth my thoughts at greater length when I have more time, but let me note a couple of points now:
  1. When you say "our naming conventions", I hope you mean "our" in the broad sense of "Wikipedia's" and not in some narrower sense implying ownership of some portion of the encyclopedia by a specific group.
  2. I don't understand your assertion that "Wikipedia:Set_index_article#Set_index_articles suggests that the original name was correct". That page says "A set index article is a list article" and "A set index article is not a disambiguation page[.]" So my edit summary stating that HMS Victory (disambiguation) is a list article, not a disambiguation page, was completely consistent with the guideline you are relying on. Can you, perhaps, explain why you think a page that (according to the guideline you are relying on) is not a disambiguation page should have the word "disambiguation" in its title? -- R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the Victory index is that there is a primary topic for that ship name, so the index can't be at the un-dabbed location. It has to go somewhere, however, and "(disambiguation)" is an easily recognizable choice.

When MBK says "our" I believe he refers to this. Parsecboy (talk) 13:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Parsec is absolutely correct in what I meant about "our" this WP's guidelines (which I believe have been accepted as part of the broader guidelines, perhaps I am mistaken?). In retrospect, perhaps my use of "attack" was premature and I do apologize. I was thinking here we go again in light of what is currently happening at WT:NC-SHIPS where non-project members are attempting to change the conventions which have worked well for half a decade. My thoughts on this issue here on set indices is exactly what Parsecboy states above, which also relies on how the guidelines on set indices where there is a primary topic which renders that title unavailable for the set index as is the case here with HMS Victory and I might add USS Constitution. To support this, see this clause: Alternatively, if the set index article is considered the primary topic, it may be named with just the term itself, the disambiguation page being called "YYY (disambiguation)". at Wikipedia:Set_index_article#Set_index_articles, which itself refers to Wikipedia:Set_index_article#Is_there_a_primary_topic.3F, and there the explanation clearly shows that what is sought by most people when searching for HMS Victory and/or USS Constitution would be the ships currently at those titles, which in turn means that their set indices are named appropriately. Because most set indices are named like this: USS Texas HMS Dreadnought, with the ships named USS Texas (1892), USS Texas (BB-35), HMS Dreadnought (1906), and HMS Dreadnought (S101). See what I'm getting at? -MBK₀₀₄ 00:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting issue. It highlights much of the lingering confusion between disambiguation pages and set indices. I do not think a set index page should have "(disambiguation)" in the title. Pages with "(disambiguation)" in the title are almost by definition disambiguation pages and are subject to WP:MOSDAB. I might point out that Constitution (disambiguation) should not be tagged as a set index because it contains entries that are not part of the set. older ≠ wiser 02:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I feel that (disambiguation) is easily understood by our readers, but can see your point, Bkonrad. Should we instead move the (rather limited number of) indexes that are in this situation (where one ship is a clear primary topic) to, for example, HMS Victory (set index)? Parsecboy (talk) 02:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps HMS Victory (index) would be the simplest naming.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GraemeLeggett (talk • contribs) 06:35, 23 October 2010

I think that SMS Brandenburg (set index) would be the best way to put it. It would not get confused with the Wikipedia indices that used to exist (and some still do), when Wikipedia still had alternate navigation schemes. 76.66.199.238 (talk) 08:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps answering a more fundamental question might help. Are Set Indices a type of list article or are they a specialized type of disambiguation page? My opinion (which, BTW, is not shared by all participants in the disambiguation project and does not reflect current guidelines) is that they are a specialized type of disambiguation page in that links to a set index page are almost always mistaken and should be disambiguated. While list articles might have valid incoming links, it is relatively uncommon for a set index to have valid incoming links -- the majority of links to set index pages are mistaken and should be disambiguated. That said, if consensus considers set indices to be more like a list article than a disambiguation page, then titles such as List of ships named Foo should be acceptable. older ≠ wiser 13:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

A little late, but this is how I've always viewed these pages - a special type of disambiguation page. The difference is pretty opaque to our readers, who just see a "slightly more verbose than usual disambiguation page", and I'm not sure it's helpful to them to use a different naming scheme for a pretty small technical distinction. Shimgray | talk | 18:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

On a side note, at WT:Disambiguation there is a discussion on a Disambiguations for discussion... which might also be used to cover "set indices" ? 76.66.199.238 (talk) 08:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

MS Kristina Regina to MS Bore

I was wondering if it would be appropriate that the page MS Kristina Regina be moved to MS Bore, since it seems this what her name has been changed to in her new role. (Note: I originally posted this message on Kjet's talk page, not realizing he had "retired" and not coming back.) 1Matt20 (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

With current ships, the convention is that the article is at the name the ship currently bears. Has the ship been renamed Bore yet? Mjroots (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The ship has been renamed Bore, but the article still remains MS Kristina Regina. I will move the article to MS Bore. 1Matt20 (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

United States Lightvessels/Lightships

I was wondering if there is an acceptable naming procedure regarding United States Lightships? I've looked at the current articles and it seems to be a hodge-podge of page name styles. I've looked at the USCG website and the ships are identified by LV prefixes. One popular way of naming the article pages seems to be, for example, United States Lightship Portsmouth (LV-101). However, to me it would be more correct to use United States Lightship LV-101 (Portsmouth) as some ships were moved to different ports. Relief lightships, from what I've read, were painted with the word Relief on their side rather than a port name. Any thoughts? Shinerunner (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that United States Lightship LV-101 or United States Lightvessel LV-101 would be a good title. If they were moved around, then I don't see what use there is in including a location in the article title. Mjroots (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The name refers to the vessel's location, not a specific ship. See Lightship Nantucket. Kablammo (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The Lightship Nantucket article would be the format to use. The one I found, Lightship Ambrose is a mess. It's trying to detail multiple ships on the same page.Shinerunner (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the Ambrose article confirms my suspicions as to the way these articles should be done. Mjroots (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I copied the information for one of the ships along with moving the infobox in the Lightship Ambrose article to its own page United States Lightship WLV-613. Is this what you had in mind Mjroots? Shinerunner (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Although it seems that we may need separate articles on individual vessels and locations, as the two are not necessarily the same. By extension, it may be the case with lightships in UK waters. I'm not sure what the position is re other countries' lightships. Mjroots (talk) 05:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)`

WikiProject Boats

FYI, there is a proposal for a WP:BOATS to cover watercraft that are smaller than those bannered by this project. As several watercraft articles have been debannered from WPSHIPS, it seems appropriate that there be a wikiproject to cover these articles. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Boats 76.66.199.238 (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

And to escalate duplicity even further there is a proposal for a Submarine project as well. Brad (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you mean "duplication" rather than "duplicity"? Kablammo (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

(Copied from my post at the proposal talk page): I agree that there needs to be something done for boats. At least one or two articles I have worked on had WP:SHIPS removed. Why can't WP:SHIP be changed to Ships and Boats? Is there a LOA cut-off that I am not aware of? Is a 28-foot (8.5 m) vessel a boat or a ship, for example? If there is an agreed upon cut-off, could that be stated on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships? —Diiscool (talk) 13:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

US Army LT 805

US Army LT 805 is a strange case. Reference link to globalsecurity does not support this particular ship. I think the the article is based on the pics that the author made himself. I really don't know what to do with this... prod it? rename it? Brad (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The article needs to be renamed, that's for sure. I found reference to the tug here. —Diiscool (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

FV Athena

AN IP editor is claiming that some of the info in the FV Athena article is incorrect (FV Athena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)). After a bit of a battle, he has provided a source - the Internet Ship Register. Unfortunately, I'm not registered with that site so cannot verify his claim. Are there any members of this WP who are registered with that website and can verify the claim, and make any amendments to the article that prove to be necessary. Mjroots (talk) 08:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

More Eyes needed

More eyes are needed to comment on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Borodino class battlecruiser/archive1. Thanks in advance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

November writing tip

One of the most common edits I made in October was replacing but, however, while and although when they didn't belong. Chicago, §5.206, recommends against something like "He went to school, but he left his lunch behind", because there's no contradiction or tension between going to school and leaving your lunch behind. The writer imagines but doesn't state the part that's in opposition, and that makes the reader work too hard to get your meaning. That is: don't insert but, however, while, although, etc. unless you explicitly state the two ideas that are in opposition. Chicago says that if the sentence holds together with and, then but is almost always the wrong word. - Dank (push to talk) 02:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, I've never thought about an imagined contradiction, but now that you say it, you're absolutely right. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

However, I can imagine lots of tension over a forgotten lunch. :)) East of Borschov 07:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Shortcuts

As I was laboriously typing out one convert template after another in a ship infobox the other day, it suddenly occurred to me this would be a lot quicker if the convert templates were already included in the relevant fields. Is there some reason I haven't thought of why this couldn't or shouldn't be done? Gatoclass (talk) 08:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Why not keep a convert template in a notepad file that's always open? You could just copy and paste {{convert||ft||in|abbr=on}} or {{convert||kn|km/h mph|abbr=on}}. I keep many such tempates and banners in such a file. The trouble with the convert template in the infobox is that they can't be left blank without messing up the infobox.. try it and you'll see. Including the convert template with the infobox tempate automatically would be ok for the experienced but not for the layman who doesn't have the measurements filled in. Brad (talk) 11:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm all in favour of using c&p to save typing. If you're doing a series of a particular type of conversions, copy the first one then paste it when needed and change figures as necessary. Mjroots (talk) 12:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, I already have so many windows open when I'm editing I'm reluctant to open any more. I suppose I could have a wordpad window open with a bunch of common abbreviations in it. Brad's point about noobs is a fair one I think. Thanks for the suggestions. Gatoclass (talk) 08:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I generally manage with three windows - 5 if you count tabs - my My Yahoo page + tabbed Google translate, Wikipedia article being edited, Wikipedia + tabbed Plimsoll ship data if doing an Empire ship article. Mjroots (talk) 10:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

SS Bretagne

FYI, shipindex SS Bretagne was recently removed and replaced by a redirect. I have restored the shipindex. See Talk:SS Bretagne (1951) for the related move discussion. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 06:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Breach of MoS on disambiguation pages for warships

I am rather concerned that there seems to be a lot of breaches of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) with respect of piping. For example HMS Leander. The approved manual of style format is that the various articles should be referred to unpiped, for example: HMS Leander (1813). What some people have done is to use templates as follows: HMS Leander. Please can corrective action be taken.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The ships in question were not called for example HMS Leander (1813) - they were called HMS Leander - the (1813) etc is a diambiguation tag not part of the name of the Warship. Claiming it as part of the ship name is misleading and does nothing to aid understanding.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the point. The correct way to refer to articles in disambigation pages is to to use the name unpiped, or with piping only to provide italics. If we take a an article about a man: John Adams (composer), his name was John Adams, in the same way as the ship's name was HMS Leader - this does not invalidate using the approved format as approved by the manual of style. If you object to the manual of style, you should raise this as a proposed change to the manual of style.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Set index articles aren't dab pages. See WP:NOTDAB. Cheers. Haus^Talk 19:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to side with Toddy1 on this. The disambiguator, while not part of the ship's name, is part of the ship's identification (whether formal, like a pennant/hull number, or informal, like our convention of using launch years). As such, it is a useful additional identifier to help readers identify the article they want to read, which is the main purpose of these pages (regardless of what WikiPageType it is named). This is particularly important as Sam Outsider is unlikely to know the first thing about the ship disambiguation conventions used on Wikipedia. -- saberwyn 20:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

My point is this: regardless of how we choose to style article names on set index articles (which would have to be pretty ludicrous for me to care about), WP:MOSDAB specifically doesn't apply. Haus^Talk 16:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Going back on this issue, for several years it has been my understanding and agreement that shipindex pages should indeed show the disambiguator in each ship listed along with a short description of the service period the ship had. This was to allow a reader to choose the correct ship they may have been seeking if they were unaware there was more than one Leander. A lot of the shipindex pages don't follow this plan because they were made prior. I cleaned up hundreds of US ship pages but eventually burned out and quit although I still clean them up when I run across one. Brad (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree, Toddy1 is correct. The link to the full article title needs to be shown, and a brief description of the ship to enable the reader to decide which ship he wants. Mjroots (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I've altered the display of wikilinks at HMS Leander. Mjroots (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

USCGC Eagle was a perfect example of what a shipindex page should not be. before and after cleaning up. Brad (talk) 03:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you took out a bit too much info, but that's only an opinion. however there is a difference between "war prize" and "war reparations" so I changed that.GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

U-Boats in Norway, 1945

I'm working on Operation Doomsday, the air-transported portion of the Allied occupation of Norway by 1st Airborne Division, and I've come across a reference to resistance from several U-Boat captains during the occupation. However, my sources don't give anything more than a reference to 'resistance', and I was wondering if anyone had any sources that could elaborate. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 11:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

If you know the names of the captains, the Ubootwaffe website may assist in your research. Mjroots (talk) 12:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No names, unfortunately. Is there any way of finding out which U-boats might have been in Norway at that time? I believe it was mainly Trondheim that was being used. Skinny87 (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This list of U-boats surrendered at the end of WWII may be of assistance. Mjroots (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

One ship, two pages

I'd like to direct your attention to Yasoshima and Chinese cruiser Ping Hai. The same ship, but with two different pages. Merge discussion is here, input would be great. :) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 18:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Almirante Latorre class battleship now open

The A-Class review for Almirante Latorre class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Afd

List of ships of the Hanseatic League has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Charger class escort carrier

I'm confused as to the purpose of {{Charger class escort carrier}}. If this should indeed be an Avenger class escort carrier template then the name of the template needs to be changed and not just the template parameters. This is why redlinks currently appear at V and D. Recommend that after name change that all articles with the current template be updated to the new template name. Brad (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure is slow in here.

I have never seen this talk page as slow as it has been lately and that's over the last 3 years. Everyone on vacation or have left? Brad (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm still here. Mostly flailing away at obscure aircraft at the moment (tho did do one ship-type article this month). - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 18:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the crickets chirping myself. I'm back from a wikibreak but I'm still getting back up to speed. Shinerunner (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm still here too, but not very active at the moment. Too much going on elsewhere. Martocticvs (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

SS Persier (1918)

I've recently expanded the SS Persier (1918) article about sixfold. It was rated as Start class before I expanded it, and has again been re-assessed at Start class. I did ask the assessor if he was sure that the grade was correct, but without any response. Anyone willing to cast a fresh set of eyes over the article and give a second opinion of the assessement of the article please? Mjroots (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

On 2 December I assessed it for a C and then you wiped it asking for a reassessment. Then the other editor came around and added the full checklist but didn't bother to check all of the parameters. Brad (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, Brad. I didn't check the talk page history before I wiped it . Mjroots (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Following are request at MILHIST posted by the editor who re-assessed the article as Start class after I wiped it, the article has been assessed as B class . Mjroots (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Almirante Latorre-class battleship now open

The featured article candidacy for Almirante Latorre-class battleship is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

RMS Titan deletion proposal

RMS Titan has been nominated for deletion here. I see the article (as it stands) as a promotional attempt to gather investors. Brad (talk) 11:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I wonder why the article was titled "RMS" and not SS as the project calls the ship. Doubt it's going to be an RMS!—Diiscool (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Replica Titanic

This is getting annoying. Replica Titanic has been prodded but wondering if it shouldn't go through the deletion process? If anything it will add to the precedent of not allowing more articles like this. Brad (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

So where is the deletion discussion? I want to put my Keep vote in there as this article has references to at least three major news services. Weakopedia (talk) 10:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

RMS Olympic III

Gee, guess what? RMS Olympic III -Brad (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think deleting this article was the right thing to do, but using G3 as the closing rationale doesn't sit right with me. Thoughts? Haus^Talk 23:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)