Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26→Archive 30

Question about DANFS

Am I correct in thinking that using DANFS text verbatim or almost verbatim is allowed because it is a work of the United States government in the public domain? Of course, if the text is used we then use {{DANFS}} and {{cite DANFS}} templates? Thanks in advance.—Diiscool (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Copying text from other sources can be a useful way to get a new wikiproject off the ground. We can generally do better at SHIPS. - Dank (push to talk) 19:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
What's wrong with using DANFS in the same way as any other source, and using {{cite web}} to reference it? This is how I've done it on the rare occasion I've used DANFS as a source. Mjroots (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned there is nothing wrong with {{cite web}} for DANFS. My main question was, Is it plagiarism to use the text verbatim? I added a lot of content from DANFS to the USS Andrew Doria (1775) article because the article was in urgent need of work; much of its original text was incoherent.—Diiscool (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The word "plagiarism" has been thrown around in a hurtful and inaccurate way lately, so let's get that off the table: plagiarism means and has always meant attempting to take credit for work that you didn't do. No one who cites the source is attempting to deceive us about the source, so that's not plagiarism. OTOH, in any high-quality wikiproject such as SHIPS, we're looking for articles that coherently summarize more than one source. All that I'm objecting to is copying big chunks wholesale from any one source, including DANFS, even if you acknowledge you're doing that, unless you let others know what you're doing and ask for help finding more sources and help with copyediting. It would be hypocritical for me to say that copying is always a bad thing, since I hope our readers will copy us sometimes, we're trying to get our stuff disseminated, but it's not generally the quality of writing we're looking for in any of our review processes. - Dank (push to talk) 23:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you all for your responses. And thank you, Dank, for the clarification of the meaning of that word. All that said, I would appreciate any help on the USS Andrew Doria (1775) article if people have the time to spare. It is an interesting ship (aren't they all?).—Diiscool (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
There are hundreds, possibly thousands, of articles on this project based entirely on text copied verbatim from DANFS. It's long been accepted practice; that's why we have the DANFS template. Having said that, obviously it's better to have multiple sources for articles. But it may not always be feasible. Gatoclass (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Of course, it could be the case that once an article has been created using DANFS as a source, nobody has bothered to see if the article could be expanded using other sources. DANFS does not cover merchant careers after military service, does it? Mjroots (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
No it doesn't, but you and I are proof that some people do bother to expand these articles :) Gatoclass (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
{{DANFS}} is supposed to be used on the main page of an article that does include text copied directly from DANFS. {{cite DANFS}} can be used for inline citations referencing a DANFS article but cite DANFS is not a replacement for {{DANFS}}. Copying DANFS text into an article is good for basic building blocks for an article. An article that exclusively contains DANFS text would normally not make an A-class rating and it's debatable whether it would even pass GA status. Brad (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyone available to create public domain templates for other sources too?

Question: is anyone available who knows how to create similar templates for other public domain sources? These templates could make it much quicker to finish out our definitions for nautical terms and older ships.
Here are some possible candidates:

Merchant marine

  • Abbot, Willis J. (1902). American merchant ships and sailors. New York: Dodd, Mead & Company. OCLC 1451464. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  • Bankers Trust Company (New York, N.Y.) (1920). America's merchant marine; a presentation of its history and development to date with chapters on related subjects. New York: Bankers Trust Company. OCLC 1725976.
  • Clark, Arthur H. (1910). The Clipper Ship Era, An Epitome of Famous American and British Clipper Ships, Their Owners, Builders, Commanders, and Crews, 1843-1869. Camden, ME: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.
  • Lubbock, Basil (1919). The China Clippers (4th ed.). Glasgow: James Brown & Son.

Nautical terms

Ships-related article at AfD...

USS Indianapolis in popular culture is at Articles for Deletion here . - The Bushranger One ping only 04:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

AfD notice

The Sinking of The Adriatic has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 06:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

USS Governor Buckingham (1863) → USS Governor Buckingham

USS Governor Buckingham (1863) has been nominated for speedy renaming to USS Governor Buckingham at WP:RM ... NOTE: This is a different ship from USS Buckingham (USS Buckingham (APA-141)) . 65.93.13.227 (talk) 06:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

USS Indianapolis in popular culture has been nominated for deletion. 65.93.13.227 (talk) 07:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion sorting?

Considering the number of deletion notices that have been placed here in the past couple of weeks, would it be worth setting up a deletion sorting page with Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting? -- saberwyn 20:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The new Article Alert Bot is in action. Any article nominated for deletion that has the ships project tag will appear at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Article alerts. The link is displayed on the ships sidebar. Brad (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

LED anchor light

Wikipedia is blessed with a long, orphaned article on the use of LEDs in anchor lights. But we don't have an article on anchor lights in general. We do have Navigation light, which is close. Can anyone think of a way to merge "LED anchor light" into a good general topic?   Will Beback  talk  02:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I would support the deletion of LED anchor light. The subject probably merits less than a sentence at Navigation_light#Marine_navigation_lights. Most of LED anchor light reads like original research or an advertisement.—Diiscool (talk) 03:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
The Navigation Rules book ( COMDTINST M16672.2CD in the U.S.) has a section on the technical requirements for all navigation lights (running lights, anchor lights, warning lights like the NUC lights, and so forth). A well-fleshed article (or, perhaps list) on navigation lights would probably include these technical requirements and would be a good place to mention LED lights. While from a technological standpoint LED lighting is "no big deal", they really are a godsend when you don't have to climb to the top of the mast 3 times per watch in a sleet-storm in heavy traffic because %&#@*&! bow-vibrations blew out the lights again.
On another note, the article was created by a 1-edit account with a coi-ish username. Cheers. HausTalk 07:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I would also support a deletion of LED anchor light, sinc it effectively boils down to the one sentence "Since the 1990s LEDs have been available for marine navigation light use as an alternative to incandescent". Regarding marine navigation lights these are covered in some detail at International_Regulations_for_Preventing_Collisions_at_Sea#Part_C_-_Lights_and_shapes from which I infer that a 40ft vessel at anchor should display a white light that is visible for 3 miles. 08:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Could someone add a small section or paragraph to Navigation_light#Marine_navigation_lights to cover anchor lights, with a suitable mention of LEDs? Then we can just redirect the article there. and spare the trouble of an AFD.
(The original was four times longer.[1] 3100 words about LED anchor lights! The current article is just a stub by comparison.)   Will Beback  talk  11:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd say create Anchor light as a redirect to Navigation_light#Marine_navigation_lights and PROD LED anchor lightGraemeLeggett (talk) 13:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Launch date?

What view do we take on the "launch date" in situations where the official naming ceremony doesn't coincide with the date of actually going into the water? The most recent obvious example is HMS Ambush, which was due to be named and rolled out of the building hall on Thursday 16th December and lowered into the water on Friday 17th. As it happened, the naming went ahead on Thursday but technical problems prevented her being moved. My feeling is that the official naming ceremony is likely to be the date for which a verifiable date is likely to be reported, whereas the roll-out and the subsequent lowering of the shiplift might both be dates which are more difficult to verify. It would be good to have a consistent interpretation to minimise arguments in such cases. With changes in the methods of ship-building these questions are likely to be more frequent, and of course the old "keel laying" changed to "first steel cut" as a ceremonial start to the build process. - David Biddulph (talk) 09:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd aim for the actual launching if possible, because namings/christenings can happen long before or long after the ship is launched (i.e. some modern cruise ships aren't 'officially' named until just before or during their maiden voyage). If there's any chance for confusion, elaborate on it in the article text...something along the lines of "Ambush was slated to be launched on 17 December, but a malfunction with the shiplift meant that while the official naming ceremony went ahead on that day, the vessel was not actually launched until [date if possible, if not, just 'later']." should solve most problems (see the third paragraph of HMS Shropshire (73)#Transfer to RAN for a similar example in terms of commissioning).
I'd support the addition of a "First steel cut" or "Construction started" field to the ship infobox template as an alternate to "Laid down". -- saberwyn 21:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Navigation - four point bearing

Does anyone know if there is an article somewhere which talks about the navigational technique of making a four point bearing? If not, where should one exist? I want to link one. (oh, there are several articles about four point bearings, made of steel with balls!)Sandpiper (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't imagine wringing more than a few sentences and a picture of a triangle out of the technique. Also, it would seem to quickly run afoul of WP:NOTGUIDE. That said, a fully developed pilotage article would probably mention the technique. G'luck. HausTalk 09:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I found a ref on this while looking for something else. A few public domain sentences on the method with a diagram are available here under the heading "Bow-and-Beam Bearings". Cheers. HausTalk 09:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the project says 'no longer ship related' and is thus not 'interested' in articles. Do things like Coastguard (etc) stations and organisations fall inside or outside the project? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

In regards to a Coast Guard station, it's not a ship. This would fall into the same area as a stone frigate. Essentially it's a military base. Brad (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
That told me what it was, but not whether this project extends to it :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry. A Coast Guard station would not be in this project scope. It would fit under milhist and possibly ports. Brad (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Edmund Fitzgerald article nominated for Good Article

There has been an extensive amount of work done on this article and I just nominated it for GA review. Would the project also consider revisiting it's "C class" rating on the quality scale? Sincerely, North8000 13:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Link: SS Edmund Fitzgerald. HausTalk 14:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
It is marked as failing B class on referencing. I note that there are still some unreferenced paragraphs, so the assessment is correct in my opinion, and the article will not reach GA class until this has been addressed. Mjroots (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
In Sept 2008 I demoted the article (with fall-out drama) from B to C based on unreferenced sections. Since then the article has been worked over substantially. If I were extremely picky it would fail B class now but I only spotted two paragraphs without references. Not enough reason to fail B class currently. Brad (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I have reviewed SS Edmund Fitzgerald. Please, please, bear with me folks if I did anything wrong since this is my first time reviewed an article. 1Matt20 16:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
First impression: way too many section headers. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Let's please hold off on promoting it for a couple of days. I think the article would benefit from a bit more scrutiny. Cheers. HausTalk 17:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the scrutiny. As indicated on the article talk page, we tried substantially putting ourselves through the wringer on this to make it better. Our goal is to eventually make FA, and also article of the day on a November 10 (day of her sinking), hopefully November 10th, 2011. Haus added some tags which we're working on. North8000 18:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Also took out lots of subsections in response to Ed's comment. Hope we didn't overreact.North8000 18:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Greek destroyer Lonchi

The article Greek destroyer Lonchi has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references found only a minor published (gBooks) mention of Greek "Cruiser" named Lonchi. Fails WP:V and by extension WP:N if any content here is true

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 12:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but there's reason to think this is the same ship: [2]. Google translate renders it as Lance J (Destroyer). HausTalk 12:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
It's already been taken care of, see here. Parsecboy (talk) 13:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

White ensign vs red ensign on CPR inland vessels

Please see Talk:Moyie_(sternwheeler)#Nope_to_use_of_red_ensign_in_Infobox though it's not just on the Moyie where this problem exists.Skookum1 (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I was wrong, it's neither - read this. I'll ask the Penticton Museum why the White Ensign i used; it maybe because there's no extant version of the red-and-white checkerboard which apparently was the fleet flag.Skookum1 (talk) 05:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

St George, battleship

St George, battleship needs a naming fix but I'm not even sure what country the ship belongs to. Russian perhaps. Brad (talk) 08:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the first article should be merged into Russian battleship Georgii Pobedonosets. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Merge suggested. Brad (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
My concern is finding a proper title for the article and then the proper categories. Would Russian torpedo boat Ismail be the best choice? Thanks for cleaning up and adding the infobox. Brad (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes although whether it should be Izmail or Ismail I'm not sure about.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Tug Atlantic Salvor

Someone prodded Tug Atlantic Salvor for deletion. 65.94.232.153 (talk) 07:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It's still pretty lean, but the article now has 2 solid refs, an infobox & a picture. I removed the prod. If anyone if interested in the JFK, it might be a fun article to edit. HausTalk 08:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Ships naming on Commons

A lot of ships have the same name. I categorised more than 3000 ships by name on Commons myself and found out that some ships were even numbered, without any system. On the Dutch version of Wikipedia we have the Rotterdam (IV), Rotterdam (V) and the Rotterdam (VI). That is the reason why I started to categorise every newly found ship on Commons in a category according a new scheme: [[Category:"Shipname" (ship, "year of completion")]]. The first one:

and to be renamed in this system:

I wondered how to make this a naming convention, no idea. But I found it so logical, that people will follow it automatically. Naming ships this way, it solves another problem too. We write SteamShip and MotorShip in different languages. M/S and S/S, MS and SS, in Danish e.g. M/F and H/F. So I started a discussion on naming of ships on Commons, as it can clarify how to proceed. See in this case how the inland passenger ship, completed in 1969, without any problem can be categorised by name, no conflict with naming the sea-going ships.

For a very few categories we can make an exception, like

  • [[Category:"Shipname" (tugboat, "year of completion")]].
  • [[Category:"Shipname" (barge, "year of completion")]].

My question is: please add your comment on /Commons_talk:Naming_categories --Stunteltje (talk) 07:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Move Maritime Trades to task force of WP:TRANSPORT?

Hi. I've opened a discussion for converting Wikipedia:WikiProject Maritime Trades to a task force of Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport with a name along the lines of "Maritime Transport task force". The discussion is here and comments are welcome. Cheers. HausTalk 09:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Brig

There's a discussion going on at Talk:Brig about renaming the article to include a disambiguator (if needed), and what that should be. It might interest some of you. Martocticvs (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Expand template for deletion

{{expand}} is a wiki-wide template but relates to this project in that we have over 300 articles that have the tag. The deletion discussion is here. Forewarning that it's a drama filled discussion but try and look at the facts instead. Brad (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Template has been slated for deletion though it was a matter of interpretation in deciding the delete consensus. Brad (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

MV/MS prefixes for merchant ships

I've been having a look at expanding and tidying some of the P&O Cruises ship articles and I'm a bit unsure about prefixes.

In common use (conversation, advertising, etc...), few merchant ships have an "MV" or "MS" prefix. On official documentation, the prefix may or may not be used, and where it is, the usage may not be consistent. For example, P&O Cruises make a small reference on their website to the MS prefix. This is in the context of "Send mail to [Crewmember Name], MS [Ship Name], c/o P&O Cruises...). However, the various ships' stamps, as used on official documents such as discharge books, use the MV prefix.

Currently, a number of P&O Cruises ship articles use MS and a number use MV.

In the interests of keeping things tidy, does anybody have any opinios as to how to rectify this? Is the prefix even neccesary? Wexcan  Talk  15:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

As explained at ship prefix MS and MV (also M/S, M/V) are interchangeable. It appears that on en-Wiki that the choice of MS or MV is down to the article creator. M/S and M/V are deprecated for technical reasons - it makes all such articles subpages of the M article. The prefix is necessary, as ship names get re-used, and SS Foo may well be a different ship to MV Foo. It seems to me that we have two choices here, either continue with the status quo, or make it part of WP:MOSSHIP that all these articles are either titled MS Foo or MV Foo, my preference would be for the latter. Mjroots (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the preference for MV over MS, simply because MV is the more common prefix. The issue is very much one of consistency, a quick look at Template:P&O Cruises Ships demonstrates the lack of consistency which may cause confusion. I think I shall standardise the P&O Cruises ships with MV and see how that goes. If there are no objections, great. If it causes issues, it could pormpt an interesting discussion. Wexcan  Talk  15:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
There's a historical aspect here: we had a very prodigious editor of passenger-ship/ferry articles who was Finnish, and my understanding was that M/S is more common in northern Europe. I think that explains a lot of the "why", but whether we should change it is another question. I have a niggling sense that ENGVAR might apply to the question somehow. Cheers. HausTalk 16:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
It's a difficult question since there can be conflicting official sources. A ship's stamp may use MV while other official documents may use MS. My main aim here is consistency, at least within a company's fleet. In the aforementioned template, I have removed the prefixes to align with common usage and the similar template for Princess Cruises. I have also changed the individual article titles to MV based on my experience with that company (apart from Azura which appears to have move protection. As long as the company's fleet is consistent, I'm happy. Wexcan  Talk  18:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I move protected Azura following a request to move it from MV to MS. I've no objection to it being moved back, but this really needs to be accomplished via WP:RM, as it cannot be seen as an uncontentious move. If consensus can be gained for the move back to MV, then I'd be happy to facilitate the move. Mjroots (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It is an issue in this Commons talk:Naming categories discussion too. Best solition: No prefixes at all, just year of completion gives a better result in finding a ship. --Stunteltje (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

See, I thought that too. Cruise ships and ferries are rarely known with a prefix, nor are many merchant ships apart from, say PS Waverley and SS Shieldhall and some historical ships. The issue wth using just name and year is that it's difficult to identify it as a ship. At the same time, you can't just add (ship) since there may be many of the same name. Wexcan  Talk  23:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
My suggestion is "shipname" (ship, "year of completion"), without any prefixes. That is the suggestion on Commons and the Dutch Wikipedia too. We have the same discussion there at this moment. So standardisation is possible. Even easyer would be a small symbol for "ship" in the name, that would make a real standardisation possible. No ship, schip, schiff, and so on any more. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I suggest you read Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships) to see how much the naming conventions are the subject of debate and the views of people concerned. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I missed that one. I'll copy this discussion over there. --Stunteltje (talk) 10:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
The archives of Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships) are voluminous and heated as well. It's only been 45 days since the end of the last naming convention war. HausTalk 11:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
And (to risk an metaphor) the waters in which these discussions take place are uncharted, with both shoals and abyssmal depths and almost certainly mined. The barometer might be falling too. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

SAS Mendi (F148)

Looking for sources for this article the SA Navy gives a page of statistics, which are reproduced in the wiki-article. Checking those against Jane's Fighting Ships the two don't perfectly match up. The first figure in Jane's is the displacement of 3,590 while the Navy list it at 3,700.

The problem is when you look at the dimensions of the craft. Jane's list it as ft (metres) 397 x 53.8 x 20.3 (121 x 16.4 x 6.2), and the Navy as 397 x 53.8 x 20.3 (121 x 16 x 5.95).

Two seconds with a calculator shows that 20.3ft does not equal 5.95m. If the Navy are this inaccurate with their figures then are their figures in general to be trusted? Is Jane's generally accurate? Is there a more reliable source for the displacement than the SA Navy? And are they reliable at all given their poor math? Weakopedia (talk) 07:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I would go with Jane's since they obviously can do math. There might be reasons why some measurements differ such as rounding up or down which the US Navy often does but the conversions should at least be correct. Brad (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

LNWR ships

Andrewrabbott (talk · contribs) has created a large number of articles on ships operated by the LNWR. He is a new editor, and has only used one source when creating these articles, which are thus a bit stubby. I've expanded the TSS Duke of Clarence article. If any editor wishes to expand the other articles then it would be appreciated. Mjroots (talk) 07:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion query for British Warships in the Age of Sail

This article appears to be an advertisement for books by Rif Winfield, the contributor to the article. The article doesn't itself provide any information about British warships in the age of sail. Should it be deleted? Apuldram (talk) 11:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Without casting a judgement on the article, if you think the article should be deleted, the first step is proposed deletion. If the proposed deletion is challenged, then the next step is articles for deletion, where the Wikipedia community will argue the merits of deletion or retention of the article.
I would point out that the article was not created by the author of the book, but by another editor, both of whom are Wikipedians in good standing. Mjroots (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Apuldram, the article is not about British warships in the age of sail, it's about British Warships in the Age of Sail. It is about a book, which is certainly no reason for deletion.—Diiscool (talk) 15:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Articles about books are valid articles.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Article name for the ironclad Huascar

I renamed the article on the Huascar as Peruvian ironclad Huascar to conform with our naming convention, but a editor has challenged that. He believes that it should be Chilean ironclad because the Chileans captured the ship during the War of the Pacific and used it against the Peruvians. It still survives as a museum ship in Chile today. I understand his point although I used Peruvian because they'd bought the ship from the English and used it first. I believe that people attach significant weight to the use of Peruvian or Chilean from nationalism issues that I'd prefer to avoid. One editor has proposed using the standard naming convention (Husacar (ironclad)) rather than our format to avoid these very issues. Anyone with thoughts on the issue is welcome to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Peruvian_ironclad_Huáscar#Name_of_the_article.

But this does bring up a larger issue, namely the proper title for articles on ships put into service by the capturing navy. This happened all the time during the Age of Sail and most of the articles on captured ships use their RN name, hopefully with a redirect from the French name, but this didn't happen that often after steam propulsion came to the fore. A brief survey shows that no consistent pattern seems to be used, but I think that we should use the title under which the ship is best known. If the ship only fought in a single battle, and was captured in that battle, then it should probably use the original owner's name, even if it remained in service with the capturing navy for an extensive period of time. Examples of these would be the Russian ships captured at Tsushima, which weren't scrapped by the Japanese for another decade or more. Unfortunately Huascar fought for both the Chileans and Peruvians during the War of the Pacific and doesn't neatly fall into any category.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

In this case, disambiguating with (warship) or (ironclad) or even (ship) would seem perfectly reasonable - consistency isn't a gold standard, especially not when it poses neutrality problems. Thankfully it had the same name both times! On the Age of Sail issue, I wonder if the tendency to use British names over French ones is as much a skew due to the common sources as anything else...
Sold ships pose a similar issue - they're usually one article under "most notable service", but there's some cases (eg USS Mississippi (BB-23) and Greek battleship Kilkis) where we have both. Shimgray | talk | 21:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm generally not in favor of splitting articles on a single ship, regardless of the number of owners. I did it on a Russian/Soviet destroyer, mainly because I had better info on its service with the Soviets than I did under the Tsars, but I now think that that was a mistake that I'll have to correct at some point. I'll merge the Kilkis and Mississippi articles eventually.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Someone (I forget who) tried to merge them earlier in the year - I reverted it because the merge was both under the US name, but the other way round seems reasonable. Shimgray | talk | 23:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
One of the Chinese/Japanese ships has the same issue. Ships should have one article per hull, at the most notable name/user, with redirects. Since both Peru and Chile have notable service for Huascar, and there is the neutrality issue here as well, Huascar (ironclad) would be the name I'd suggest. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Has policy on this changed? I'm honestly curious - I vaguely remember a few years back multiple articles "per hull" (I like the term!) being accepted if not common. If one-per-hull is now the standard, I'll keep an eye out for such cases and mark for merging... Shimgray | talk | 16:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Generally, one article per hull is the desired situation. Like most conventions, this should be treated with common sense, and the occasional exception may need to be made to this. One reason for an exception may be WP:SIZE. Mjroots (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree I think splitting may make sense when there is a long history under each "name" and can avoid an overlong article but in this case the article is a reasonable length. And a neutral name as Huascar (disambiguation term) will both be simple and effective. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
While I definitely favour Huascar (ship) in this instance there are plenty of instances where two articles is a better answer. USS Phoenix (CL-46) and ARA General Belgrano work better as separate articles, for instance. I think this judgement is more down to the tradition of the ship rather than any particular point of design or nomenclature. The Land (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The Huascar has a very long history - as a Peruvian ship it was ordered in the 1860s, fought first the British and then the Chileans. As a Chilean ship it fought the Peruvians, was rearmed and later participated in a civil war, and then had a very long history of harbour service. Such a long history would easily make two long articles.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
In the case of Huascar, a single article should be written, and a split performed when it is apparent that it needs to be split. A medium sized B class article is better than two smaller start class articles. Mjroots (talk) 07:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The article will not need to be split even though she's almost a century and a half old. She's spent most of her career inactive in harbor, about which it's hard to write much.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Article title confusion SS Princess Alice

SS Princess Alice (1911) is the article title but the content continually refers to SS Princess Louise including a Miramar reference that is inaccessible without subscription. Can someone more familiar with the topic figure this out? Brad (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not registered with Miramar. The article states 17,759 tons. According to Simplon Postcards, Princess Alice was 3,099 GRT, and Princess Louise was 4,032 GRT. Plenty of info at Plimsoll ship data to expand the article with. Mjroots (talk) 07:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Tenmei (talk · contribs) (creator of article) notified of this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 07:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The ship's configuration data have been re-verified by Lloyd's Registry citations; and the identified editing errors have been resolved. --Tenmei (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Marine engineering

The Marine engineering article is kind of a mess. It is currently NOT a part of any Ship-, or Sea-, or Marine-related WikiProject. It is a part of both the Technology WikiProject and the Transport WikiProject—but I'm guessing those projects are not heavily peopled with folks who understand ships and marine technology. Furthermore, the article seems to be confused about whether it is about the operation side of "engineering" (in the sense that railroad train operators and ship operators are included) or the design side of "engineering" (folks who do the design of large engines, big ships, power plants, electrical networks, etc.).

In short, I think the article badly needs to be in some other project to get it the attention it (probably) deserves. Thought it might be a good idea to let your project think/discuss it. And it it does not fit in your Ships project, maybe you could suggest it to a different/better WikiProject. I'm a non-ship, non-marine oriented person so don't really have good understanding of the Wiki-world of marine subjects and projects. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Maritime Trades may be a better home for this one. Mjroots (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed: the whole marine engineering topic area is a mess. It is included in the maritime transport articles with the other watery occupations. If there are any active editors that are marine engineers, or have a keen interest in the subject, I'm not aware of them. Cheers. HausTalk 18:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I've put a note on that project's Talk page. We'll see what they think. I should note that I am very pleased to see that other editors agree it is a mess and very much needs attention. N2e (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

BBC article feature

Hi all - I'm asking for your help. A man from the BBC watched me write the article Mobile Landing Platform yesterday, as part of a three or four minute video on Wikipedia. It'll be on the BBC News website on Friday, and the article will hopefully get a fair few hits. I'm not exactly au-fait with ships articles, and I'm hoping you can give me a hand whipping the article into shape in time for then. I'm not expecting much, just a quick copyedit or the like. I don't want to impose! Thanks, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Also: it reads absolutely terribly because the chap just asked me to keep typing over and over again without looking at any sources or switching away from the screen, or pausing. Sorry! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Saberwyn beat me to it but I found a few more minor things to clean up. I also assessed it to B-class as it meets the requirements. Brad (talk) 07:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks guys, this is really excellent :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 08:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyone have a bot or know someone, that could find links to http://www.pmars.imsg.com/ and change them to https://pmars.marad.dot.gov/ since the former is gone (presumably rehosted by the gov't)? I've done a couple as I came across them, but it seems like a perfect bot task. As far as I know the directory and document structure (rest of the URL) remains the same. --J Clear (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot requests /Brad (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yacht and sailboat categories

There is a great deal of disorganization in yachting-related categories. Category:Yachts seems in practice to contain mostly members of Category:World War I patrol vessels of the United States, which in turn seems to consist largely of private vessels seized by the navy. My guess is that the intersection indicates those which were pleasure vessels before the war. Specific yachts are almost all found only in Category:Individual sailing vessels, but classes/models of yachts are in Category:Sailing yachts, which is in Category:Yachts by type. Individual motor yachts, however, are in Category:Motor yachts, which is also in Category:Yachts by type. The various WW I patrol boats can be found almost anywhere within this structure.

Can we impose some order on this? Category:Individual sailing vessels is enormous and has only one subcategory for a single ship. It sees to me that we can split this out a bit: maybe a Category:Yachting with Category: Individual yachts and Category:Yacht classes and some others directly under it. I made a first stab at this but took the nomination out as soon as I realized that it was bigger than I could work up on the fly. Mangoe (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Individual sailing vessels should be split by type of sailing vessel. Thus Category:Individual barques, Category:Individual brigs, Category:Individual brigantines etc, including yachts. Motor yachts should be categorised separately. Mjroots (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Am I right in thinking that Category:Skipjacks should be a subcat here since all the pages are for specific boats? Mangoe (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The trouble is that some of the categories you list actually contain articles that aren't under the scope of this project. Some might be in scope and others not. Skipjack would be one of those. However, all of the WWI patrol boats would be in scope. I tried to sort these categories once but ran screaming in terror as the category tree for ships is an absolute nightmare. I don't have the stomach for it. Brad (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

SS Nieuw Amsterdam

SS Nieuw Amsterdam (1938) appears to have been cut and pasted from SS Nieuw Amsterdam (1937) rather than moving the article. To begin with, disambiguation is based on year of launch in which this ship was launched in 1937. Disambiguation is not done by first year in service or commissioning date. The trouble is that I tried to move the article back to 1937 but was not allowed to. What are the remedies to be taken now? Brad (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought, in general, launching date was to be used? In which case, yes, 1937 is correct. Since there wasn't any content change, I've simply done reverted both articles back to their previous state. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Silly me should have realized a revert was all that was needed. Brad (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

infobox template problem in article

I've gotten a bit of a problem with Polnocny class landing ship infobox. I formatted some of the text and now the infobox displays wrong - one bit on one side and one on the other. I've compared the code against the example parameters and diffs between the version before I edited and mine and can't see why it shouldn't be right. Could someone have a look and advise/correct. Failing that I'll revert back in a while and edit one step at a time. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, most curious. Thank you. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The way to do lists in these infoboxe is by using <br> rather than bullet points. Mjroots (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

WT:Featured article candidates/Almirante Latorre-class battleship/archive1

Thoughts? Also see the (non-talk) FAC page, WP:Featured article candidates/Almirante Latorre-class battleship/archive1, where I mention that roughly 25% of our FAs on ship classes listed at WP:SHIPS that have a foreign word in the title translate at least one of the words in the first paragraph. - Dank (push to talk) 20:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio on British WW II cruiser articles

I've been working on a couple of articles on British cruisers of WW II and regret to say that I've discovered significant copyvio issues on HMS Kent (54) and HMS Jamaica (44). Major amounts of material from both articles were copied from the ships' articles on uboat.net. I've rewritten the article on Kent and am working on Jamaica, but the other cruiser articles need to be checked against uboat.net and those articles may need to have their main bodies blanked. Cleaning up the copyvios for Jamaica was tedious as a few sentences had been rewritten or changed, but it's likely easier to wipe out everything but the infobox, links and lede. Is there any other place I need report this problem so the cleanup can start and the perpetrator identified? Here's a useful link to examine to the other articles that need to be checked: List of cruiser classes of the Royal Navy. The two class (County and Crown Colony/Fiji) articles I've checked look to be OK, but everything between the later C-classes and the Tiger class needs to be checked.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

In Kent, it looks like the copyvio had been around since 2006... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
(ec)One thing I always look for is a large article size increase where a lot of text may have been copied in from another web page. Kent went from 1.8kb to 6.6kb in the link I gave above. Simply blanking the copied text doesn't remove it from the article history. There is some process the copyright project does to clear all the history. Brad (talk) 08:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for catching this, Sturmvogel! - Dank (push to talk) 14:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I checked through the other Colony-class cruisers and only found significant copyvio on the HMS Kenya article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I've started going through the Dido-class cruisers and User:MiniEntente appears to be the miscreant responsible as he created the HMS Hermione (74) article with the offending text back in early '06. Looking at his contribution history his fingerprint are all over British cruiser articles and I expect to find more problems with the early Dido-class ships as well as the other County class cruisers. He's been inactive since '08, but I'll let you admin types decide what to do about that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
If the problem is as widespread as you describe copyright policy needs to be followed. You should place {{subst:copyvio | url=insert URL here}} in the violating part of the article so it can be rectified properly. The URL part should point to uboat.net if that's were the text was copied from. There are other instructions at Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Brad (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, I've cleaned up all of the Dido-class articles and started on the Counties. I've started following the procedure on Cumberland.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Edmund Fitzgerald peer review

SS Edmund Fitzgerald is up for a peer review. The Fitz is consistently in the top 50 most visited ship articles and usually makes the top 5 in November the month of the sinking. Article is GA now with sights set on FA by 10 November. Brad (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Comparison of armoured to unarmoured flight deck designs

Comparison of armoured to unarmoured flight deck designs is a quagmire sinking deeper and deeper. Currently, there is a dispute about captions added to two images in the article which attempt to "illustrate" the differnces between the two approaches by listing the casualties in the captions! It really needs attention from editors experienced in handling controversial material in a neutral manner. I'm seriously considering taking the article to AFD, but my philosophy on AFDs is to try to make a genuine attemt to "rescue" an article first, with an AFD as a last, not first, resort. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't exactly see where to post about the pics but pics are a visual aid only; not an informative aid. Therefore they should only be captioned to explain the situation ie Franklin on fire after bomb hit. Information belongs in the article. Brad (talk) 09:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Horatio Hornblower

FWIW, I've made a few proposals at Talk:Horatio Hornblower that you may be interested in. 184.144.169.126 (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Question about the wikiproject

Just a question, seeing as this project looks at articles relating to ships, does this also mean any fiction or media specifically aimed at and about ships? --Victory93 (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Good question, to which I think the answer is "no". We stick to actual, physical ships rather than fictional ones. Mjroots (talk) 07:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
We avoid fictional topics as has been the case for several years now. Brad (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Perfect example and timing. I just removed the ships banner from HMS Witch of Endor. Of course I expect a note on my talk page or this page complaining about the removal. Brad (talk) 05:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
If you left a section on the talk page detailing why the banner was removed, it would probably alleviate the situation of having complaints on your talk page. 184.144.169.126 (talk) 06:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
That's what edit summaries are for. If I left 'detailed' notes on every talk page I'd never get assessing finished. Brad (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

U.S. Navy naming convention

I added this to the Portal:United States Navy page and decided to add it here as well. According to the U.S. Navy Style Guide ship names should be referenced as (the 2011 All Hands Owners + Operators Manual also reflects this):

ship names - For first reference always include USS, the ship's name and the hull number: USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75).



Exceptions: Do not use "USS" for ships before 1909; or if she is not yet in commission; or she has been decommissioned and you are referring to the ship in her present state.

There is no hyphen in the hull number. In All Hands text, the ship name is in italics. On second reference, use only the ship's name. Do not use "the" in front of a ship's name: "USS San Jose," not "the USS San Jose."

This obviously means that nearly every page is incorrectly titled not to mention any references to the ship(s) within the page itself. Has this been discussed before? What actions should be taken? Evan.oltmanns (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME covers the dashhyphenwhateverweusethisweek in the hull number, I believe - The Bushranger One ping only 19:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The subject has been discussed to death. We don't follow the US Navy style guide to the letter because it isn't designed to work in an encyclopedia that covers multi-national topics. Brad (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
concerning hyphens, there is an RFC on the issue at WT:Manual of Style. 65.93.15.80 (talk) 05:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Brad, sure the U.S. Navy Style Guide would not be used to reference United Kingdom, Australian, Spanish, or any other country other than the United States. If the Style Guide is the official guidance on how the U.S. Navy refers to their own ships then why should that not be reflected here on Wikipedia for U.S. Navy ships? 207.132.184.130 (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Because of WP:COMMONNAME; the same reason we say, for instance, "USS Carronade" instead of "USS CARRONADE". The vast majority of references use the dash, i.e. "CVN-75", including the vast majority of U.S. Navy published works. "CVN 75" is, assuming the style guide mentioned is "correct", a new development, the reasons for which I have no idea of (but I could speculate...), and which is, to be frank, rather ugly in appearance. But as noted, WP:COMMONNAME would call for the dash, and hopefully the USN will come to their senses with this unneeded alteration in how they present their hull numbers. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

World Shipping Register

Is this http://e-ships.net an up-to-date database for shipping? What happens is the vessel is not listed there? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 09:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how up-to-date it is, but other websites are available (as they'd say on the BBC). Mjroots (talk) 09:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Could you suggest a good one to use please Koakhtzvigad (talk) 09:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
It depends on the type/useage of the ship as to which websites are more likely to have the info required. Fakta om Fartyg is particularly good for ferries and cruise ships, Det Norske Veritas has all ships registered with that classification society. Other websites are good for ships built in a particular place or operated by particular shipping lines. Plenty of suggestions at our resources page. Mjroots (talk)
Ah, of course, the resource page! I'm unable to locate some of the vessels in the Ships of the Gaza flotilla raid article, where at least one 'ship' is a 25' pleasure yacht, and another seems like a tourist ferry (?) Koakhtzvigad (talk) 10:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm probabaly going to need assistance from somone with Miramar ship index subscription because I wouldn't use it often enough to warrant spending the money Koakhtzvigad (talk) 10:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Cunard America class

RMS America Class has been nominated for renaming. 65.93.12.249 (talk) 06:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

SMS Konig, etc

I recently came across a number of pages where the opening sentence was in the format “SMS König ("His Majesty's ship King") was …”. I changed them to what I thought was the standard format; these were reverted with the explanation "those were decided during the FAC, please do not change them".
I raised this with the editor(s) concerned; I’m now raising it here to get a wider perspective, as it affects a number of articles, and there is the suggestion here that this format is now a requirement for FA status.
Is this opening style an improvement? Is it even a good idea? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

(The case for the prosecution)
The ships name is Konig; the word means "King". That is not the same thing as saying the ship name is "King". I have never seen a reliable source refer to this ship as HMS King, and I think it would be OR to say so. It is not usual in sources to give the name in translation; the usual style would be to use the name as given, with a comment on what it means (which is what we used to do). Does it mean we should refer to Konig as "King" thereafter in the article?
As for the FAC bit (does anyone know where the original discussion is, BTW? I can't find it), are we going to be using this format in future everywhere? Can we expect to see "ORP Orzel (Ship of the Polish Republic "Eagle")..." when that article is up-graded?
And if part of the point of the exercise is to give a translation for the "SMS" ( which is not a courtesy we seem to extend to ships of anybody else’s navy), if we feel it is beyond the wit of man to know SMS is analogous to HMS or USS, then surely a footnote, or a link to the SMS (disambiguation) page, or to the Seiner Majestät Schiff page (we have both) should suffice.
Any thoughts? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Wait, what? What?! I can understand the case for disambiguating the "SMS" prefix, but the ship's name? Good grief! That's overkill of the worst degree, I think. Explaning what "König" means in the text makes sense, but in the bolded intro? No thanks. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Rumiton brought up something I didn't know just this week: that the Danish and Swedish equivalents are often translated "His Danish Majesty's ship" and "His Swedish Majesty's ship", because "His Majesty's ship" might give the reader the impression that the ship is or was a British ship. Makes sense to me, so the latest SMS article to hit A-class now begins:

SMS Markgraf ("His German Majesty's Ship Margrave")

Is this acceptable? - Dank (push to talk) 00:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we have to worry about nationality confusion (in most cases) in regards to "his/her majesty's ship" on the article for the ship itself, since the article will dispel that easily (the only possible exception being perhaps a ship that was transferred between two or more navies that used abbreviations for "his/her majesty's ship").
I also don't think anyone is saying to use the translated name aside from introducing it. I would prefer to see a name translation to English in the prose somewhere, such as in the history, discussing the ship's namesake, etc. It would generally be OR to refer to SMS König as SMS King, because even though "könig" translates to "king", "König" is the proper title the ship was commissioned with and referred to as such all her life (I'm pretty sure that English-speaking navies called her König and not King as well, with a few exceptions).
I think that this would be better, for the example of König, if the translation cannot be feasably worked into the prose:
SMS König ("His Majesty's Ship King")
And so on for other non-English-speaking navies. Also, can someone give a link for the FAc this was discussed in? bahamut0013wordsdeeds 00:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd go partly with Dank's suggestion. KDB, SM, SMS, ORP etc could be translated, but ships names should not be. Thus KDB Bendhara Sakam (Royal Brunei Ship Bendhara Sakam), SM U-14 (His Majesty's Submarine 14), SMS König (His Majesty's Ship König), ORP Orzel (Ship of the Republic of Poland Orzel). Mjroots (talk) 09:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
(Reply to Dank): "His German Majesties Ship" looks vaguely familiar, but as it isn’t what SMS actually means, it feels like an invented term, which we aren’t supposed to do. And it still leaves the ship name as Margrave, when it should be Markgraf
Also seems like tinkering with the present format to make it acceptable, when it is altogether unclear why the previous format is unacceptable. Xyl 54 (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
(Reply generally): To clarify, if I was unclear, above: This format affects about a dozen articles, all WWI German (and Austrian) battleships; the format in ship articles elsewhere, (and in the articles on these ships before they were upgraded) is "SMS Konig was (whatever).. Her name means …"
Why is that now wrong, and what is the pressing need to change it? Xyl 54 (talk) 12:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Seiner Majestät Schiff does not mean "His German Majesty's Ship", it merely means "His Majesty's Ship". Seiner Deutscher Majestät Schiff would be "His German Majesty's Ship". Mjroots (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Of course, but inserting the word German (or Danish or Norwegian) into a ship's name prefix is a NATO convention that has gained wide currency over many years. It establishes that the prefix HMS in English refers specifically to ships of the (British) Royal Navy. It is not an "invented term" as above. Here [[3]] is a site that acknowledges this. There are many others. The question of trying to translate proper nouns, such as the names of ships, does not merit serious discussion, though explaining them in the text is always informative. Rumiton (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering who would fall into that trap! HMS does not specifically refer to ship of the (British) Royal Navy. HMS may stand for Hans Majestäts Skepp or Hennes Majestäts Skepp, both referring to ships of the Royal Swedish Navy. Mjroots (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
(reply to Rumiton)
I recognize the convention; at least I’ve seen it in the context of other royal navies, but that hardly applies to Germany nowadays [4] and using a NATO convention for WWI Germany would be a stretch. As I said, it looks vaguely familiar, but I can’t off-hand remember where I’ve seen it; do you have a source that has used it for WWI German ships? And the convention as a whole is still problematic in the light of the guideline. Xyl 54 (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
(general)
I realize it’s early days, but can I suggest the idea of translating the ship name doesn’t have a lot of support, and that the feeling here is that it’s better to put an explanation of the name further down in the text somewhere instead?
As far as what to do with the SMS, can I suggest we have three options:
a)Translate as some variety of "His Majesties Ship" (and negotiate the minefield that is leading us into)
b)Use a footnote, or link to the SMS/Seiner... pages (for anyone who wants to know)
c)Leave it as SMS and trust readers will work out it is something analagous to HMS/USS (which is what we do on other ship pages).
Hmm? Xyl 54 (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't pretend to have a perfect answer but I still maintain that just about any reader seeing HMS in front of a ship's name in English will assume it is a British ship, and the Swedish/Danish etc needs to be inserted to remove this confusion. I agree that the Kaiser's ships predate this convention, but it is better than nothing, though a footnote seems another good solution. Just not HMS by itself, please. The sources I have uniformly leave it as SMS, which also seems OK to me. Rumiton (talk) 05:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Empress of Canada

I tried to convert the shipindex into using {{RMS}} but was reverted at Empress of Canada. Should the shipindex use RMS? Please discuss at Talk:Empress of Canada. 64.229.101.119 (talk) 05:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

All fixed and page moved to proper name. Brad (talk) 10:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Chinese twins

Take a look if you would at commons files in commons:Category:Dingyuan class battleship - there seems to be confusion which is Dingyan and which is Zhenyen. Specifically, these two copies of the same pic:

  • Dingyen (?)
    Dingyen (?)
  • Zhenyan (?)
    Zhenyan (?)

Thanks, NVO (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Based on the bow-scroll, I think it is the Chen Yuen.

Examination of photos of other contemporary Chinese warships show that ships did not have identical bow scrolls.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Help stamp out 'as of' dates.

These 'as of' dates are becoming a problem. When applied to a ship that is in active service it can be expected that the ship will remain in service for many years to come. Today's ships have decades of service life and there isn't much reason to expect that it won't. The biggest problem I'm seeing is the 'as of' dates aren't being maintained. I've been catching articles that still have 'as of 2005' on them. Even using the {{as of}} template requires someone to go around updating articles which in my observation isn't being done. {{Ship in active service}} can be used for active ships as its set to change the year automatically but there's something that annoys me about that too. 'as of 2011' seems to imply that in 2012 the ship won't be in service. This project has about 900 articles with outdated 'as of' dates. Brad (talk) 04:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

If one uses "as of", then the article is accurate to the date of the as-of, so we know the condition of accuracy. Without it, one does not know how up-to-date the information is. 184.144.161.207 (talk) 06:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree; the statement that 'as of 2011' seems to imply that in 2012 the ship won't be in service doesn't make the least bit of sense to me, to be completely honest. It means exactly what it says on the tin: that the information is current as of 2011, no more and no less. This "it isn't broken, but somebody might think it actually means X and therefore we have to fix it" mood is something I've seen popping up elsewhere lately; it seems to be spreading, and that disturbs me. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
So, what happens when the last reliable information is that a ship was sold/transferred to the Soviet Union in 1946. Are we to assume the ship is still in service because we don't have any info to say it has been withdrawn from service, or do we state that the ship was in active service "as of 1946"? Mjroots (talk) 08:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
That case could be described by "last reported active in 1946" or something similar. "As of 2005" is better than no indication of date if the article is not being kept up.Dankarl (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Apart from it possibly becoming a cliche, I have no problem with "as of." If it gets repetitive, find another way of saying it. Rumiton (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Well.. this conversation has spiraled out of control. What I was proposing is that we find a way to set articles so that they don't suffer from aging when there is no real reason for it to happen. This means using {{Ship in active service}} where |status= in the infobox requires it. Simply typing in Active as of 2011 means that someone has to go around and update it in 2012. The 2005 'as of' that I was referring to are the many articles that were laid down from DANFS in the early days. They have a single sentence at the end saying something like As of 2005 no other ships have been named USS Foo. Those are just silly ways of making an article appear dated. Let's eliminate those at least. Brad (talk) 03:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

But if nobody is updating the articles to change 2010 to 2011, the same nobodies will be there to update the articles when the information becomes incorrect. At least in the first case, readers and editors will understand that the information is/may be outdated or incorrect, and may even seek to update it, instead of simply being misled. -- saberwyn 04:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The year could be made to update by use of {{CURRENTYEAR}}, but doing that risks inaccurate information being shown if circumstances change. The specific example that Brad gives is one I would support. No need to dab where there is nothing to dab to. Mjroots (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I can't see the point in using {{ships in active service}} as it only means someone will have to monitor the article to correct it when the ship becomes inactive. How is this better than having an "as of" date that may be a couple of years out of date but which is at least an accurate statement? Gatoclass (talk) 10:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
That's a good point. There probably isn't a one size fits all solution here. {{ships in active service}} looks great for articles which have a lot of eyes on them (such as, for instance, ships operated by the Royal Australian Navy) while a manual 'active as of' seems the way to go for less-visited articles. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The catch is that ships are going to be in active service for a lot more than a year (at least, the navies certainly hope so!). So while it is still likely to go out of date, it's less likely to be out of date than "as of X". - The Bushranger One ping only 21:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Another original point of mine that's being overlooked. Typical. Anyway, USS George H.W. Bush was commissioned in 2009 and has an expected service life of 50 years. There is no credible reason the article should be manually updated every year for the next 48 years. Brad (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, well maybe we should adopt Nick's suggestion - use "ship in active service" for well maintained pages and "as of" for the others. Gatoclass (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Frigate Bezzavetnyy 811

Today's featured picture File:USS Yorktown collision.jpg shows Soviet frigate Bezzavetnyy, but we don't have an article on it. It would be good to have an article for that. 184.144.164.14 (talk) 05:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Soviet submarine K-222

Soviet submarine K-222 has been requested to be renamed Papa class submarine, see Talk:Soviet submarine K-222. 64.229.101.183 (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Scope?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Brad (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering, what exactly the scope of this project is? In particular, I wanted to clarify that it only covers "ships", and not "watercraft" in general? Covering watercraft more generally seems like a natural extension for this project.. for example, during this proposal for WikiProject Submarines, some editors assumed that submarines were within the scope of WP:SHIPS.

If the scope isn't all "watercraft", then maybe there is interest in expanding its scope to include all watercraft? Mlm42 (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

A solid scope for this project was never assembled due to lack of participation in the discussion. Essentially we cover commercial and military ocean going ships over 100' in length and any length for military ships. We cover biographies of ship builders and architects but not ship owners. We do not cover ship battles or ship armaments. Those are covered by milhist/maritime warfare and weapons task forces. Expanding the scope of the project to cover bass boats isn't exactly right. A ship is not a boat and a boat is not a ship. Brad (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I see. But notice my choice of word: "watercraft". A ship is a watercraft. Is there opposition to expanding the scope to include all watercraft - i.e. smaller vessels as well? Mlm42 (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
It's a grey area. I think there's been a WP:BOATS project mooted on occasion before, but there never seems to be sufficent interest. And expanding WP:SHIPS to cover Sea-Doos...er...maybe not. But a WP:BOATS would make sense. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
See my comments at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Boats#Oppose as I'm tired of repeating myself ie a boat project is ridiculous. Brad (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I wasn't suggesting a WP:BOATS; there reason I came here is because I saw that failed proposal. If there really is opposition to excluding watercraft based on size, then that's fine. But a 100' cut off seems a little arbitrary.. what happens to the articles about vessels that are 95' long? What project are they under? I've also started a discussion at the "Maritime transport task force", to try and clarify their scope as well. Based on the names, it seems to me that "Ships" should be included within "Maritime transport".. Mlm42 (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
You really need to do more reading on this never ending and drama charged topic. A very elegant suggestion was given here (a maritime project) but all conversation and suggestions were dick-slapped by the 'owner' of the maritime transport task force formerly WP Maritime Trades. Brad (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Brad, I'm only trying to help. I wasn't suggesting WP:SHIPS be merged into Maritime transport, since that's obviously a controversial move. I assume you were referring to User:Haus, in your comment? Anyway, I was only pointing out that the term "Maritime transport" includes the concept of "ships".. unless I have misunderstood some subtlty here? And your comments aren't very helpful towards establishing a scope..
I think if we stay cool, then we can sort this out. Mlm42 (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, this project does cover some of the smaller stuff too. Whether there should be a cut-off at 100'/30m or 100 tons is a matter for discussion. Mjroots (talk) 07:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

So, do I understand correctly in assuming that there is a desire to create a project analogous to "WikiProject Aviation", called something like "WikiProject Maritime", as a child of WP:Transport and as a parent project for WP:SHIPS? (By the way, the word "Maritime" also sounds like it would include Wikipedia:WikiProject Oceans) Mlm42 (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no desire to create anything until some rational thought and conversation take place. If things had gone better with maritime transport I could have easily seen this project giving all military ships to milhist/maritime warfare and folding what was left into maritime transport. But a lot of work has gone into this project and it's been a defacto project for military ships. Most of the traffic on this talk page is over military ships. I don't see this project merging easily anywhere at this moment and certainly not on a whim. Brad (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting doing anything on a whim; if a new project is to be made, then it's probably a good idea to go through Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. Here's my understanding: Haus started a discussion expressing his desire to move to a task force of WP:Transport. After two or three days of discussion, during which time a few other ideas were brought to the table, discussion stalled for almost a week. Then Haus moved Maritime Trades to the task force, and Brad, you felt this move was too hasty. I certainly don't think Haus meant to upset anyone.
And as Haus points out, it's nothing that can't be undone. In any case, it certainly doesn't sound like Haus was against the proposal to make a bigger project. Let me ask this: Do you think it would be better to have a "WikiProject Maritime transport" instead of the "Maritime transport task force"? If so, then this could be accomplished with a relatively straight-forward move. Mlm42 (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Definitions

Before charging off with new projects, names or mergers we should be looking at definitions of maritime, boat, and ship. Wording and definition is a bit important here so that the average editor can grasp a scope. Afterward it can be decided what to merge or what to rename or move. Brad (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

What is a ship, what is a boat?

I think the crux of the matter is that this WP needs to decide where a line is drawn between ships and boats. Such a line could be drawn by length [at say 100' (30m)] or by weight [at say 100 Tons (GT/GRT/BOM or whatever quoted)]. Once this has been decided, then it will be easier to assess the proposal. Mjroots (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The 100/100 guideline is what I've been adhering to for quite some time now. Brad (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
100/100, unless the ship is a military type primarily notable for its military service? - The Bushranger One ping only 19:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I suppose a definition of what a "ship" is, is good to include in the article ship (if well referenced, of course!), and the same for "boat"; but these definitions don't have to correspond to the scope of this project. The scope of a WikiProject is whatever its members decide it is (and it doesn't have to be extremely precise).
Fundamentally, a WikiProject is a group of editors with common goals. So if you guys want to use the 100/100 rule for the scope, then that's perfectly fine; it should probably be included on the project's main page, so you don't get confused editors like me. Mlm42 (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Mlm42, we are not about to redefine what a ship is in the ship article. What we need to establish is where WP:SHIPS gives way to WP:BOATS, then the proposal above can be given better consideration. Currently, we cover many smaller boats such as Mystery, Maud etc. Mjroots (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
In the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, “ship includes every description of vessel used in navigation”.[5] The Historic Ships Committee have designated a vessel below 40 tons and 40 ft in length as a boat.[6]. US codes are similar to the Merchant Shipping Act.[7] I have always understood that a ship is any vessel which cannot be carried on another vessel. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
So USS Cole is a boat then? Mjroots (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
In the RAN, a boat is a vessel that is intended to be launched from another vessel, not merely one that is transportable as cargo. The only exception I can think of is the submarine, which is always a boat. Rumiton (talk) 07:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Here once again is another trap we fall into when people start pointing to outside sources much like the US Navy style guide thread below. Wikipedia has its own style guide and so should wiki projects. The whole point of this discussion section is to establish a scope for this project. Brad (talk) 12:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Indeed; maybe it would be useful to add to the first paragraph of the project page a sentence like "For us, a ship is any vessel which is over 100 feet long or weighs over 100 tons." Is that fair? Mlm42 (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
As a relative newcomer to this project, I rarely wade into discussions. However, this issue has been bothering me since I first learned of WP:SHIPS. The project page needs a Scope note. Period. It looks like it used to have one but it no longer does. I raised the issue in a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Boats. The current scope guidelines of this project seem to be "If it looks like a ship, swims like a ship, and quacks like a ship, then it probably is a ship." The most helpful discussion I have found can be read here in the Archives. I'm not offering an opinion on what the scope should be; I just want there to be an "official" Scope note on the project page. —Diiscool (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
All of the previous scope discussions I've started have been intended to make an official scope to post on the main page. Without any resolution as to a scope there is no official scope to put on the main page. I guess I'll just make something up and get it over with. Brad (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Has an official scope been established for ship v boat?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the scope of the project (Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Project Scope). It may even be a good idea to include this directly on the main project page. Mlm42 (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Australian battlecruiser categories

Category:Battlecruisers of Australia and Category:Battlecruisers of the Royal Australian Navy and Category:Indefatigable class battlecruisers of the Royal Australian Navy and Category:World War I battlecruisers of Australia have been nominated for deletion. 64.229.101.119 (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The three remaining categories were not properly followed through on. The tag is there but they weren't listed for discussion. Brad (talk) 07:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
They were properly listed. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 5 contains all four categories, in proper sections. They're still backlogged at CFD though... Someone should leave a message at WT:CFD to prompt some sort of action (closure or relisting). 65.95.14.96 (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Category:Battlecruisers of the Royal Australian Navy ended with a keep result. 65.95.14.96 (talk) 06:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge Virginia (pinnace), Virginia of Sagadahoc, and Pinnace

Two articles, Virginia (pinnace), Virginia of Sagadahoc cover the same ship-- and other pinnaces as well. Looks to me like we need one article about Virginia, one article about Pinnaces, and one or two articles about Patience and Deliverance in Bermuda. Anyone who knows redirects and/or disambiguation to take a look at this? Djembayz (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The first two articles need to be merged together and any information from those articles about the ship type needs to go to Pinnace. Pinnace itself needs references and more information. Brad (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Christening versus Naming

Which countries/ship owners still include Christian religious rites in the naming ceremonies of their ships? I have changed a few instances of "christening" to "naming" in various articles about ships with the rationale that a ship, as an inanimate object, doesn't have religious beliefs - i.e. a ship cannot be Christian (or Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, etc). I think the word "christened" or "christening" should only be used to refer to the naming of a ship if it is made explicitly clear in the article (with a valid cite) that the ceremony did in fact include the performance of a Christian ritual. Roger (talk) 06:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what words they use in non-Christian countries, but the U.S. Navy uses "christening". See, e.g, File:USS New York christening.jpg, [8], [9], [10]. I don't know for sure if they always have a clergyman give a prayer or invocation, but the sponsor traditionally asks that "God bless this ship and all who sail on her."
As to the ship's own religious beliefs, I'm reminded of the joke, "'Do you believe in infant baptism?' 'Believe in it? I've seen it done!"
—WWoods (talk) 09:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the word "christen" in the context of naming a boat has lost its Christian baptismal connotation in modern times. The word can and does mean "to make Christian" or "to baptize" in some contexts, but in boat naming it means just that: "naming". I think you should hold off on massive changes to articles. Especially if sources say "christen" because you will have no idea if the namers did, in fact, make it a Christian ceremony -- unless you were there, and then that would be OR. —Diiscool (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

SC-1 class submarine chasers template

{{SC-1 class submarine chasers}} is gigantic and therefore should be set to a collapsed state by default. On USS SC-49 the template was larger than the article itself. Brad (talk) 05:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

AfD for Le Pietre (yacht)

The Le Pietre (yacht) article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 06:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Battleship Petropavlosk

A requested move was placed on File:Battleship Petropavlosk.jpg stating that it actually the Poltava. Please add comments to commons:File talk:Battleship Petropavlosk.jpg as to whether you agree or disagree with this assessment. Adrignola (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Archive_24&oldid=1137365638"