Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 68

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

→

Archive 75

Ship type

I am leery of bringing up a guideline discussion again, but here (Izumo-class multi-purpose destroyer) we have one of those article titles that goes against the naming conventions. Now there has been several undiscussed moves, each one seems to be adding more and more description to the title "destroyer". I would like clarity from the project itself about its naming conventions and things like "helicopter destroyer" or "offshore patrol vessel" and other types of names that do not tend to meet the current iteration of naming conventions. I have used naming conventions as a reason before in page moves, but if it is deprecated I would like to know. Thank you. Llammakey (talk) 11:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The current title clearly isn't in line with the naming convention and needs to be fixed. My preference would be for Izumo-class carrier, since that’s commonly used (either standalone or as “helicopter carrier”, which the naming convention would shorten to “carrier”) and we are under no faux-constitutional obligation to contort ourselves into knots to pretend a feathered, quacking thing that flies isn't a duck. Parsecboy (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I see that we also have Hyūga-class helicopter destroyer, Moskva-class helicopter carrier. In other circumstances we might have had Invincible-class through deck cruiser. Davidships (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Hence the reason why I asked. We have also Lake-class inshore patrol vessel, P21-class inshore patrol vessel, Harry DeWolf-class offshore patrol vessel, Navajo-class rescue and salvage ship, FREMM multipurpose frigate and I could go on. However, the argument used by proponents of these is that we follow the citations, which was the argument for use of the definite article. Since I received such vehement backlash on that subject, I come to WP:SHIPS for further comment. Llammakey (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Dispute at Two-stroke diesel engine

An editor has just reverted cited content, apparently on the grounds that the marine types are the only notable ones. I am not sure if an article fork might be appropriate. More eyes/comments would be welcome at Talk:Two-stroke diesel engine#Special:Diff/1035300967. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Help with a ship?

I am not very experienced with ships, although did end up doing a lot of investigations into the various Lalla Rookhs not long ago. This is a minor one, but it just occurred to me that someone in this project may be able to help. I added another HMS Surprise with a question mark to the list, because it is mentioned in various sources with regard to the Coming of the Light (section in the Torres Strait Islanders article - and also mentioned in a few other articles related to the island) - but not sure if this is correct. I looked in the Lloyd's Registers from 1867, as an earlier HMS Surprise was broken up in 1866, but the only mention is this one in the 1871 register. I'm not expert at reading the register, but it doesn't look like an RN ship to me, and I'm not even sure if it's supposed to include navy ships. This is a tiny and trivial matter, but has sparked my curiosity so just wondering if one of you ship experts might have an idea on this one. Perhaps it is wrongly quoted as "HMS"? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

While some generally low-quality sources call this ship 'HMS' Surprise, I don't think that the RN did things like that in Australia. This website (which may not be a RS) says that the Surprise in question was a chartered vessel, but doesn't provide any further details. This news story also refers to the ship as only the 'Surprise'. Nick-D (talk) 08:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick-D. Yes, I thought it was a bit odd. I now see that the missionary's bio in ADB calls it Surprise, and a couple more sources (not of the highest standard of RS, but still) [1] [2] don't mention HMS either. That Shipping Wonders of the World looks as if it's fairly trustworthy and probably reasonably well-researched, even if not top-notch RS. However, looking more closely at the ship in Lloyd's, it looks as if it was only built in 1872, so presumably not the same one.

Related question - I see that Surprise (ship) redirects to HMS Surprise, but shouldn't it redirect to Surprise#Ships? (I will add this one there once I've fixed the relevant pages.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

p.s. I took Qld Heritage Register to be an RS - but I'll have to email them with these findings! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

It (like other Australian state heritage listings) is a RS, but it's not infallible. The research for listings tends to be focused on the site, and there can be some errors in the broader material which forms part of the write-up. Nick-D (talk) 08:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Another thought - Surprise (clipper) was still floating around at that time - I wonder if LMS hitched a ride, or chartered it? No way of telling, I suppose. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Definitely not the clipper. The Surprise in question was "a small trading schooner, the Surprise from Sydney", which happened to call at Lifu after the intended charter vessel failed to arrive - and which the missionaries chartered on the spot for their reconnoitre for a New Guinea mission. This, and details of the five months round voyage, in Rev Archibald W Murray's The Bible in the Pacific (1888) at p.226ff, and this refers to charter by the LMS. Several newspaper articles refer to her as Surprise of Sydney.[3][4]. Surprise wrecked 1/2/1874[5]. Previous to 1868 she was French[6]. Davidships (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh, that's brilliant, thanks so much, Davidships. It's nice to have that little mystery cleared up. I don't know why I didn't think of looking on Trove myself! (I think I was focused on it being a British or European ship.) I will see how it can best be added to the article. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Best infobox for Sauvie Island UFO?

Would Template:Infobox ship begin be the more appropriate infobox template for Sauvie Island UFO? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I doubt it. More appropriate than what? Perhaps when the article acquires some comprehensible substance it will be clearer what (if any) infobox would be most appropriate - I had to read all the references to find out what this was about; initial reaction was that it was the name of a book about a boat after seeing "Category:1970s works". Nevertheless, as it is stated to be a leisure sailboat (though one ref seemingly contradicts itself by referring to it as a "paddlewheel-powered boat"), perhaps Template:Infobox sailboat specifications could be relevant.Davidships (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Title/text is misleading. Whatever the experimental concrete hull was it was not the "Sauvie Island UFO" until wrecked and so "named" by visitors to the area. The "article" is not about a boat. It is about an object that was a boat of a so far unknown name that is located on Sauvie Island. I expect the object now called the Sauvie Island UFO is more "notable" in terms of references than the apparently failed experimental hull of whatever name. Therefore I question it even being something for the project unless we find the thing was quite notable in marine literature so that it turns into a vessel article. Palmeira (talk) 12:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

MS Mega Regina article in need of updating

The article MS Mega Regina needs updating. Except for the lead picture and some changes in the text about the ship's name and owner, pretty much everything is still about her life as MS Mariella. JIP | Talk 12:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

So hop to it!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

It will happen, and I see that you have made a welcome start. There is probably not yet much more to say about a new service that started two weeks ago.

What is missing is some referencing for her time as Mariella. Davidships (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, it is questionable whether it should have been moved from MS Mariella, per WP:SHIPNAME "An article about a ship that changed name or nationality should be placed at the best-known name, with a redirect from the other name." Davidships (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

... but common practice is that vessels in service are housed under their current name. Mjroots (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. Common bad practice in my view, and directly contrary to this project's own Guidelines. This was last, I think, discussed here, with a small further comment lower down. There was no suggestion of introducing a most recent name preference for the generality of cases, excepting where, in a sequence of names, no name is clearly more notable than any other (that rider was not actually added to WP:NCSHIP, and is clearly inapplicable in this case). At that time, there was no attempt to seek the consensus required to amend the Guidelines - perhaps that should be revisited? Davidships (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Preliminary move proposal

This is to test the waters before adding the proposal to move articles for five ships now under U.S.N. names where that service was a brief period in the ships' histories. Further, the Navy never owned the ships and naval service was fairly mundane and far less significant than the economic, industry, design and commercial impact of the six ships built. The ships are here given a somewhat spurious Navy "class" designation. I've found little support for such a "class" in Navy references. They do, and were designated a United Fruit Company "Great White Fleet" class (Mail class) as all six ships were built to a common design by two yards in the space of under two years. The six ships in order of launch are:

Talamanca launched 2 February 1931

Jamaica launched 15 August 1931

Chiriqui launched 14 November 1931

Antigua launched 12 December 1931

Quirigua launched 6 February 1932

Veraqua launched 23 April 1932

All but Antigua were bareboat chartered through the War Shipping Administration to the Navy and commissioned. They served an important, but routine role, in chilled, fresh food delivery to and within the war zones. They had significance as a large single order at the start of the depression, the first of the company's banana boats to be contracted in the U.S. and thus with major design changes to meet U.S. subsidy requirements. The design change was related to refrigerated spaces, mail and other government subsidies and drove a larger more passenger liner like design that impacted trade for almost a decade before the war. I have a separate "class" article in draft, getting the class stuff out of Mizar/Quirigua, and with better single reference to industry significance and new design features. So, before stirring up an endless debate in the individual Talk pages with potential for mixed results, is there likely support here for moving them to their 1930s to 1960s names? Palmeira (talk) 14:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

If their history was more significant as civilian ships, then they should be moved to their civilian names. These are not true warships and their pages should reflect that. Llammakey (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the only reason there is more text on operations is that the Navy records all those voyages for history it preserves. Lines do as well, but in often now lost archives (I know of a large library/archive for a large fleet in the basements of a Manhattan building with such — apparently now just "gone"), and routine sailings on lines are just that. The only reason I put this here is that five ships are involved. If only one I'd move it stating the reasons. With five there is likely more exposure to contest. The convention of getting consensus on possible contested moves (I hope these are not) is a post on the Talk page. The last thing needed is discussion and consensus differing for individual ships. I've little patience with endless quibbling and will leave what I consider a bit of a mess in that group before getting into that kind of differing approach for individual ships. If there is no consensus or support here on the five there is no point in opening up those Talk pages. Palmeira (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm Ok with that as long as their civilian service is expanded first. I don't see any point in moving names if nobody is going to add anything to the article. Crook1 (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Or the routine expanded into excessive DANFS verbiage reduced? There is where an imbalance often occurs. Take Ariel from DANFS:

On 4 January 1944 the store ship left Norfolk, with a convoy bound for the Mediterranean Sea. She called at Algiers, Algeria on 24 January and soon sailed for Naples, Italy, where she unloaded supplies. She then sailed east and called at Oran, Algeria, in early February before sailing back to the United States. The ship arrived at New York City on 13 February.

As Jamaica? That is a scheduled voyage that went on schedule. There is no remaining, public "source" documenting each date of a scheduled departure with "transported passengers, mail and freight to New York, Havana, Kingston, Cristobal, Limón and returned to New York with passengers, mail and bananas." Because the Navy kept its logs, employed people to reduce those to a "ship's history" and is not subject to bankruptcy or sale and preserves it all we have lots of citable words whether they involve more than routine sailings and deliveries or not. For commercial ships we give undue weight to brief naval service due largely to lots of excess verbiage. Palmeira (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I edited down the verbiage on Ariel/Jamaica. But IMHO the war service record could be reduced to "the generally ship operated from NY to Carribbean ports. Exceptions includedto Iceland, the The Med, and to UK for the invasion of Normandy." GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

(Grin) Exactly, a paragraph. No naval offense intended (because I've done similar "plodding" for years) but the fairly routine ploddings of a non-combatant from 1942–1946 expands into paragraph after paragraph yet the 1932—1942 and 1946–1969, some 33 years of passenger, mail and cargo service on scheduled routes do not. That is largely because the company records of each of those "voyages" are not held and "published" at taxpayer expense. That is the problem with the expansion Crook1 suggests. If they were, we'd find no few notable people (even their passage was "routine" except occassionally in society pages noting their departure or arrival aboard) and perhaps notable transport (those mail strong rooms?) took place. My decades of seagoing brought realization Navy people, particularly non-career, view sea tours and voyages as events even in full peacetime (I think "cruise books" may still be a thing). My "merchant marine" contacts on the other hand, despite some "sea stories," spent 9—11 months at sea, year after year, decade after decade, with very little time in port. Their "home" simply departed and arrived in places most had seen many times before. My last contact, captain of a bulk carrier, spends about a year on, port turn arounds 48 hours or less, takes a few months at "home" and heads back to sea and the job. Combat is something else, but sea life is pretty routine despite some real danger and ole mother ocean is always ready to maim or kill as are the working parts of ships. A "DANFS" for those six "banana boats" covering their commercial departures, events at sea and arrivals would be a book. To some extent Wikipedia Ships regarding the U.S. is too often simply a mini DANFS site in which a link to the Navy's pages would be sufficient. Palmeira (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually Newspapers have that info for most merchant vessels up to about the start of WW2. I guess arrival and departure of ships was a pretty big deal back then.Crook1 (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

They do. Unfortunately some, including the NYT, have eliminated full page copies and gone to "articles" so many of those page, even multiple page, port schedules have often vanished. I was furious when my local library eliminated the microfilm with major newspapers and magazines fully imaged. I cannot count the times when I was searching for some trivial thing but my eye was caught by another subject on a page that was far more significant. And yes indeed, those listing were very important to commerce and persons. If you look closely you will see vessels listed with sailings and "last mail" times. Two generations of my family worked overseas in the early 20th century and almost every family letter to them closes with a note the writer has to hurry and close to get to the train. The train schedules and ship schedules were closely watched, indeed memorized, because the 10 p.m. train for New York would be the last to get mail to the ship calling with mail at the closet port to the relative's location. Miss that ship and one missed the last chance of mail to that port for weeks. These United Fruit "Mail class" ships, once all six were in service so that three operated on each coast on a schedule (liners), maintained a once a week sailing out of San Francisco and New York for years. If I recall, each ship took about 19 days round trip. So, to compare with DANFS "voyages" one could repeat for each 20 day voyage, year after year to "expand" the commercial service text.

That is why I contend DANFS causes massive undue weight to naval service for essentially passenger/cargo vessels. For my ship days one showed up, checked in, sailed and got to work — if there was any "fuss" something was wrong. With DANFS here I'm reminded of some trips where I went outside the normal and found the "voyage" very special with "pre-sail meetings" for what we'd consider basics (don't sit on the rail, watch those heavy watertight doors, etc.) — each damn sailing was an event!

SS Lothringen

Hi Folks!! I've started work on the last supply tanker for the Bismarck and the Eugen. I can't find much information on it, so any help is apreciated. It started as the Papendrecht taken over by the German navy as the Lothringen, captured by the British and became a tanker known as Empire Salvage. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 14:47, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Theres a brief history at List of Empire ships (Sa-Sh)#Empire Salvage. Plenty of detail about Empire Salvage on the relevant Lloyd's Register entry. Mjroots (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

By various dark arts, I have been able piece together a few "snippet views" on Google Books from The Empire Ships: A Record of British-built and Acquired Merchant Ships During the Second World War (p. 440) as follows:

5.1940: Seized by Germany at builder's yard. Acquired by German Navy, renamed Lothrignen, converted for replenishment at sea, used in Atlantic as a supply ship for the battleship Bismarck , other raiders and submarines.

15.6.41: Captured in North Atlantic north-west of Cape Verdi Islands by HMS Dunedin in position 19.49N 30.30W. Taken to Bermuda. Renamed Empire Salvage. Used by Royal Navy at Halifax N.S., and in the Eastern Fleet.

1946: Reverted to original Dutch owners and name.

Alansplodge (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Lothringen was not a steamship, so the article should be moved, perhaps to German tanker Lothringen to match German tanker Spichern as she was naval? Davidships (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Now at Lothringen (oil tanker). Mjroots (talk) 05:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

A useful data source for Dutch ships has: PAPENDRECHT - ID 5045. Some photos & information at Bouwnummer RDM-220, m.s. "Papendrecht" (2), 1940, tanker.' and an interesting photo set from later commercial service giving locations at papendrecht. Then for RFA days a pretty detailed events list in ROYAL NAVY 1 - KRIEGSMARINE 0. Palmeira (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Given how little service Lothringen did for for German Navy, compared to war service for Allies, perhaps article should be at Empire Salvage? GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Given her long Dutch merchant service, MV Papendrecht (1940) would seem to fit the bill. Mjroots (talk) 12:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes. MV Papendrecht (1940) as Mjroots suggests based on original name and then long service after being "hijacked" by the war. We give far too much precedence to those naval names when the real history and significance is sometimes elsewhere. Palmeira (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Does it need a Requested Move? Or just shift it and work any issues out later? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

there could be several valid article names: Papendrecht (tanker), MV Papendrecht, Papendrecht (ship) GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd disambiguate it, there's likely to be several motor vessels that have been named Papendrecht - I don't have a Miramar subscription so unable to confirm. For now, I'd say it's better to bash the article into shape, e.g. a "Description" section is needed, giving details of her dimension, tonnages, engines etc. Code letters and Official Numbers need adding. Sources have been given in this discussion to enable these to be added to the article. Mjroots (talk) 06:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Much depends on which name might at present be considered the best-known or most notable. If we are RS-driven, probably it is Lothringen which will have the preponderence of references, despite it being the shortest. As a navel vessel, I had supposed above that it should follow the naval naming guidelines. The German Navy has had at least two others of the name: SMS Lothringen and another half-built wartime seizure, which was a training ship/minelayer and later began her intended service as the cross-Channel ferry Londres.

Papendrecht holds the longevity vote but, to be honest it would probably take original research to fill out a 16-year commercial life routinely carrying oil around, though there are a few Dutch books on the company and its fleet. There have been three other Papendrechts, all connected to Van Ommeren: a general cargo built 1918, another ex-Holsworthy Beacon (built 1961), and a bulk carrier ex-Kosice (built 1989). Although we would normally use launch year to dab, the present title is more helpful to the reader that a "(1940)", and would not need change if any of the others came to be written about.

I doubt whether Empire Salvage makes the short-list (it's a current re-direct).

Hope that helps the choice. Davidships (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Notability for Small Patrol Craft

We have several articles about small patrol boats being used in WWII, such as USCG CG-74339, YP-19 and YP-51. Are these notable enough to have a separate article about them?Crook1 (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Patapsco913: pinging author of the three examples mentioned. Davidships (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

This AfD from a few years back is probably relevant. There are tons of these vessels that simply don't pass WP:GNG. Parsecboy (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, I guess I am the culprit. I started out by creating pages for several of the YPs that served in WWII and that brought me to the 75-foot patrol boat page and I saw that many of the builders did not have pages so my plan was to get the shipyards started and then create profiles for a few representative ships. I think that the ships listed above that served in WWII (especially as a YP) must have a record of movement (in Fold there are a lot of the YPs mentioned so you could theoretically build it out) - not sure about the Coast Guard ships (as they tend to be less popular with researchers and their log books aren't available on line https://www.archives.gov/files/research/military/logbooks/uscg-logs-1945.pdf). I did not realize there was a 100 foot or 100 ton threshold. I did have to dig to find information on many of these patrol boats since they were built some time ago. I guess a list would work but I thought figured that an article would be better since it is easier to build on and can list more items like call signs, captains, homeport(s), naval/CG district, photos...etc. Patapsco913 (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely not in many, many cases. They are there because the U.S.N. is very much dedicated to vessel history — particularly anything commissioned whether meeting modern standards for such or not — and dedicates considerable resources to that history. The result is a DANFS article on motorboats (though some of those were privately built, small, fast warships) in some cases. The commissioning of things that float in WW I was crazy; until one realizes many were part of that Section Patrol thing much adored by influential yachtsmen and clubs (and allowing many a rich young man a commission as commanding officer of daddy's or his own yacht). That said, I've found some of those fascinating with considerable real marine history. For example, Governor R. M. McLane (steamboat) opened a whole window into the Maryland “Oyster Navy” that included Julia Hamilton (schooner) of no particular note in naval service but action in the Chesapeake Oyster Wars. USS Calabash (SP-108) was quite a bit more interesting than "found unsuitable for naval service, Calabash served for less than a month" and was one of a number of craft opening a window into a rich period of Florida "houseboats" connected with great wealth and estates in that state. USS Nepenthe (SP-112) and James Deering and Vizcaya as an example. That is a great deal more of interest than the one paragraph DANFS. Some of those SPs are examples of major developments in design, a view into the lifestyle of gilded wealth and society of the late 1800s to WW I.

That said, I have and still advocate those fragments of articles, stubs and worse, be consolidated into the format of Lists of Empire ships where a few lines recognize the existance (as documented in DANFS) and allows for expansion if one finds the brief paragraph is the tip of an iceberg of nautical history. Being potential tips of icebergs I would not support simply deleting them now. I would strongly support, and assist, an effort to migrate all those bits into an expanded list such as seen in Empire ships if we can get a strong consensus to do that. Palmeira (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I think creating some sort of a list instead of these individual articles would be a good idea. The other thing - some of these boats had a civilian life after decommissioning, and obviously none of these articles even attempt to cover it.Crook1 (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe something like "List of 75-foot patrol boats" with separate lists by shipyard? They are in somewhat nice chunks of 10-15 boats spread over 17 shipyards. Patapsco913 (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Almost all the subjects are U.S.N. (DANFS sourced) or other U.S. government agency. I do not think a great number of small survey craft are covered. That means the bulk fall under U.S.N. with a significant number under U.S.C.G. In my opinion U.S.N. and U.S.C.G. should be the main list bucket into which such vessels are placed. There is a large list of those Section Patrol, SP numbers. Those are probably the bulk, because the Navy history folk were placing all the small fry into DANFS appendices — much like the list I'm advocating. There is another group of more modern Navy craft — often incorrectly titled "USS" something here — falling into the "yard" batches. Personally the elevation of any of the "Y" designations to "notable" is I think rare. They are a bit like a city's trucks or buses, utility, and notable only in event of accident or some such. A few of the "patrol" types did see some interesting action and may qualify due to events. Almost all candidates for the listing I'd like to see will be found under one of the groups in List of patrol vessels of the United States Navy. So, just such a list being a bucket for Navy patrol vessels would be an improvement. Another list might be selective by other types, for example Medium Harbor Tugs (YTM) where some warrant a few lines but not an "article" of any sort. For example, USS Powhatan (YT-128) could really be distilled into a good paragraph or two within such a list.

Just so that everyone is clear re the 100'/100t threshold. Vessels which are below this threshold do not fall under this WikiProject. That does not automatically mean they are non-notable. There are plenty of vessels under 100'/100t that are notable, such as Maud and Mystery.

If there are vessels which fall outside the scope of this WikiProject that need to be discussed, then such discussion needs to be held elewhere. This WikiProject should not be seeking to remove articles that do not fall under its remit. Editors may argue for such removal at appropriate venues if that how they feel. Mjroots (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Mjroots, since every one of these pages have WP:Ships Project attached to it, I think we have to make a decision one way or another. Saying we don't care but people keep adding it regardless doesn't make a problem go away. Either we have to take some sort of ownership, or actively police and remove such association.Crook1 (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

From what I've seen the bulk of candidates are DANFS derived and no other project takes interest. "Military History" is seen in some but whether that project actually over-watches these small craft that have small impact on military history is questionable. The only other project I know of that deals with small, sea going vessels is centered on sailing. I expect all those U.S.N. and U.S.C.G. small vessels are project orphans except here. I have not ever seen a "yacht" project for such as the sometimes very interesting steam (coal & oil), gasoline and later diesel yachts that got into the Section Patrol. USS Margo (SP-870) is an example with no projects other than Ships and Military History taking an interest. As I noted, deletion of existing stubs is something I won't support in general. At the same time us reorganizing coverage from stand alone pieces that are more format than substance to a more compact format preserving the essence would seem to gore no other project's ox and "editors" arguing from an ownership aspect of "article status" is not something we should worry much about. I suspect editors that originated some of those tiny DANFS copies might support a list as seen in List of Empire ships (A) where the items Patapsco913 notes could likely be accommodated as well as allowing photos. I would not just subsume an article as full as Margo into the list as that has considerable description of the vessel. For those, list and link I think. Palmeira (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport/Maritime transport task force covers smaller vessels. MILHIST may alsp be appropriate for some vessels. Mjroots (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Crook1 has a point and I tend to agree with regard to U.S.N./U.S.C.G. patrol craft in particular. Those in no way fit maritime "transport" — unless they were or became transportation craft outside naval service. One of my special interests, Army vessels, definitely have some small individual craft that do fit "transport" and are notable in the niche of military history as well. Since everything from uniforms to medals, small arms to to large aircraft fit MILHIST that project has at least some interest. Our "Ships" has the most focused look at vessels. I think it would be a mistake to absolutely exclude those smaller naval type vessels, including those yachts that are very much historic and relate to the society of the times as well as "patrol" in WW I. Palmeira (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Project scope

Crook1 is correct when he says Either we have to take some sort of ownership, or actively police and remove such association.. AIUI, 100'/100t was originally chosen as the standard for inclusion for this WP because the vast majority of vessels meeting either of the two measurements would be notable enough to meet WP:GNG and sustain articles. For vessels not meeting 100'/100t, they are less likely to meet GNG, although some vessels are capable of sustaining articles. The question is, how do we handle these smaller vessels. Either we firmly state that they are outside the scope of this WP, and by doing that enforce discussion of matters affecting those articles to other WPs, or we accept that vessels meeting a lower threshold (TBD) are also covered by this Wikiproject. If we take Maud as an example, she is only 20GT, but 60' long. 20'/20t seems on the low side to me. Another approach is to have no lower limit, meaning that we take in any and all vessels capable of meeting GNG, no matter their size. Mjroots (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I did a bit of checking yesterday along those lines. My conclusion was that there must be a distinction between notability and project coverage and interest. One deals with what subjects are of enough note and with sources to sustain an "article" and the other an area of interest for the project. I was thinking of James Caird (boat) as an example of a "vessel" or "craft" that most certainly meets the notability and saw it is covered, but in an overall article "Ships" rates FA. It is "notable" itself, but in my opinion wisely covered in context of why. Then, to get picky, why are "we" covering a voyage if not for the famous lifeboat? Then comes a undoubtedly notable "ship" — Niña. Nope, not our business? That "ship" was 50–60 tons and 15.24 m (50.0 ft) on deck. If the project applies assumed "notability" of 100/100 as its standard for interest we can also delist a vast number of "ships" of that period: Discovery (1602 ship), Godspeed (ship), Maryland Dove and in more modern times such vessels notable in certain circles (science) as MV Anton Dohrn, USC&GS Arago (1854) and RV Tioga. The list is quite extensive.

My conclusion was the project should cover vessels and water craft that individually meet notability with coverage in sources or, if coverage is limited, through an event, technological advance or unique service with at least one reliable source. Leave the tonnage/length as only being our threshold for assumed "notability" — and that is sometimes challenged from outside the project. I do not approve either. There are vast numbers of very large, very not notable ships, inaugurating no new technology or service and known only by listing in a registry and mention in traffic reports or corporate PR. If a small production vessel, say a tug, work boat or even water taxi, becomes notable through some event or as a significant advance in maritime matters or technology I think it appropriate for "Ships" to take an interest. I would say we should not take notice of pleasure craft that only become notable only through some accident or scandal or celebrity involvement. Nope! We do not need to cover a 50 foot watercraft famous only because it crashed and burned during a drunken orgy with minor celebrities aboard. Palmeira (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

My two cents - leave the scope as is. Smaller civilian vessels can be covered by the transport project or by Milhist - we do not need to take responsibility for everything that floats. We have enough issues trying to sort out our current guidelines...now people are suggesting we have to take on watercraft because of notability? Milhist made the point that unless a person has significant military coverage then not every person that served in the Army (actors, politicians, etc) needs to be covered by Milhist. I say the same thing applies here. Just because it floats does not mean we need to take care of it. This also leads to a slippery slope. What about yachtsmen who sail in the America Cup, would they be included in our project? The America Cup? Fishing competitions? These all take place on smaller craft and are GNG. Too much breadth is as bad as too little and I think the 100 tons/100 metres is a perfect limit. The others can be attached to other projects. As for the military ships

Essentially any article about a civilian or military ship and ship classes are welcome. Essentially any article about a civilian or military ship and ship classes are welcome

The problem people seem to have is

Civilian ships that are under 100 ft (30 m) in length or tonnage of less than 100

. The only ones I have a problem with is the Niña or USC&GS Arago (1854). Government ships are not truly civilian ships. Crewed by civilians maybe, but not owned and operated. Whether or not a rowboat is GNG should remain beyond the project scope. Llammakey (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Your "problem" with Niña and USC&GS Arago (1854) is the problem. First, I completely agree we should not get involved in sporting or fishing contest vessels. There are other projects that cover those events and pursuits. If we apply modern terms of size to important vessels as the sole criteria then we'd better start purging a great number of very notable historic "ships" from our listings. "Government" doesn't quite cut it either as an "exemption." Niña was "government" exactly how? There are quite a few fairly small vessels of great note in exploration that not backed by states or their head, instead funded by companies or societies. On the flip side there are innumerable naval and government vessels well within the ship length/tonnage qualification that really are of no note at all. We can find an inventory that list them and not much else. They will be eternal stubs. An arbitrary size requirement is a bit analogous to limiting biographies to people five feet tall/100 pounds with a special exception for military or government as assumed notability and all other small people not in scope regardless of accomplishment. I think we can make a clear exclusion of "recreational" and "sporting" craft (in technical literature a term of clear difference) while including commercial, naval, government, institutional and other "working" vessels that individually can support notability by service, events or technical innovation as examples of what might be of note. It would be an error in my view to exclude Bowdoin (Arctic schooner) from a "Ships" view even if it could be just under the other two projects listed that may not have a particular interest in the vessel itself. Palmeira (talk) 10:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

One, naval vessels are already covered, so no worries about them. Two, Niña was part of a sponsored mission by the Kingdoms of Castile and Aragon. Three, I agree working ships should be added to the list of acceptable and that

Essentially any article about a civilian or military ship and ship classes are welcome. Essentially any article about a civilian or military ship and ship classes are welcome

should be amended to include working ships. Llammakey (talk) 11:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I think function more than ownership is the key. The consensus might be exclusion of sports and recreational craft even if notable due to wins, celebrity ownership and such. Further, they can easily fall under popular projects related to those fields. Even for those small working government, institutional, commercial or private vessels I think notability must be emphasized. And there we have a real problem with that "we cover naval/military" because there are literally thousands of goodly sized less than 100/100 of those. Patrol torpedo boat PT-109 had many "sisters" with fine service with little or no trace beyond a listing and crew memories. The hundreds and hundreds of Navy and Army large — almost meeting that footage — landing and service vessels are "faces in the crowd" as far as being notable. In my opinion we are far too easy going on notability for large ships. I am not comfortable with that assumption due to size. Not every "Liberty" or "Victory" ship did much more than serve. And there we have a comparison with "ships not people" and MILHIST not covering every person, enlisted or officer, with honorable service. Setting arbitrary criteria eliminates some very worthy of note and includes too many of little to no note beyond "they served" in both ships and people. "Working" might do, but I expect quibbling over that word too. Palmeira (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree, though GNG should eliminate all those tiny ships lacking notability. Notability trumps all, then we decide what the scope of the project should be. If a vessel is not notable, then it will be deleted for lack of notability whether it is a part of the project or not. What we need to decide is whether or not something fits into the project. Does the vessel require the attention of the experts of this project? A question here will draw upon the collected knowledge of websites, books and other sources of information. I think that is how the project should be framed. A perfect example is the Lothingren question below. Llammakey (talk) 13:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

To mention another inconsistent coverage of a type of ship on Wikipedia, there are many clippers that have articles, but many are included for which I struggle to find any notability, whilst others have no article, but arguably are of particular importance. I feel that notability is clear if written about by leading authorities on this type of vessel (Howard I. Chapelle and David MacGregor in particular), especially where these experts are using the ship as an example to discuss some point of design or a particularly fast passage. This inconsistency of inclusion rather lets down the authority of Wikipedia on this subject. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Much agree with Llammakey above and ThoughtIdRetired here. We even have a model I'd touted for years — those Lists of Empire ships — to cover ships not individually notable but collectively worth noting and, further, with fairly high likely hood of someone "looking" and possibility of our "notability" when one digs in our collective resources. There are still people discovering old family letters and papers and wondering about that ship mentioned and begin looking. As we know information can be hard to find and is too often inaccurate. For example, the Marine Robin page here originated with local stories on the Great Lakes and those sources contained erroneous information of the time before the ship arrived on the Lakes. I'm unwilling to just delete all those obscure naval, EC, VC, C1 and C2 and other Cs of WW II from having some entry point as those Empire ships have. And, very much yes to keeping and developing articles of otherwise obscure ships that introduced new technology or operations to the maritime world. Fortunately those usually have references, though those themselves may be obscure trade journals and reports. I particularly like vessels whose story opens a window into both the state of technology and society now largely lost. Some of those WW I SP "yachts" do both. One has to read the sources to truly understand the millionaire competition that drove a move and development from steam by coal to oil to gasoline and diesel internal combustion engines in the Gilded Era. I've tried to give a hint in some vessel articles, but it would take a long piece about technology and society to give the picture. Palmeira (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I think you guys getting ahead of yourself. At this point all we need to decide is what to do with those tiny vessels. In essence, I'm Ok with 100'/100t threshold as a first check. The question is should they be part of this Project and I'd say no. If MilHist wants them, and most of them were called up by the Navy during the WWI and WWII, then they can expand on that. Their civilian history is non-existent, so why bother?Crook1 (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

According to the scope, military vessels are indeed part of the project as I quoted above. They should be equally tagged ships and milhist, because you can find experts on naval history here and military history there, because if each of those ships is deemed notable, then there has to be context about why those ships were taken into military service and what purpose they served for the US. It's not just that they served in coastal patrol, but why did they serve in coastal patrol. Was it to release larger ships for other duties? Was there a steel shortage? Was there a manpower shortage and this was a way for the navy to use yachtsmen to patrol harbours while military personnel were stationed overseas? All of this would be discussed in the overarching article about small craft in US service, but not everyone follows every link and it should be mentioned in the article, if they are deemed notable. Llammakey (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I already stated my opinion - I don't think they belong here. Look at the examples I provided and let me know if you want to keep them for MilHist. Crook1 (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

HMS Minden article

There's currently an editor making a whole load of changes to HMS Minden (1810) - I get the sense it is largely original research (though on the face of it probably broadly accurate). Presentation leaves a lot to be desired though. I've done nothing with it up to now as the edits continue, and frankly I don't have the time to wade in. Thought I'd flag it up to everyone here in case someone wants to tackle it! Martocticvs (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I haven't read through the entire article because frankly it looks like it would be painful to do so. The final sentence leads me to believe that the work found within won't be the finest: "The Wadia family ship-builders of Bombay (as well as their decendents) had an illustrious history and plenty to be proud of without having to rely on an apocryphal fictitious story about one of their ships." I'm too new here to say what kind of wiki faux pas this exactly is, but I'm quite sure it's one of them! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I BOLDly waded in here thinking I knew everything about Minden (I know there is/was a public house on Portsea Island named "Battle of Minden" which on reflection is the sum total of my knowledge). I have taken the treat as if the article has been unintentionally disrupted by a NEWBIE editor, Veritas Accuratus, mostly using sourced references which I AGF are good but violating the norms of manual of style etc. I have therefore reverted the changes in totality to avoid article disruption and raised a {{Dispute inline}} at the relevant point and raised a discussion at Talk:HMS Minden (1810)#1812 war role and beating a hasty retreat invite others to the discussion. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Install CropTool

I want to continue uploading maps of Der Krieg zur See 1914-1918 (Der Krieg in der Nordsee, Band 1) but I can't use CropTool anymore and I don't know why. I have a new notebook and installing CropTool fails since the message appears, I have it already. But it is not to be seen in the column on the left. How can this problem be solved? By the way, I want to crop this image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Der_Krieg_zur_See_1914-1918_-_Der_Krieg_in_der_Nordsee,_Band_1,_Seite_315.jpg and have the terms like by this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Die_Gefechte_in_der_Deutschen_Bucht_am_28._August_1914.jpg - which was uploaded back in June with Your help. --Andreas (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Only images from Commons can be CropTooled, that's why I can't do it. Now the Image was reduced and the original version will be deleted on 31 August if status not cleared. As it says: An experienced editor should contact the uploader and add the proper tag, or discuss the issue on the talk page. Anyone who can help here? --Andreas (talk) 06:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

SS Ganges - 1852 voyage from Bombay to China

A book on the Opium trade to China (Trocki, Carl. Opium, Empire and the Global Political Economy (Asia's Transformations) (p. 107). Taylor and Francis) says the following:
"In 1852, the steamer Ganges sailed from Bombay with a cargo of 2,500 chests of opium, the largest quantity ever carried [to date?] in one vessel"
There appears to be no Wikipedia article for this steamer in early Far Eastern trade. Given the significance of taking over the role of Opium Clippers, it would appear that this steamship would fit the requirements for notability - but is there sufficient material to write an article? Any thoughts on this? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure there is enough material to write something. Probably a SS Ganges built in 1850 serving till 1871.Crook1 (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's the right Ganges. Davidships (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The quote seems to have been taken from this 1853 publication. I would think that later opium trade literature would confirm whether whis remained the largest single shipment.Davidships (talk) 09:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The precise quote given above is from a 1999 book on the opium trade, written by Carl Trocki. Nathan Allen is listed in the bibliography. Trocki appears to be a recognised expert on the subject of the opium trade - he has a university post, etc. He is, however, quite weak on his understanding of the ships that carried the drug - confusing, for instance, Ariel (clipper) with the Opium Clipper(?s) of the same name. Lubbock's book on the Opium Clippers mentions a barque of this name and also a schooner - the barque being the more well-known it appears.

Just to be clear, I probably have too many uncompleted tasks over my range of interests in Wikipedia to be taking on an article on the Ganges in question - certainly any time in the near future. So the field is open if anyone is interested. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:USS Nevada (BB-36)

Template:USS Nevada (BB-36) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page.  — sbb (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

MV Qana nominated for deletion

The article MV Qana was nominated for deletion by an editor. Just wanted to let the community know. Just a heads up, I cannot find where the editor put the deletion discussion. This may require an admin intervention. Llammakey (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

It’s just a WP:PROD, so there’s not a formal deletion discussion. I don’t have the time (or access to Miramar and whatnot) to work on the article, but if anyone is interested, they can just remove the banner. Parsecboy (talk) 08:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

There have been several PRODs of bulk carriers (the military-related ones are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Article alerts, seems over zealous to me given their size and longevity. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Move request

A request to move the French fluyt Salomon (1762) article is under discussion at talk:French fluyt Salomon (1762)#Requested move 2 September 2021. Please feel free to comment there. Mjroots (talk) 12:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Ilona - Ship identification

Hi Folks!! Is anybody able to find a coal freighter that operated out of St Pauli, known as the Ilona or LLona. It was owned by Hamburg based Hans Siemers and operated back and forth from Hamburg across the Black Sea? Its for the Libertas Schulze-Boysen. She went a trip on it, but can't find anyhing on it. I just wonder if the book author has made a mistake in some details. scope_creep^Talk 06:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean the Baltic Sea? Operating in the Black Sea from Hamburg sounds odd. I'd expect some mention of the other seas or ports between the two. From Hill To Shore (talk) 07:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi @From Hill To Shore: How goes it. No Black Sea. I can't find mention of the owner, a ship-magnate supposedly. A coal transport ship. A coal freighter. Hans Siemers operating out of Hamburg? I can't find anything on that either. As a ship magnate there wold be some record? scope_creep^Talk 08:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Scope creep: - SS Ilona Siemers (1923), except that she may have been a tanker. Lloyd's Register entries 1930–44 here, and as Empire Teme and Aivazovsky. Mjroots (talk) 11:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Thanks. It is really cool finding that. Yip, the book author is not hugely accurate. These tankers must have taken passengers back in the day. scope_creep^Talk 11:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Scope creep: or it's possible I made an error when compiling that list and she was a cargo ship. Hard to tell from a photo. Mjroots (talk) 11:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Could be. There is two references, one from a man who runs the German resistance memorial centre (Gedenkstätte Deutscher Widerstand Berlin), so it likely to be accurate, they have money, even though in both, they are really badly written. I'm happy you found that image. I can now make a wee article on it, at some point. scope_creep^Talk 11:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Scope creep: The Mariner's list has her as a cargo ship, Davidships has already made the correctio to the list. Mjroots (talk) 02:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

MV Coral Crystal

Someone with more shipping expertise than I might want to create MV Coral Crystal. https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:465600/mmsi:373789000/imo:9591985/vessel:CORAL_CRYSTAL https://www.vesselfinder.com/vessels/CORAL-CRYSTAL-IMO-9591985-MMSI-373789000 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-09/ship-briefly-stranded-in-suez-canal-before-being-freed "A big ship got stuck in the Suez Canal and blocked traffic. Again". USA TODAY. Retrieved 2021-09-13. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Notification

Discussion that could affect the names of over 620 ship articles, see: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships)#"Naming articles about ship classes" needs consensus or clarification re: SUFFIXDASH. - wolf 15:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

(With a grin) Your "Surely there are more important matters" includes ship "class" itself with the occasional creations seen on the site of pseudo classes that are not. Palmeira (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

(With a grin) Whatever floats your boat. Or class of boats... - wolf 19:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

(Laughing) Eternal, in all fields and sometimes a bit crazy. Then when it comes to ships (and other things benefiting from logistics standardization) precise "classification" does have a practical purpose — declining as things get blurred. Palmeira (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

British Warships in the Age of Sail 1817–1863

Hi, does anyone have access to Rif Winfield's British Warships in the Age of Sail 1817–1863 who is willing to share some information from it? I'm looking for any and all details of Captain Peter Rainier's command of HMS Britannia. Many thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

According to Threedecks, no one named Rainier captained Britannia. If you enter "Rainier" on Threedeck crew search, six names come up, three lieutenants, two captains and an admiral. Mjroots (talk) 05:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the google books preview for the Winfield work does show Rainier as captain and that would fit with some other sources I've already got. Interesting that threedecks doesn't use this volume of Winfield for the Britannia article - perhaps it was uploaded before the book was published? (as a sidenote, the Rainier I'm interested in is the Peter Rainier who died a captain. He was the nephew of the Peter who died an admiral, as was the other Rainier captain who actually became a rear admiral!) Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Peter Rainier (Royal Navy officer, born 1784)? "He did not serve at sea again until October 1831 when he took command of the 120-gun ship of the line HMS Britannia. He served in Britannia in the Mediterranean Fleet of at first Vice-Admiral Sir Pulteney Malcolm and then Vice-Admiral Sir Josias Rowley, based at Malta". Alansplodge (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Well yes...but I wrote that! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

D'oh!  :-) Alansplodge (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Crewmember or crew member

Super nitpicky, but I was curious if the project had an opinion on one word or two for "crew member". Or is the preference that people not waste their time changing from one version to the other? -- Fyrael (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother changing one to the other, unless there are inconsistencies within an article. Mjroots (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary entry is strange. There is no specific entry for "crewmember" (so, they don't think it is a word), but this form does appear in two quotations that they cite[7]. Newspaper searches show the word arrived in the 1940's, temporarily passing through a hyphenated form for that decade. Looks like a point on which dictionaries lag behind general usage. Wikipedia usage might be affected by the date of the sources used in developing an article.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I think both versions are in normal use (in fact I think that I use both versions); but agree that it is best to have a common usage withing a single article.Davidships (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Lloyd's Register Foundation, Heritage & Education Centre uploads 5000 documents to Wikimedia Commons

Good morning WikiProject Ships,

The Lloyd’s Register Foundation, Heritage & Education Centre have just uploaded 5005 documents from our Ship Plan and Survey Report Collection to Wikimedia Commons. The ingestion is comprised of 16 boxes and accounts for 1082 ships across 184 unique places of build.

The documents include original handwritten correspondence from Lloyd's Register surveyors, ship plans and even a small selection of photographs. Examples include an annual report for Fiery Cross, a wreck report for Highwave, and cabin plan for the City of Simla.

In addition to the Ship Plan and Survey Report Collection, we are also beginning to ingest every edition of the Lloyd’s Register of Shipping until 1909 as well as a percentage of the First and Famous Collection, the world’s most iconic ships from within our collection. We will be sure to keep you updated on the progress of this next step.

Browse the full collection here.

We would really welcome some support for the resources and encourage you to share our documents on Wikipedia.

Thank you for all your help.LRFHEC (talk) 11:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Excellent news indeed. The LRF's own site is also an an excellent place for searching (though some material there may still be under copyright). Hopefully when the pre-1909 Lloyd's Register of Shipping gaps are filled, it will become possible to programme at least some volumes from the 1910/20s, to link up with the 1930-1945 at Plimsoll/Southampton Library. Davidships (talk) 11:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Namesakes

There has been a deal of back-and-forth edits in a dispute over the namesakes for some Essex-class aircraft carriers. Some editors would have some articles state the ship was named for a particular battle, while others would have the page state the ship is named for a previous ship that was in turn named for a battle, basically making it a legacy name. I first noticed the dispute at USS Yorktown (CV-10), but apparently the pages for USS Wasp (CV-18) and USS Lexington (CV-16) and possibly some others have also been affected.

This may lead to discrepancies in the list for class page, as well as errors or just unsupported changes to some ship pages. I'm just posting to bring some attention to all this, and hopefully some extra eyes on the issue to ensure all the articles are correct, consistent and supported. (and sorry about the length) Thanks - wolf 06:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that the editors concerned are confusing two issues: what the namesake is, and why it was chosen for re-use at a particular time. All the examples you give are essentially "legacy names" and all are (in US-speak) named for the same things - the battles and the nasty insect. DANFS, as the most authoritative source, follows that thinking (I have added the ref to USS Wasp (CV-18), but not reverted USS Lexington (CV-16); inexplicably the relevant DANFS text is missing for USS Yorktown (CV-10) and USS Yorktown (CV-5), but is present for the two previous iterations). It is the timing of re-use that was prompted by a desire to commemorate the recent losses of the previous ships, and this should be covered and referenced in the articles themselves. Davidships (talk) 09:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, but a couple minor points; I don't think that we can use "timing" as the basis alone for an edit, I think that's getting into wp:or/synth territory. Also, I'm not directly involved in this matter, (as in preferring one edit to another, I just wanted to reduce the disruption, and seek the remedies I noted above). And, when I used the word "legacy", it was in reference to a name being given again, (ie: to honor a previous ship with the same name, that had distinguished itself, as opposed the first time a name is given to a ship, any ship, to honor a battle or a bug).

Also, this isn't new, or unique to just the USN. We ran into this with the naming of HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08), (was she named for current Queen, Elizabeth II? Or Elizabeth I? It turned out she was named for the dreadnought HMS Queen Elizabeth (1913), which in turn was named for Elizabeth I.) Anyway, this has come up before, and I'm sure it will again. Right now I'm just hoping some of y'all might be able to help sort some of the namesakes noted above, especially with some refs. Thanks again - wolf 11:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Not that related but thought I'd mention that HMS Queen Elizabeth very much connects herself to Elizabeth I; there's a picture of her on the bridge. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Davidships: Thanks, that's been my interpretation also ("what the namesake is, and why it was chosen for re-use at a particular time"), though it would be helpful to find some reliable sources to cite to back it up. (I'm the primary editor involved in this issue, as Wolf is just helping to reduce the disruption.) BilCat (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

BilCat: Yes - Lexington referencing for both the What and Why is probably OK (I cannot see the newspaper article, but do not doubt it). Wasp is already templated for general lack of citations, and the link to the previous ship is unreferenced; similarly now with Yorktown. Davidships (talk) 00:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Should infobox picture of a ship show current appearance?

Editors may wish to make a comment at Talk:SS_United_States#Main_image which has led to this question Lyndaship (talk) 12:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I just left my opinion there, but also a link to an example where I'd use color in text if not copyright to show a ship in a line's livery. That brought up a site I used in two articles about Danish ship that were seized in 1941 which became Army and Navy ships during WW II. M/S Museet for Søfarts billedarkiv appears to have a rich collection of Danish ship photos. It is now in my ship reference bookmark collection. Anyone working on a Danish ship might find it useful. M/S Marrocco is an example. Palmeira (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Regarding the colorized image, there was a discussion held recently about that topic, see: Talk:Wright Flyer#Colorized photo (fyi) - wolf 16:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion now archived here - wolf 21:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Pictures of a ringtail (sail)

Does anyone know of a useable picture of a Ringtail (sail) that could be used for the article? Searches on commons just come up with furry little animals. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Sail plan sloop4.svg supposedly includes a ringtail sail but I am not familiar enough with rigging to point it out. If you know which one it is, you could create a derivative work and change the colour of that sail so it stands out. The image is stored in a commons category for sail plans, so there may be a better example in there. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the diagram does include a ringtail, but it has some substantial and significant inaccuracies, in the arrangement of spars for instance. Ideally we would have a photograph or a contemporary diagram. I have, for instance, found a contemporary diagram of a Studding sail which I have been able to crop to use in that article (I am working on the two in parallel), but cannot find anything similar as yet. I have found [8] which shows extremely well the triangular "topsail" variety of the ringtail (picture that heads that page) - but I presume copyright is not free to use. Similarly [9] shows the rectangular type of ringtail. Incidentally, to identify a ringtail, it is the aftermost sail in virtually all cases. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

There is a PD image here but perhaps not with the context you want. What about File:USS Alligator sail plan.jpg or File:USS Constitution sail plan.jpg. - Broichmore (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, the sail plan of Constitution is as clear a diagram as I have seen anywhere - and also good for Studding sail too. I will be slow to get to work on this (distractions), but will use in due course. The great frustration is not being able to use a picture like the second one down in this[10]. May well end up as an external link in the article. If there is some amateur photographer out there with similar, an upload to commons would be great.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Captain's gig in USN

I have just started a rewrite on Gig (boat) (reasons in the article talk page) - one fact in the existing article is supported by a dead link: that the US Navy removed all the captain's gigs as an economy measure in 2008. I am having trouble finding a good quality reference that confirms this. Any recommendations? I was hoping there would be something like a news article, or such like. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I found this link on a forum but it goes nowhere and is not waybacked. I see several mentions of the order but none of the sources could be considered reliable. BusterD (talk) 08:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

A copy of the 2008 order is on this blog. Alansplodge (talk) 10:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The opening text of the lost Navy News article linked above is shown in this forum (post dated Feb 11, 2008 about two-thirds of the way down the page) as follows:

Carrier skippers are losing a traditional status symbol under a Navy directive issued in January. The captain’s gig, the motorboat set aside to ferry commanding officers to shore when their ships are anchored away from land, is being phased out of the fleet. Under a directive issued by Naval Air Forces, all 11 carriers will be required to turn in their captain’s gigs before June 30, 2009. “Removal of the captain’s gig will reduce maintenance costs and free up valuable hangar bay space,” the message reads.

Alansplodge (talk) 11:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

BTW, I also found British warships' boats in 1905 which mentions that RN captain's gigs were referred to as "galleys". Alansplodge (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired: How about this: https://www.military.com/defensetech/2008/02/07/goodbye-good-deals-no-more-gigs - wolf 15:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for comments so far. These sources only seem to say that USN gigs have been removed from carriers - presumably retained on some other vessels? Not sure how to check this. I'll hold off putting anything on this aspect in the article in case more info comes to light.
  The RN snobbery over "galley" versus "gig" is confirmed by a Mariner's mirror article of 1912, supported by a slightly different take on this in The Boats of Men of War (W.E.May). But I had forgotten about the Kipling Society material as a source, so thanks for that. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Thanks to our friend User:TeriEmbrey at Pritzker Military Museum & Library for locating the Navy Times article (quoting):

"Here's the complete citation: Ewing, Philip. “The Gig Is Up.” Navy Times 57, no. 21 (February 18, 2008): 4. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=30023699&site=ehost-live.

Abstract: The article reports that the captain's gigs of 11 U.S. Navy aircraft carriers will be phased out by June 2009. It is stated that under a directive issued by the Naval Air Forces, these carriers must turn in their captain gigs, which are motorboats that bring ferry commanding officers to shore when their ships are anchored away, by June 30. It is claimed that the removal of these boats will cut the maintenance costs and free up valuable hangar bay space...." BusterD (talk) 22:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Any word on the status of the Admiral's barges? The refs provided so far only seem to mention Captain's gigs and carriers. Is it possible that because there were the two identical boats on board carriers, they eliminated the one and kept the other to serve both the Admiral and the Captain? This would explain the lack of any mention of other ships losing their Captain's gigs. - wolf 23:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

This article describes a fire on the admiral's barge for the US Pacific Fleet, but seems to imply that it was only used in harbour. Royal Navy ships landed all their boats except RIBs in the 1980s (from memory - can't find a ref for that) but our shiny new carriers have Passenger Transfer Boats. Alansplodge (talk) 10:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Admiral's Barge DVIDS47593.jpg shows an admiral's barge being brought aboard USS Abraham Lincoln in 2007, so they were still on carriers at that date. Alansplodge (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Reviews needed - Yugoslav naval sail training ship Jadran

G'day all, experienced nautical eyes are needed to review Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Jadran (training ship). There seems to be some reticence among the usual reviewing suspects at Milhist, perhaps due to unfamiliarity with sailing ships, something which is not lacking here. Any contributions from members of Ships would be appreciated. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Italics in reference titles

When citing book sources that name ships in the title, should the ship names be kept in italics, or should they moved into standard case since the rest is in italics. Example case: Joseph Brown and His Civil War Ironclads: The USS Chillicothe, Indianola, and Tuscumbia vs Joseph Brown and His Civil War Ironclads: The USS Chillicothe, Indianola, and Tuscumbia.? 14:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC) Hog Farm _Talk 14:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I balanced your markup

{{cite book |title=Joseph Brown and His Civil War Ironclads: The USS ''Chillicothe'', ''Indianola'', and ''Tuscumbia''}}

Joseph Brown and His Civil War Ironclads: The USS Chillicothe, Indianola, and Tuscumbia.

This is in keeping the the opposite case where, for example, were this the title of a chapter:

{{cite book |chapter=Joseph Brown and His Civil War Ironclads: The USS ''Chillicothe'', ''Indianola'', and ''Tuscumbia'' |title=The big book of Ironclads}}

"Joseph Brown and His Civil War Ironclads: The USS Chillicothe, Indianola, and Tuscumbia". The big book of Ironclads.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

How would they be styled in article text? Does the MOS have anything to say about that? E.g., Should a statement be formatted as,

In his book, Joseph Brown and His Civil War Ironclads: The USS Chillicothe, Indianola, and Tuscumbia‌, Myron J. Smith, Jr. states that  ...

or as,

In his book, Joseph Brown and His Civil War Ironclads: The USS Chillicothe, Indianola, and Tuscumbia, Myron J. Smith, Jr. states that  ...

 — sbb (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I would say the first form but this venue is probably not the correct venue to establish that. Perhaps Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I've been italicizing the names of ships in book and article titles for a while now. The mere fact of the name being in a book or article title doesn't negate the standard practice of italicizing the name, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Can someone fix USS Swatara

Umm, there is something wrong with USS Swatara. Can someone fix it? Kind regards, JJK2000 (talk) 02:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. It was just a typo using the {{USS}} template – double open-parens were used instead of double open-braces.  — sbb (talk) 03:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Shipping registers as a source for ship launches

Opinions please - are shipping registers useable as sources for populating lists of ship launches? Mjroots (talk) 05:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Depends. Only if the register specifically states that the date given is of launch, rather than completion. I believe that Lloyd's Register, for example, changed their practice on this at least once; it may be mentioned in the registers' introductory pages. Davidships (talk) 12:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Davidships:) "Depends" is probably a damn good answer. Lloyd's register greatly expanded the amount of information in the register over the years. Compare this page from the first edition of Lloyd's Register in 1764 with this page from 1864 and this page from 1939 and you'll see what I mean. I would expect a similar situation exists with other registers such as American Lloyd's and the Danish registers.

Despite the paucity of info in the early registers, I feel that they could be useful to populate lists with a little care. As ships were sometimes renamed, and the lists generally covered the period July to June the next year, I'd say this can generally be mitigated against by only taking vessels from the previous year and current year to populate the lists, thus only vessels launched in 1863 and 64 from the 1864 register. The first three registers were 1764, 68 and 76 then yearly. I'd suggest not going back before 1760 for the 1764 register, and using the 68 and 76 registers to include all new entries, accepting that the further back the entry is from the greater the likelihood of a name change having occurred. There was no register in 1785, so the 1786 register could go back to 1784. Mjroots (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

But aren't the dates in Lloyds year of completion of build as opposed to year of launch? Lyndaship (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

No sure, but even if they were, for the vast majority the two will be the same, particularly so for the earlier ships. Later ships (post 1785) are more likely to be better documented in any case, with other sources available. Mjroots (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Some of the LR changes are little documented. However, there is a useful guidance note (linked from Item 34) from LR covering the older registers. Leaving aside the period 1798-1834 when year built was replaced by "age", all registers before August 1887 were supposed to show year of launching (for ships built under LR survey, they would know when that was; but for others only inspected later it was their best estimate - and from 1880 the register book included vessels not classed by LR at all, so they were more likely to be inaccurate). From August 1887 the years were changed, for metal hulls only, to date of completion.

Talking with other researchers it seems that there were other changes for which I have not found published confirmation. For example, for post-1887 metal ships the year was capped at 6 months after launching so, as ships became more complex and with longer build times, some years given were inaccurate - apparently some delayed Cunarders in 1920s are given dates several years before real completion. That may be the reason why, some time in the 1920/30s, that 6-month cap was removed, and they moved to real completion dating. It is thought also that, at some point, wood-hulled vessels were also brought into line at completion though, again, nothing official yet found.

Also I found from their rather clearer explanatory pages, that LR's "Universal Register" volumes claimed to continue to use launch years after 1887 (at least to 1890), though that might be just a failure to update those pages. Davidships (talk) 08:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm coming down to a No. Firstly although most of the earlier ships are likely to be launched and completed (built) in the same year not all of them will have been (launched December one year, completed January the next) so we risk creating wrong information based on an educated guess/assumption (is that Original research)? Secondly Davidships excellent research shows too much uncertainty in all the dates quoted over the years. Better we give no information than wrong information. Lyndaship (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for the lateness in replying, been having some internet connection issues. Hopeful that a full reboot of the router has fixed it. Given the replies above, I'll not source any entries in a list of ship launches solely to a shipping register. Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Rename for USS Artemis (ID-2187)?

I've suggested a rename for reasons given on Talk:USS Artemis (ID-2187). There really is no reason beyond DANFS for the Navy focus. Palmeira (talk) 03:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

DreadnoughtProject.org and Template:Unreliable source

Full disclosure: I am the chief editor of the naval history wiki, DreadnoughtProject.org.

I had a brief, noncommital exchange with a WP editor who had marked some citations from WP to pages on my site by the Unreliable source? template with comments which flatly label my entire site as an unreliable source. He suggested I appeal to you lot to achieve (if possible) a categoric ruling as to whether my site is a good source for WP citations, and whether I could in good faith remove such tags (unless, of course, the reference is pure crap... which happens).

To provide a quick overview about the Dreadnought Project site and what we aim to deliver:

• dreadnoughtproject.org is based on MediaWiki, but registration is handled on a closed, individual basis. It's not a naval-themed Pinterest. WP:UGC is not an issue.
• Three editors have contributed roughly 95% of the content:
  • one with five articles in Mariner's Mirror
  • one PhD in Naval History supervised by Eric Grove
  • one who has presented interactive technical history at HMS Excellent and the Joint Services Command and Staff College
• It has been around for 15 years in its present form, and its persistence is guaranteed in explicit terms in my estate planning. A hobby? Yes. A whim? No.
• we've produced a stable but slowly growing site of 16,000 pages serving a variety of topic areas centered on but not strictly limited to 1880-1925
• we footnote profusely, using mostly primary sources and contemporary newsprint
• our research library includes over 4,200 R.N. service records
• we are mindful that a site has more value as a reference if it avoids moving pages around and maintains its structure
• Our particular points of focus are fire control systems and weaponry details, personalities with career boxes, fleet/squadron/flotilla composition, ship captain lists, and intake terms at HMS Britannia and Osborne. That's not to say there are not stub pages, but ... who would link to such a page?
• we avoid trying to match what Wikipedia does so well – admittedly, this is a lot of the interest. Our aim is to permit a quick external citation to allow a WP editor to leave out the nuts and bolts.

I'd appreciate some clear direction on how I could proceed here, specifically about removing such tags or changing them to less dismissive ones if the citation is merely poorly chosen. I would not care to run afoul of established community ideas on these lines.

DulcetTone (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey DulcetTone, thanks for messaging. I believe Simon Harley is another editor that's active over there, and so I'll tag him here.

The relevant Wikipedia policy is WP:SPS, which covers self-published sources. Personally, I think this is the type of site that ought to qualify as a reliable source under our guidelines, but this sentence in the policy may pose a barrier: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" (bolding in original). From the info you gave, I can see at least two potential issues: the first is that only two out of those three editors qualify for that "published" criterion (please correct me if needed). Second, those three are only 95% of the content, meaning that the other 5% could be questioned.

Also, and separately, when removing those tags, please make sure you note your connection to the Dreadnought Project in your edit summaries. Our conflict of interest rules have gotten pretty strong, and I wouldn't want you to get caught up in them. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Ed, you make fair points. To be clear, I am the unpublished one in the picture. The un-nuanced nature of the WP guidelines here do little to differentiate sources of information which merely digitize and re-format in digest form information which formerly resided only in multi-volume sources such as Navy Lists and their supplements. That is a valuable transformation, one that requires and involves little interpretation, and is precisely the sort of content which prompted my message above. What credence could a publisher's kiss add to the process of re-ordering information in a more useful and consumable form? Moreover, are all similar websites (there are truly great ones, we all must agree) being examined with the same rigor? DulcetTone (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I regard it as highly reliable and have used it multiple times for my British ship FA-class articles, so it's passed a high level of scrutiny from non-Ships people. I'm not concerned about a possible 5% being less reliable as everything get reviewed and much of the content is sourced from official documents which are all given their full file names so they could be pulled up by any interested researchers for themselves.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Sturm here and accept it as reliable. Although a case-by-case analysis would likely be performed at GAN/AC/FAC reviews. One thing of note which may aid you is marking the main contributor of the article at the bottom somewhere (outside of the history section), as sites such as De Imperatoribus Romanis do. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

In my experience, Dreadnought Project is very strong in its subject matter, at least comparable in accuracy with professionally-published specialist histories (and a significant step up from generalist history or popular history). So I'd say "Broadly reliable" for factual material within the scope described above (idk if there is anything at all that's opinion or anything that strays outside of that scope... if there were, then we'd obviously not consider that in the same way). The Land (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I had a look and found the site to be wanted for content but solid at least of citations. I don't see a problem in citing the dreadnoughtproject website, although I may recommend double citations for this cite and a secondary source to cover any possible objections. "Better to have it and not need it hten need it and not have it", as the saying goes. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I would say "broadly reliable" for basic facts (given what the site largely does is transform material in official primary sources into a more useful form). I would consider it not reliable for analysis or opinion unless the author is identified and has been independently and reliably published per WP:SPS. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Peacemaker. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Lloyd's Registers online

The Lloyd's Register Foundation have been progressing their project to make all editions up to year 2000 freely available online, and a big chunk has just been added, filling most of the 1918-1929 gap and making a start on post-WW2. The updated access page is here. Davidships (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Available registers added to WP:SHIPS/R. Mjroots (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)