Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

1780s and 1790s ships

Both Category:1780s ships and Category:1790s ships have over 200 ships listed within each cat. I started to break down 1790s ships into individual year cats but that big blue warning comes around; example: Category:1795 ships. Is more than 200 ships in a decade category enough to split out to individual years? I've also done Category:1800s ships and Category:1810s ships recently. Brad (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

There used to be some guidance on when to diffuse a category, but it may have been taken down - in any event it does not come up in a couple quick searches. I think the guidance was think about diffusing starting at 50 items. Certainly >200 should be diffused. Besides updating the template we should update the guidance since the numbers in earlier decades are still likely to grow. Dankarl (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that with 200+ in each of the decade categories, they were ripe for splitting. A rough split would be ~20 ships per year, which is sustainable. Mjroots (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

Looking at Category:18th-century ships, it would seem prudent that we could split by individual year from either 1770 or 1750 (although 1760s is a bit thin at only 90-odd ships). I therefore propose that we establish a new consensus for a new cut-off point at either 1770 or 1750. If we go for 1750, then that should delay the time when we need to re-evaluate splitting by year for a while. The notices re consensus will need to be reworded to state that "As of (month, year), consensus is that..." so editors have some idea of how old the established consensus is. Mjroots (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I managed to find the notice, and reworded it to state the new consensus. Mjroots (talk) 05:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to split them, we may as well do it all at once rather than at two separate times. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with 1750 and splitting decades once they're at about 200. However, it would not be a good idea to create categories without filling them. Empty cats are a high target for deletion. It's preferable just to create them as we go through them. I spent about a month converting 1800 and 1810 ships because there isn't any hurry; I always look for other things that need doing. I reassessed quite a few articles to B-class because they've been worked on over the years. Brad (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Support - I also concur with 1750 and splitting decades once they're at about 200. Newm30 (talk) 02:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Support - This proposal makes a lot of sense. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Support. Also, a few of the ships remaining in the 1780s have conflicting information as to whether their date is 1780s or 1790s; not sure if new titles and page moves are needed. Djembayz (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The year category is chosen by using the launch year of the ship irregardless of what the year in the title might claim. In the case of ship class articles choose the decade category that fits the period of all the ships in that class. Brad (talk) 02:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

New editor could use some help

I got a nice note on my talk page from User:Pendright, who would like to help with ship articles. Here's a diff of his edits to one of our ship articles ... there are a lot of things there that don't match our style guidelines, but I like the summary he added to the lead. If anyone has some time to chat with him about his interests, I'd appreciate it. - Dank (push to talk) 00:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Aww, it gets better: "I should also tell you that I was a member of the crew when the Mahan was sunk. Honest!" His editing was mainly changing style, and my role is mainly as a copyeditor, but it would be better not to respond to the style questions for now. Does anyone have sources for USS Mahan (DD-364), damaged and scuttled during the Pacific War? - Dank (push to talk) 11:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I've responded on his page. Djembayz (talk) 22:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 03:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Overlinking

A discussion on overlinking in shipwreck lists has been opened at WT:SHIPWRECK. Your views are welcome. Mjroots (talk) 08:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

H.M. Brig "Emu" & "Kangaroo"

I was wondering whether anyone could advise me of any information pertaining to the following vessels?

• HM Brig Emu, Lietenant Alexander Bissett, captured in 1812 by American privateer Holkar.
• HM Brig Emu, Captain/Lieutenant George Brooks Forster/Foster, wrecked on the South African coast in 1817.
• HM Brig Kangaroo, Captain Charles Jeffreys, in Australian waters between 1814 until 1817.

Any help would be appreciated. Regards Newm30 (talk) 10:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that none of them are HM ships; Colledge doesn't show any Emus at all, and the Kangaroos he does list are now shown at the Wikipedia article HMS Kangaroo. Clearly the first Emu was a convict ship; the second sounds like a tender or locally purchased vessel that was not commissioned. The Kangaroo you ask about straddles the date that HMS Kangaroo (1805) was sold, so again was not a commissioned vessel. The Great Barrier Reef: History, Science, Heritage by James Bowen talks about Charles Jefferys' (he was a lieutenant) surveys of Australia and describes how Governor Macquarie considered the brig "a colonial vessel", while Jeffreys considered it a "naval vessel". In either case, this suggests it was a small locally-purchased vessel, and was not commissioned. Nevertheless, from a quick scan of Bowren's text, it appears that Jeffreys in Kangaroo completed the charting of the Barrier Reef, so there is some notability here. Is there some context behind your question? 212.139.247.50 (talk) 10:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I was firstly trying to ascertain whether they were in fact either commissioned naval ships, hired armed ships or just colonial ships? Secondly whether anyone knew any construction details/build year for these vessels? Thirdly what to name any article created, as I believe the article "Emu (ship)" could be a disambiguation page, as I am sure there were other sailing ships named Emu. Fourthly I was wondering whether anyone knew what happened to Emu after being sold in Newport in 1813? Regards Newm30 (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

New category needed

I see a need for a new category, relating to ships preserved privately (and notable enough to have a Wikipedia article). Since I'm not a member of this project and have only a passing interest in ships, I thought it best to raise the subject here, rather than just creating a category myself without any discussion. The article that led me to this discovery is Motor Torpedo Boat PT-658, a former U.S. Navy ship that has been privately preserved. It does not function as a museum and is not part of a museum, but it does participate in some public events. The article is currently only in the categories 1945 ships and PT boats, but neither of those categories reflects that PT-658 has been preserved and restored. The category "Museum ships" does not apply, because both the heading given there and the Wikipedia article associated with that category clearly state that it means only ships that are open to the public as museums, and that is not the case with PT-658. And, PT-658 is not a ship preserved in a museum, either.

I'm surprised there isn't a category to the effect of "Ships privately preserved", not even one as broadly stated as that (without any qualifiers or country indication), or "Preserved ships", which would be a parent cat of "Museum ships" as well as having subcats. But I don't know enough about the common terminology, since I'm not particularly a ship fan (though I am very supportive of historic preservation in general). The article List of classic vessels is broad enough to apply, but there is no similarly named category, and that article is a near-orphan and has had a total of only 14 edits in the 8 years since it was created, so I cannot infer any kind of terminology consensus from that. This WikiProject appears to be pretty active, so .... any thoughts? SJ Morg (talk) 05:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of a more general "preserved ships" category; there are various other articles which could go in there. bobrayner (talk) 09:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

USS Mahan (DD-364)

I wrote the lead for the above article, and tinkered with the body of it to help improve readability. I also included the last three references, hoping to add to the article’s creditability. A third party review would help to determine whether they are solid enough to qualify as general references?

I also added an external link to the USS Mahan Association. It includes considerable, historical information, and contains first hand accounts of the Kamikaze attack and sinking.

1. ^ Brown p. 133 ▪ Brown, David. Warship Losses in World War Two. Arms and Amour, London, Great Britain, 1990. ISBN 0-85368-802-8. ▪ This article incorporates text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. The entry can be found here. ▪ Roscoe, Theodore, United States Destroyer Operations In World War II. Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Maryland, 1953. ISBN 0-87021-726-7. ▪ Lamont-Brown, Raymond, Kamikaze. Cassell Military Paperbacks, London, Great Britain, 2000. ISBN 0-304-35200-4. ▪ Sears, David, At War with the Wind. Kensington Publishing Corporation, New york, NY, 2008. ISBN-13: 978-0-8065-2893-9, ISBN-10: 0-8065-2893-1.

(1) US Destroyer Operations in World War II: it contains twenty pages of information that deal, in specific ways, with the active career of the Mahan, while supporting the information in the DANFS article. Rear Admiral Thomas L Wattles edited the book’s manuscript, and its preparation was aided by critical comment from destroyer officers. (2) Kamikaze: It deals specifically with the sinking of the Mahan, while supporting DANFS. (3) AT WAR with the WIND: It deals specifically with the sinking of the Mahan, while supporting the DANFS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pendright (talk • contribs) 23:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Pendright (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Good work so far. Your next step is probably peer review. - Dank (push to talk) 19:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Your peer review page was in the wrong place, Pendright, I've created it at Wikipedia:Peer review/USS Mahan (DD-364)/archive1. - Dank (push to talk) 11:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Ships by designer

This discussion at CfD may interest the project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

AfD notice

Admiralty tug has been nominated for deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Misapplied essay causing deletion nominations

The project might be interested in the fact that an editor has decided to invoke the nearly forgotten WP:Notability (vehicles) as applying to boat and ship articles, and has nominated four boat/ship articles for deletion on its basis. See Kwasind, Ongiara, which don't, AFAICT, fall within the project's scope but may be of interest, and Frankfurt and Keiler , which are within scope. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Help requested with 2 new articles

I created stubs for HMS Malacca (1853) (with redirect from Japanese Naval Training-ship Tsukuba) and HMS Frederick William (1860) (with redirect from HMS Worcester (1860)).

However, I don't have many resources, so I'm asking you folks with the knowledge to expand them if possible? I created them as I didn't like seeing redlinks in Gilbert Thomas Carter - along with some other stub articles for people wikilinked in the article!

Any help with these two ship articles would be most welcome!

Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Swedish Navy prefixes discussion

For those who might be interested, there's a discussion going on over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history on which prefix should be used for ships of the Swedish Navy, HMS or HSwMS. Input is appreciated. Manxruler (talk) 05:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

What kind of gun turret is this?

Mystery gun turret

I recently took this photo of a gun turret under restoration in a shed out the back of the Torpedo Bay Navy Museum in Auckland. I didn't think to ask the guy sitting behind it if he knew its history, but it doesn't look like anything which came off a Royal New Zealand Navy ship. Does anyone know what model of turret this is? Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know but I see there appear to be hatches either side that go up onto the top, so that suggests high elevation use. Barrel seems short but then it may be a modest calibre. HAving googled a bit I think it might be something like a 4 inch in a High Angle mount, but I can't find a confirmatory picture. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It certainly looks like a 4 inch HA mount - see this picture of the Algerine class minesweeper HMS Welcome.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Good call, Nigel, it's probably a QF 4 inch Mk V naval gun in a high-angle mounting. The brackets on the sides are for illuminating rockets.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a QF 4 inch Mk V low-angle gun, possibly from a Loch class frigate. See http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/canada/systems/guns/. NZ had six. I think the correct description is gun house rather than turret as it only sat on the deck with no trunk into the hull, and would not have been fully enclosed. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, and thanks a lot all for your input. Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Time for WP:NSHIPS ?

Moved from User talk:The Bushranger

 – for getting larger input from the community --DBigXray 22:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Bushranger for input on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keiler and the links you posted. I think its about time we write a few guidelines (WP:NSHIPS, WP:NBOATS ? ) that editors can refer to judge the notability of the ship articles. Will save some time at the AfD's on ships. every boat/ship/ferry cannot be notable Kept even if it fails GNG. regards--DBigXray 08:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, getting new subject-specific guidelines passed is an excercise in furious frustration due to bureaucratic inertia. WP:NASTRO passed but that's the shining exception. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• that may be a concern, agree but a few essential points can be enumerated that can establish notability of the ship articles beyond doubt. These points can be taken from the Keep votes from AFD's having a lot of weight. I feel this is really important because I see a trend, where any ship/boat article is considered notable by default. At times, merely on the basis of verifiability from primary sources and sources related to the subject, completely disregarding the lack of independent (or secondary) coverage. The deletion cases from WP:SHIPS/AFD were only for WP:CRYSTAL or redirect. If not at this then at least we can have a note somewhere that says any ship article that is verifiable will be Kept, because that is exactly the current consensus, seems to be. --DBigXray 21:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The current consensus for ships may now be that all ships are notable, regardless of GNG. However, that may change in the future, so building a guideline that accepts that principle could be problamatic. WP:AIRCRASH tried to establish detailed guidelines for the notiablilty of Aircraft accidents and incidents on its own, based on the results of AFDs pver several years. However, after several more years of highly contentious AFDs, we eventually had to whittle them down to just how to apply the GNG to such accidents and incidents. In this case, the consensus did change, or was at least clarified, and the guidelines had to be change to reflect that changed/clarified consensus.

Based on those years of highly contentious AFDs, I'd recommend that WPSHIPS try to build a guideline around how to apply GNG and other global guidelines and policies to ship and ship class articles. If that succeeeds in being accepted as a guideline, then re-AFD those articles that do not follow GNG after sufficient time has passed on that basis. Personally, I don't think that "all ships are notable" will keep being the consensus over the next few years, but if it does, then the WPSHIPS guidelines can be changed to reflect such a consensus. - BilCat (talk) 05:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, the presumption that it's presumed that "all ships are notable" doesn't fit the fact. All ships that are notable are notable - sounds like a tautology, but we do, already, follow the WP:GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Mea culpa, I meant kept . Now my phrase above says "cannot be notable Kept even if it fails GNG"--DBigXray 22:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed! “all ships are notable, regardless of GNG” is somewhat begging the question, isn’t it? I had thought the reason ship AfD’s generally fail is because the articles generally do, in fact, satisfy GNG when looked at, and that if they lack sources to attest this when nominated it is because they haven’t been put in, not because they don’t exist. Xyl 54 (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

A Comment: As a rule of thumb I’d have thought notability meant anything that I might reasonably expect to find in a printed encyclopaedia (general or specialized) would be notable enough to have an article here. And I had thought the idea that "ships are inherently notable" stemmed from the fact that any given ship is likely to be recorded in some impeccably reliable source like Jane’s, or the Lloyds register, so notability shouldn't be an issue.
And I don’t see that WP being flooded with inappropriate ship articles; editors in this project seem to be able to strike the balance between writing general articles on ship types or focussed articles on individual vessels. Xyl 54 (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

DBigXRay seems to have misunderstood. All vessels that meet 100/100 (100' long or 100 ton(ne)s [deliberately vague]) fall within the scope of this WikiProject. The vast majority of them (at least 99%) are going to meet WP:GNG and thus be capable of sustaining individual articles. Mjroots (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Can't we just use the GNG? Where projects set their own notability guidelines which are not the same as the GNG, it's a recipe for drama... and also for rote creation of crappy microstubs. As soon as WikiProject Polo decides that every polo player in a certain league is "notable", somebody will use a directory to create a thousand stubs on polo players in those leagues; each stub will be a dozen words long and will look nothing like an actual encyclopædia article even though they all have the same templates and flagicons and categories. As soon as we decide that every ship over X tonnes and Y metres is notable, somebody will create thousands of stubs which each represent one row in a ship register. bobrayner (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The point is, we are using GNG. 100/100 defines which ships fall within the scope of this WP. A vessel that does not meet 100/100 may still meet GNG and be capable of sustaining an article, such as Maud (wherry).

Should an editor go on a spree of creating hundreds of stubs, we can deal with the problem at the time and educate them in the error of their ways. If a ship meets GNG, it should generally be possible to write an article of at least C class. Mjroots (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thats exactly the reason, why I raised this point. If Experts in WP:SHIPS feel that 100ft is a one of the measuring rods (other than GNG) for judging the AFD then we should mention it somewhere, at least in an essay if not a full scale guideline. This would be helpful. Also not every boat and ferry finds mention in Jane or Lloyds, and in such cases the primary source that shows mere existence are taken as sources supporting notability. Thats where the problem is. And thats what needs to be addressed in the so called WP:NSHIPS--DBigXray 22:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The 100/100 thing is not a measuring rod. It's something that has, historically, indicated that ships exceeding it are likely to meet the WP:GNG, not a notability thing in and of itself. And Jane's and Lloyd's are not primary sources. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Arguments for keeping at AFDs are not dependent on a vessel meeting 100/100. WP:V and WP:RS are the key to meeting GNG. It is possible the a vessel within the project scope will fail GNG, as a close look at our AfD record will show.

That said, maybe we should grasp the nettle and write the essay. Mjroots (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

That strikes me as unnecessary; it would amount to "Ships shall meet the GNG, same as everything else that doesn't have its own specific essay/guideline"; also, cries of "It's Only An Essay" seem to be on the rise at AfD these days although nobody ever says that about WP:ATA, I've noticed. It's a solution looking for a problem. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. I think GNG is probably sufficient - certainly I can't think offhand of any ship I've researched that I thought was notable that would not pass GNG. If I start coming across such ships on a regular basis, I may change my mind, but I think what it boils down to is that if you can't find a reliable source or two to support the existence of an article, it's probably not going to be an article worth reading in any case. Gatoclass (talk) 12:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that GNG is the fundamental issue here, and is what decides what should stay and what should go, there may be some use in having guidance on when sufficient specific coverage exists for an article on an individual ship rather than covering it in the class article, as there occasions when there is very little information available other than dates and location of build and decommissioning - specifically I am thinking of examples like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS SC-42 or ships cancelled before completion, where there is very little information available that wouldn't normally go in a class article. The guidance would primarily be to aid article creators rather than for use in deletion discussions.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Anyone with experience modifying material from DANFS, and DANFS writing style?

One of our newer members, User:Pendright, has raised some good questions about DANFS and writing style. I was able to respond with some General info about starting out writing Wikipedia articles. I'm hoping that the folks here with more experience using DANFS can respond with their ideas about how to modify DANFS writing style.

Moved from User talk:Djembayz

 – for getting larger input from the community -- Djembayz (talk) 11:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC))

Before Wikipedia, I did the research and the writing on several US Navy warships for our local military museum. DANFS and Wikipedia became my primary sources of reference, because so little other information was available. What I found then (and now as a WikiProject Ships participant) was the Wikipedia articles were actually DANFS articles that had been cut and pasted. In a reverse kind of way, it makes DANFS the original Wikipedia contributor and often the article’s primary reference source. As you know, DANFS articles are similar: lots of jargon, untypical in style, and speak to places more often than events. Yet, as I see it, DANFS is a comprehensive and accurate source, and in many (perhaps most) cases maybe the only reference source. To me, DANFS articles are unique and should be treated that way, but they do present special editing problems-at least for me.

• Books are not written on every Navy ship, which scuttles in line citations.

• DANFS might be the only reference source available: is that enough weight to make the article creditable in the eyes of a critic?

• Each time I step up to the plate, I hope to make the article a little clearer, and a bit more concise, yet keeping the contributor in mind.

• So if the standard of acceptable readability is met, to what extent should this atypical style of DANFS be dealt with – jargon, style, and places vs. events?

Reviewing Wikipedia:Peer review/USS Mahan (DD-364)/archive1 should answer any questions you may have on my reason for writing. Thank you. Pendright (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed that many articles on US Navy vessels are c&p'd from DANFS. Whilst this is not disallowed, it is not ideal. I treat DANFS as just another source and cite it as such. Mjroots (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

See DANFS conversions It's good advice but has not always been followed. Brad (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Useful advice - I would also add that there is a lot of spare information in most DANFS articles: "USS xxxx left portA on date and arrived in portB on second date" and that sort of thing. I would argue it is better to read through the DANFS text, cut mercilessly in the first instance and read through again. Then decide what is missing from the narrative. Obviously you don'y want anything as terse as this RN ship history. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Mjroots sums up my opinions on the issue pretty nicely. I think my overhaul of USS Wichita (CA-45), which was at the start basically a copy of DANFS, is a decent example of how to handle the material. The article still relies heavily on DANFS, but numerous other sources have been interspersed where possible and the DANFS writing style has been replaced. Parsecboy (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I thank each of you for your help. Pendright (talk) 01:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Deprecated template

{{Links to All US Navy Ships}} has been around a very long time but fell into disuse and is only attached to one article now. Each page it links to already have other means of finding names by alphabet. If no objections can we delete this as housekeeping rather than dragging it through TFD? Brad (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. bobrayner (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect image label

Hey all - I just found File:HMS Lion.jpg, which is in the category on Commons for HMS Lion. It is clearly not the ship (or any other HMS Lion, for that matter), but I don't know which ship she is. Can anyone lend a hand in identifying her so we can correct the name on Commons? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I've flagged this one up at Ships Nostalgia. Hopefully we'll have an answer soon. Mjroots (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

HMS Cumberland has been suggested at SN. Mjroots (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec) The easy part is that it looks like one of the County class cruisers, but I don't know how much further we can take that.

The hard part is that it’s listed as part of the Edwin Newman collection at San Diego Air and Space Museum, and is presumably described there as HMS Lion, so unless they can be persuaded to change the description and title of it there, we may well be stuck with it.

The only thing I can suggest there is that we sub-text it on Commons with a note to this effect. Xyl 54 (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

PS I've just posted this conversation to the file talk page on Commons, in case anyone replies to there.Xyl 54 (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

PPS Cumberland would be a good thought; but Conway says Cumberland (and Suffolk) were cut down one deck abaft Y turret during a reconstruction, which could be a point against...Xyl 54 (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The description at the source has changed to "County class cruiser", so getting Commons to change it should be easy enough. Just a thought - if the photograph were labelled "HMS London"" in fairly average handwriting, would that explain why the caption ended up at "HMS Lion"? Before her 1943 refit she would match the photo well enough, I think. I don't think it's Cumberland or any of the Kent sub class - the bridge is all wrong. 79.75.94.96 (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all - I've requested the image be moved on Commons to a generic County class cruiser name. Parsecboy (talk) 23:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

HMS Peterel

Around 1877 Commander Coookson brought some turtles from the Galápagos Islands to London on the Royal Navy ship HMS Peterel. I'd be interested in finding out Commander Cookson's full name and wikilinking an article on him if possible. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 10:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Commander William Edgar de Crackenthorpe Cookson. Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

He got it himself. Sorry, I was going to put a note here so someone didn't waste time looking it up. But I got into a thing about dentists of all things. Wonderful wikipedia. Benea (talk) 01:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both. It would be nice if HMS Peterel (1860) (http://www.pdavis.nl/ShowShip.php?id=169) went from red to blue at some point. :) Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Infobox for dummies, again

Hi. We should finally try to finish the infobox guide we started working on last fall. For example the discussion about the power and propulsion fields is still open. Also, someone who has not spent too much time with the guide should read it through and see if it makes any sense. Tupsumato (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Can't the guide be implemented now and finished up in place? The current instructions already cover the most popular uses of the infobox. Brad (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm more or less okay with that, although I wish more users would read it through and check that there are no obvious errors and personal opinions (double-check my contributions...). Also, I wonder if we should separate "definitions" of the field and "guidelines" how they should be filled. For example:

Ship tonnage

• Definition: The ship's tonnage, assigned to all registered civilian vessels, is related to the capacity of the ship. It can be calculated either from the volume of the vessel as gross or net tonnage, or from the mass of the cargo, crew and consumables as deadweight tonnage. However, it is not related to the mass of the ship itself (see displacement), which can sometimes be misleading as especially passenger ships are often referred to as "xxx-ton ships" by their gross (register) tonnage.
• Usage: Where possible, use the following templates for the ship's tonnage without any attributes. Separate different tonnages with a line break (<br />). The usual order is gross (register) tonnage, net (register) tonnage and deadweight tonnage. (list of templates omitted, could be a drop-down list in the final version)
• Note! Do not mix register tonnage with modern tonnage. International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships was adopted by the International Maritime Organization in 1969 and became mandatory for ships built after 18 July 1982, meaning that all ships built after this date always use the modern tonnage system. Note that modern tonnage is an unitless index, so there are no "gross tons" or "net tons". Older ships, especially those built before 1969, are generally measured in register tons, a volumetric unit equivalent to 100 cubic feet.

Or would it make the guide too complicated? Or should we use prose instead of bullet points? Tupsumato (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Tonnage can be complicated as you point out. I don't see any problem with the explanation. Brad (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Very good work. Now if we can correct the hundreds of articles specifying tons burthen/burthen in units of mass, and others that list dwt in the displacement field, our tasks will be easier. Kablammo (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

For now I've fixed the deadweight tonnage manually, but I'll probably try to implement such edits to my AWB in addition to various tonnage checks I already have there. Tupsumato (talk) 02:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Still no comments for the power/propulsion issue on the talk page. Tupsumato (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Still no comments... Tupsumato (talk) 05:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It really is time to put this manual in place where it can be used. If there haven't been comments no sense in begging for them. Brad (talk) 02:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that we're still missing two major sections (power and propulsion) because we haven't agreed how we should advise people to use them. The two camps seem to be "power-making bits to power, propelling bits to propulsion" and "maximum power rating to power, all physical components (including engines) to propulsion". Since no-one seems to be interested, should I just be bold and write the sections in a way that makes sense to me, and then wait for feedback? Tupsumato (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think the former makes sense; but we're never going to get agreement nor are we going to get perfectly consistent use of infoboxes around here, so just go ahead and do the best you can bobrayner (talk) 13:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It's getting quite late, but I managed to put something in there. I guess we can use that as a starting point. Tupsumato (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

What name and location should the guide be moved to? Brad (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest something along the lines of Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide, but will settle for anything outside my userspace :P -- saberwyn 02:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok; there it is. Need to figure out where it can be easily linked to for access. Brad (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Chaplin's Patent Distilling Apparatus with Steam Pump

Can a third party look at Chaplin's Patent Distilling Apparatus with Steam Pump ? I'm in a disagreement as what is proper categorization for this article. See Talk:Chaplin's Patent Distilling Apparatus with Steam Pump also. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

IMO the article should have been deleted at the AFD, because the topic is not notable, unless one wants to have an article for every patented piece of apparatus that gets a few google hits. The article consists of content either with no sources at all or from primary sources, or of irrelevant content about steam distillers in general, if you removed all such content there would be virtually nothing left. My suggestion at the AFD was to change the name and thereby focus of the article to the name of the company which manufactured it, which has a much stronger case for notability, where the Chaplin distilling machines could get a mention, perhaps as a separate section. I know this doesn't directly answer your query, but my point is that time spent working on this article is probably wasted time as I very much doubt it will survive in its current form - it certainly won't if I get around to fixing the outstanding issues. Gatoclass (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

If we split the company info off into its own article, then we can summarize what remains into a section or list on the company article, then this article can be converted into a redirect. ... -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would probably be the way forward. Gatoclass (talk) 05:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Decimal feet.

I found some discussion on "decimal inches" (mainly related to guns) but not on decimal feet (feet and tenths) - apologies if I missed it. Decimal feet were the rule for official merchant ship measurements in the UK from 1836 (changed from feet/inches) until metric system adopted in about 1985. All published Mercantile Navy Lists have decimal feet measurements; and Lloyd's Registers have followed that through most of the period. Similar usage was I think officially used in some other countries too. Practice in ship articles seems to vary, mainly between (1) use of feet and tenths, and (2) "conversion" to feet and inches - though usually just by using the same digit, eg 116.9ft = 116ft 9ins. In reality the differences, after rounding, are small, though it gives the odd result that very few British merchant ships have dimensions with 10 or 11ins.

Is there a consensus or guidance on this? My own practice has always been to follow the official published figures rather than create spurious data. Or perhaps editors can choose. But if there is a contrary policy, I'll swallow hard, say tut-tut, and just get on with it. Davidships (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Units of measurement, particularly the "Which units to use" and "Unit conversions" sections. The vibe I get is "use the units used by the source you are citing." but mileage may vary. -- saberwyn 06:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy is important, and sticking to what sources say is a good way to ensure accuracy. If anybody around here is doing inaccurate conversions, we should really rein that in. (If inaccurate conversions are used "in the real world", as a rule of thumb, we could report on that but make the inaccuracy clear to readers). bobrayner (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Lloyd's register appears to use decimal feet, but in fact uses feet and inches. This is evidenced by draughts being given in fractions of inches. My suspicion is that ship builders either didn't build to n'10" or n'11", or if they did, rounded up to the next foot and reported it as n+1'0". After all, who was going to doubt them or run a tape measure along the ship? Mjroots (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

For avoidance of doubt, British registration in period mentioned above was the real thing. See, for example, Merchant Shipping Act 1894 Sch1 giving the information to register a ship at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/57-58/60/schedule/FIRST/enacted . These are the official measurements appearing in the annual Mercantile Navy List. So far as I can see from sampling, LR uses the same figures for British ships - and for ships that LR had not surveyed itself, that would be their primary source anyway. Davidships (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I have now examined copies of Lloyd's Register. Prior to 1914/15 edition dimensions are given in feet and tenths, but with no explanation (but also with no internal evidence to suggest that they were manipulating the numbers). In 1914/15 edition LR introduced more extensive explanatory notes, which included "The registered dimensions of vessels in these columns are recorded in feet and tenths of a foot". That is unequivocal and continued until the 1954/55 edition - and I do not doubt that the same principles applied to the earlier period. In 1955/56 edition LR changed their practice to feet and inches, but a very large proportion of fields were left blank (including a large number of lengths) for vessels that were not classed with LR, which was clearly not satisfactory. In the following year, therefore, they filled the gaps with feet and tenths data where available, with a note: "Reliable information from owners is in feet and inches; if not available, official registration information is used in feet and tenths of a foot." From that year until 1974/75 LR continued with this hybrid presentation (during which time 10" and 11" appear as often as any other number of inches); thereafter they went metric.

All this points, I think, to LR data being exactly what it says it is, without manipulation, throughout their history. In my view it matters little whether ft/ins or ft/tenths are used in articles, provided the source cited is followed.Davidships (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Inline twin cylinder engines

Hi. I know nothing about marinecraft. Can anyone point to images and references regarding any inline twin-cylinder engines used on water for use in a related topic page? I don't know your subject but have found a few already. Thank you. --Bridge Boy (talk) 10:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Although I am not absolutely certain, I'm quite sure that vessels equipped with inline twin-cylinder engines are outside the scope of this project due to the small size of the engines — they are not big enough for ships. Tupsumato (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

HMS Cattistock (M31)

I have been looking at the HMS Cattistock (M31) article and noticed that within the "Honours and awards:" section in the infobox has honours related to the Second World War yet the ship was commissioned in 1982. I also noticed that a different ship with the same name was active within the Second World War, is it policy for ships to have previous honours from different ships of the same name within their infobox?

Gavbadger (talk) 12:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed before at various times, eg here, but I don't know that any definite conclusion was reached. Our guidelines don't specify a course of action either. What I will note from a quick scan of articles of other RN ships currently in service, is that they don't tend to have historic honours, only those the present ship was awarded, if any. Of course under the usual practice of battle honours Cattistock is considered to have inherited the earlier honours, and is entitled to display them. But for wikipedia purposes, because of the chance of confusion if they are displayed in the infobox as they are without the context of what the honour system is, they tend not to be. Just my thoughts on the present situation, nothing has been formally codified as far as I can tell. Benea (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

HMAS Hawkesbury seems to suggest that "all" ships of a "Name" are entitled the honors and awards earned by other ships of that "Name". In this case for the Australian Navy—which custom may have been inherited from the British Navy.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

For British and Commonwealth warships, vessels 'inherit' naval battle honours earned by previous ships of the same name (see Battle_honour#Naval_battle_honours for more); the idea as I understand it is to promote a sense of history and legacy to those aboard. So, yes, Cattistock is entitled to carry all those honours, even though three of the four were probably earned before her sailors were born.

WikiPolicy-wise, here's three different approaches to listing inherited honours: A) list only those earned by the individual ship (see HMS Ark Royal (91) and HMS Ark Royal (R07)), B) list those 'earned' by the ship, with a link listing of all honours earned by ships of the name (see HMAS Sydney (R17), which lists the three earned by the ship, and links to seven more at HMAS_Sydney#Battle_honours), or C) list all honours carried by the ship, whether earned or inherited, in the infobox (as your Cattistock example shows). As far as I know, there is no set rule on which approach to use, and its down to personal preference (for me, I prefer B, with A as alternate). -- saberwyn 13:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Previous discussions also include here and here and so on. The general usage seems quite clearly to side with placing the honours earned by a particular ship in the relevant article, and placing an entire list in the ship index page, as Benea says. To introduce honours not won by a particular ship can easily confuse readers who are not familiar with the practice of inheriting honours, and adds nothing. But it would be great if we reached consensus here and changed WP:SHIPMOS to reflect it. 79.75.94.96 (talk) 13:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Gavbadger (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Fleet submarine templates

I happened to edit USS Wahoo (SS-238). The article uses {{Fleet-boat-propulsion-early-FM-4-GE}} and {{Fleet-boat-armament-3-inch}} which are part of a suite of 16 such templates in Category:Fleet submarine templates (and there are many more I've not looked at in the next two cat levels up). These Fleet-boat templates are snippets of rote text and references. This is a terrible idea and it seems quite widespread. Taking Wahoo as an example, there are definitions of named-refs <ref name="FriedmanSubs1-specs"> and <ref name="Register"> in the article and different definitions in {{Fleet-boat-propulsion-early-FM-4-GE}}; there's also <ref name="FriedmanSubs1-specs"> that's defined one way in the article and another way in {{Fleet-boat-armament-3-inch}}. Most editors will never get this; here, for example; note the edit summary: still looking for wrecked Friedman ref. They didn't find it because it's buried in a template. Seems they wanted to change things. Such cementing of things in place retards future development of articles. It makes a heap of assumptions and locks things down. These templates were created and their deployment done about five years ago. They are used in some hundreds of articles. If the same sort of things are going on in the parent categories, we're talking thousands. I believe that the proper thing to do here, is a bit of further review, some clean up of the templates, and then subst them into articles and sort out the conflicts. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

These really should be subst'd, yes - this is textbook Not What Templates Are For stuff. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

There's a TFD for a similar template (except this one transcludes the entire infobox data) here. Benea (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Glad for the responses. I'm not focused on submarines, so up to those who are (is anyone?). It would likely be beneficial to clean such templates up a bit before substing them. From the looks of things this is an understood issue and some clean up is in progress. I'll loop back to Wahoo and sort that one out. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem for Wahoo appears to be not using {{Fleet-boat-propulsion-late-FM-4-GE}}, which is the correct configuration for her (based on Lenton). The armament template gets it wrong, tho; the Tenches only carried 26 fish... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the templates Wahoo was using and have then subst'd them. If the information is wrong, I think it's been wrong for five years. If so, the place to correct it is in the article. Someone had updated the article to start using the harv-system sometime last year, but the clashing named-refs were there before that. When named-refs clash, only one definition is used; any others are simply not displayed. It's very bad business. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you changed it on me while I was working on it; that's why I thought I'd made a mistake and changed this page to say 'late' (now changing that back). Anyway I cleaned-up both the early and late of "FM-4-GE" and subst'd the late one, which means it's saying what you say it should. I'll leave any armament tweaks to you. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

♠I was there, so I figured I might as well fix it. :)

♠Simplest thing is just not use the "late Tench" at all, 'cause AFAIK none of the operational boats carried 26 fish on ops anyhow (even tho the design allowed for more). I'll admit, tho, I could be wrong about that...

♠And like there's not enough trouble... I opened Hammerhead from the Gato-class listbox at Wahoo. Except, Lenton lists her as a Balao... So does Fitzsimons (not always reliable...). And with the late hull number, I would just offhand. Evidently, that needs fixing, too... :(

♠One other thing I notice, which would be a good fix IMO. The template links torpedo; it seems to me linking torpedo tube would be a better link, with a second link to torpedo.

♠I also notice the armaments template doesn't include the MG or, AFAICT, allow for variations. Lenton says not all the 3in-armed boats had the 40mm or 20mm, & the template doesn't allow for that. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:15, 18:20 & 18:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

♠After a bit of looking at the specs, I also notice the propulsion template omits the batteries entirely... The Gatos, Balaos, & Tenches used Gould & Exide, the Mackerels Exide, for a start... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I've never been a big fan of templates that are created for essentially limited use and aren't navigation related. There are probably at least a hundred "specification" templates for various ship classes. They need to be done away with but it's going to be a large project to do so. Brad (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

HMS Monck

HMS Monck is a ship list page that lists one ship, HMS Monck (1659), and two shore establishments, HMS Monck (shore establishment) and HMS Monck II. Since the page is a ship list page, do the shore establishment belong there?

Yet another question: When it comes to the names of stone frigates, is the name of the "frigate" italicized? MOS:ITALIC would seem to suggest that it shouldn't—not a vehicle.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Short answers, yes and yes. For commonwealth navies using the stone frigate system, the ship list page doesn't just list watergoing craft with the name, it traces the use of the name in the service. And certainly if only for navigation purposes it should have shore establishments as well as ships, as a reader looking for the shore establishment and unfamiliar with naming conventions would use this page to find what they are looking for. We certainly can't take a too dogmatic approach to the term 'ship list page'. And the whole reasoning behind the stone frigates is that they are treated as ships, hence the prefix HMS, HMCS, etc is applied to them. Benea (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Referring to ships flying a flag of convenience

Referring to discussion between me and User:Mjroots at Talk:MV MSC Flaminia regarding the nationality of a certain oil tanker, I would like to inquire about the naming conventions we use here at WP:SHIPS. If a ship is flying a flag of convenience such as the Bahamas, should it be referred to by the nationality of it's owners, operators etc. or by the country where the port of registry is located even though it might not have anything to do with the true nationality of the vessel? Tupsumato (talk) 10:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Using a flag of convenience as a national label would be silly. We could say something like "panamanian-flagged", but to give readers useful information it would be better to put more emphasis on the ship's actual ownership and usage. Simply calling a (for example) panamanian-flagged ship as "panamanian" (without the "flagged") would be misleading and inaccurate. bobrayner (talk) 10:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Convention is to refer to ship by the flag of registry. In this particular case, I've no objection to stating that the ship is German-owned, Bahamaian-flagged. Mjroots (talk) 10:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

What convention is that? I couldn't find anything relevant in Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines. If such a convention exists, it needn't be written in stone; perhaps it could be improved. bobrayner (talk) 11:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Should we perhaps agree on a project-wide guideline and add it to the naming conventions as we might face similar disagreements in the future? Perhaps we should disencourage people from referring to ships by their nationality in case of flags of convenience or other cases where the ship's nationality may be questioned, and use workarounds like the one mentioned by Mjroots instead? It seems that e.g. most cruise ship articles don't state the nationality of the ship (often a flag of convenience) and use the owner or operator instead (probably because many of those ships are registered to one of the poorest countries in the world). Tupsumato (talk) 11:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem with not referring to ships by the flag of registry is that it will affect lots of shipwreck lists. In the days of the British Empire, many ships were registered at ports in (e.g.) Australia, Canada, New Zealand but flew this flag - . Mjroots (talk) 11:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If a lot of articles currently have flagicons which might mislead readers, that's an important motivation for us to improve, rather than stick with the status quo. bobrayner (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Were the ships in question considered British ships in those days, or were they indentified with the countries where they were registered even though the said places were part of the British Empire back then? Also, did the concept of flag of convenience exist back then? My point of bringing this discussion was that many modern ships are registered in countries with which they have nothing to do except legal issues, and thus identifying them with the said countries would be, as bobrayner said, misleading. Tupsumato (talk) 11:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they were considered British ships, operating under British maritime law as applicable at the time. This is not the same as operating under a FoC, which only really started during WWII. Mjroots (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Mjroots is right - indeed they were not just considered British ships, they were British ships and had exactly the same status as a British ship registered in a UK port. FoCs, in the modern sense, go back a bit further, to the inter-war years, when Panama, Honduras and Costa Rica, and maybe others, were used by Greek and, particularly, US owners seeking lower operating costs.

But the question raised is not easily resolved - it exercises even the best of the commercial ship data providers. The only absolute certainty is the formal owner of the ship - the name on the registration document and certificate of title, mortgage, loan documentation, court proceedings etc etc. However, as implied above that is often-as-not a single-ship company, often domiciled in a tax haven (but not at all necessarily in the same place as registration). The owner of that company may be another shipping company established somewhere else (or not), it may be a joint venture, it may have private shareholders. IHS-Fairplay and other databases try to establish the "Group Owner" for all ships, but this is pretty hit-and-miss and not available for all ships. Sometimes there is an individual or family behind the individual ship, sometimes not - sometimes a Government - sometimes very many owners (most obviously where the owner is a listed public company). And of course other companies or individuals, that appear in the range of those involved are commercial technical and crewing managers (sometimes part of the same overall group, sometimes third parties) and "operators" - typically bareboat or time-charterers, or pool operators. There is no consistent common pattern, nor in my view is one possible in the shipping industry.

Much as it is indeed unsatisfactory, for some of the reasons already noted, the flag is a certainty, as is the nationality of the formal owner, so for clarity I would favour nationality=flag, the owner being the legal owner. What lies behind that can be put in other data fields or in the article itself, as appropriate.Davidships (talk) 12:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Replica Titanic

Someone in April added the new project to Replica Titanic, so it now covers three different topics (a 1998 feasibility study, a 2000's proposal, the 2012 proposal); since we deleted many replica Titanic project articles before... should the new project be covered? And if it is, shouldn't it be a separate article? -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 06:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Considering that no project (including the ones not covered by the article) has so far advanced beyond concept state, I think we could group them all within a single article. When (if) they start building the recent incarnation, we could make a separate article for that. Tupsumato (talk) 06:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Should each project be using the shipbox? -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, only if the design has advanced to a point where something can be said about e.g. main dimensions, general arrangement and/or propulsion system. The recent project and its detailed GA drawing is a good example. Tupsumato (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Refurbishing infobox requests.

The current way our project banner handles infobox requests needs some updating. I've have an example set up at User:Brad101/shipinfobox which points out the current trouble and what we could do about it. Additionally {{Ship infobox request}} was slated for merger a few months back and my proposal shows how to eliminate the need for it. Comments please. Brad (talk) 23:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Since there were no objections (or commentary) I'll get this implemented. Brad (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep alive Brad (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep alive Brad (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Still not settled. Explanation at Template talk. Brad (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Citation templates

We have a number of citation templates to be used for classification society database entries and such. Personally I find them useful as classification societies are generally deemed to be reliable sources of basic information for ships. However, these templates do not refer to individual pages within the database entry, but to the entry as a whole. Recently my edit (changing {{cite web}} to {{DNV name}}) in the article about Allure of the Seas was reverted because the other editor felt that the citation should refer to the individual page, like in a book or journal, instead of the whole entry.

Should we encourage such increased accuracy when citing classification society databases and (re-)implement the ability to refer to individual pages to relevant citation templates?

Personally I think that the database entry can be deemed as a single data entity and referring to it as a whole should be enough — I would expect anyone following the link to be smart enough to browse the subpages if he can't find what he's looking for from the summary page as every entry within the database has a standardized layout. Also, for example DNV Exchange has eight subpages, meaning that if every one of them was referred to individually, we would get eight separate citations. For the record, it was me who removed the ability to refer to individual subpages from the DNV template in order to make it similar to other citation templates. Tupsumato (talk) 09:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The ultimate goal of citations is to help another reader look at the source and see how it supports the text in the article. Generally speaking, pointing directly to a single record is better than pointing to a database's search page, which is better than simply naming the overall source... (Which is why I'm not fond of harvard-style cites; they may have been best practice in the past, but technology has moved on. Nonetheless we still get hung up on whether certain components of a citation should be shown as italic or bold &c in the References section even though that formatting is just an obscure shorthand for "this string of text is a title, that string is an author", &c).

Ease of verification is far more important to me than neat relationships between citation templates. I would favour simplification of our cite template ecosystem if it eases the learning curve for other editors who want to improve verifiability of ship articles. Cite templates are just a means to an end. bobrayner (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I am , in part, in agreement with Editor bobrayner. In general, cite / refs should point to the location of the supporting data. In this particular case, all of the supporting data are on the Dimensions page to which the {{cite web}} cite / ref pointed.

I suppose that an argument could be made for Editor Tupsumato's position were it the case that the article contained multiple cite / refs to some (more than one) or all of the DNV database entry pages. In that case consolidating the various separate page cite / refs into a single cite /ref would make the referencing easier to maintain and §References easier to read.

What I don't like about the {{DNV name}} template is that the |author= and |authorlink= are, I think, used inappropriately. There isn't a single identifiable author (or an identifiable team of authors) who were / are responsible for the content of the database in the way that the author of an article or book is responsible for that content. Yeah, I know, not really part of this discussion.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I just found that we have ten different cite templates for citing different registries. Is that really appropriate? I realise that some will get cited in a fairly large number of articles, so it's not as bad as {{Armenia in 2010. A Year of Uncertainty}} or {{Anabasis}}, but still... maybe there's room for simplification here? We can hardly expect an average editor to know about the existence of {{RINA name}} &c., they'll just dive straight in and cite web. bobrayner (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

How would the rest of the community feel about consolidating on a single template for citing ship registries? Adding something like {{cite ship register|DNV|12345}} to an article is more userfriendly, and it's easier to add aliases for existing registries or to treat authors &c consistently - and it's also easy to add new registries. (Not just new countries; we could add in other databases which are parallel to ship registries, such as the ITU's MMSI database, if anybody wants to cite stuff like that). Editors would only have to remember one template instead of ten. Does anybody else think that a single template for citing ship registries could be a good compromise? bobrayner (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I cite DNV entries to the actual page the info is found on. Doing anything less is against WP:V IMHO. Mjroots (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm okay with a consolidated registry citation template, assuming we can enforce some kind of consistency with the citations (e.g. the user may specify "dnv" and "summary" as parameters instead of writing stuff like "Det Norske Veritas" or "DNV Exchange". Of course everything can be covered by extensive documentation, but I'd be more happy with some kind of standardization and automation, like in the existing templates. Is the template language (or whatever) flexible enough to allow some kind of if-then-else structure?

Anyone willing to open a workspace where we can draft the requirements and documentation for the consolidated ship registry citation template? Also, if such template is introduced, someone should run AWB on the list of articles that use the old templates.

As for bobrayner's comment, I expect an average WP:SHIPS editor to read through our project guidelines at some point and become familiar with our tools, including the citation templates. Anyway, I wouldn't say that inconsistent citations are a major issue as long as the information is cited properly (someone browsing through the articles can always fix minor spelling and stylistic mistakes). Far more important would be to tell people to use the databases in the first place instead of private websites like FoF... Tupsumato (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that FoF isn't a WP:RS, or is there another reason you don't likr that source? Mjroots (talk) 10:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Replying to a couple of Tupsumato's other questions: I'm not a template guru but aliases should be easy, so editors only really need to remember the name of the one template and then add "|registry=DNV" or "|registry=Det Norske Veritas" or whatever else folk would prefer. And if next month we discover that (say) the Mongolian Yacht Registry is a handy source, it's easier to plug in. Consistency is probably not the most important deliverable, but regardless of what the existing guidelines say there are editors currently using cite web, or just naked URLs, sometimes pointing to dubious mirrors or some other site based on a registry, so it would be nice to lower the technical hurdle a little for those who are not necessarily deeply immersed in this project's norms... people who discuss templates on a project talk page may not be a very representative sample! bobrayner (talk) 12:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there will always be editors who won't use our citation tools, no matter how easy and "intelligent" they are, just like I don't use {{cite web}} for every citation I make. As for lowering the technical hurdle, that's exactly my point. It should be enough to define "dnv" or "rina" as the source, and the template should take care of the correct spelling of the classification society and its database to maintain consistency and keep everything beautiful. The parameters can be listed in the documentation if someone's not familiar e.g. with the common abbreviations.
On the other hand, how does that differ from having separate templates for all classification societies, when the only thing you need to change is the first two or three letters? There should be a definite advantage with a common template for all databases. It's not like we're running out of server space or template allocations here at Wikipedia... Tupsumato (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Having a single template compared to having multiple templates just means editors have a single stop to make to refresh their memories, and a fully standard formatting for parameters (hopefully). It is definitely A Good Thing™. When/if the decision is made to work on this combo template, I'd be glad to help craft the code, since I have experience with such things. Already got some ideas in the time I've taken to write this, lol. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Anecdotal experience: I'm a regular on the WikiProject Ships talkpage but I still didn't know most of those templates existed. bobrayner (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

They are listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Tools together with quite a number of other "useful" templates... Tupsumato (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

If someone creates a working document for the combined citation template, I can throw in some ideas as well. Tupsumato (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

FoF is a private website that does not cite its sources. Although the information about a ship's career is useful and generally correct, for hard and unchanging facts like the main dimensions I would prefer people to cite the official databases instead of Asklander's website. As far as I know, he's just a hobbyist and not a recognized authority. Tupsumato (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/sidebar

I have replaced the sidebar that you have all come to know and love. The previous version was a complicated mish-mash of html mark-up. It is now a more or less an info box table that uses {{WPMILHIST Infobox style}}. This, I think, will be much easier to maintain. It can still use some work. Suggestions encouraged.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

More line breaks in the upper box, please. The old sidebar was divided into clearly defined sections. Now it takes more time to find the correct link. Tupsumato (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Methinks that you are misremembering how the old version looked. As you can see, the line breaks that you thought were there, really aren't there at all. I agree that the upper section could stand a wee bit of reworking, but it needed that before I ever touched it.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The trouble with editors that waltz in and change things without asking usually means that I end up having to fix everything they wrecked. The bullet points were helpful in making clear distinctions for each area. Brad (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That, sir, is uncalled for. Yes, I know, I've changed something that has been the way it has been for a very long time. And yes, it looks different. Live with it for a while. If it truly is "wrecked", that will become obvious and we can fix or revert.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Aesthetically... I find this new version much uglier. The text is larger and runs together (what I think Tupsumato means about the linebreaks), making it less easy to navigate. And what is this article statistics thing at the bottom? What does that number mean? How will it be updated? Well intentioned as this redesign was no doubt, is this really a necessary change? I buy the argument that it will be easier to maintain, but I don't know if I buy that that justifies this. Benea (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what the number means. It comes from User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Custom/Ships-1 whatever that is. It's in the old version at the bottom—click on the show link, and there it is.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

My comments are not uncalled for by any means. I'm in the camp of Benea where templates that try and dominate a page are unsightly and unnecessary. The text is too large making it wider and longer than it was previously. The assessment area of the template is no longer necessary and deprecated which is what I attempted to remove but then you jumped in and "wrecked" the whole program and here I am trying to fix it. Hmm.

The previous functionality of the template was somewhat difficult to work with but the template is not edited often enough to where its layout was intolerable. I think the best thing you could do right now is revert all of your "help" and put things back where they were. Brad (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You wrote "The trouble with editors that waltz in and change things without asking usually means that I end up having to fix everything they wrecked." That was the bit that is uncalled for. This is Wikipedia; editors don't have to ask. Because, if they did, nothing would get done. You accuse me of wrecking the Sidebar—and, by extension, anything else that I've touched without your permission.

How has the Sidebar been wrecked? Does it have all of the same information it had before? Yes. Do all of the links point to the same places they pointed to before? Yes. Is the underlying markup easier for someone not HTML literate to understand? Yes. Is it rendered exactly as it was before? No. Does the new version damage or disrupt content on pages where it is used? No. Where is the wreckage?

How does the new Sidebar dominate the page? Did you know that the new Sidebar is the same width as {{Infobox ship begin}}? Do you have the same antipathy for the Infoboxes? The new Sidebar is 315px wide, the old was 290px. Yeah, it's a bit wider and yeah, it's a bit longer.

One of Wikipedia's problems is documentation. If the assessment area, and by this I presume you refer to the section labeled Article Statistics, is truly deprecated, shouldn't that be documented somewhere, perhaps at User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Custom/Ships-1 or User:WP_1.0_bot? This is not a rhetorical question.

When I reverted your edits to the old sidebar, it was well and truly broken. The whole content of the Talk page (and I suspect every other page that used the template) was inside the template box along the right side of the screen. It was a very long and very narrow Talk page. I spent several minutes looking at the HTML code and was unable to quickly discover where the problem lay. Because the template is used in some 30 pages, it seemed best to revert to a known working version so that anyone viewing those pages saw what they should have seen.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Renaming Request Huakai-->Guam

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:HSC Huakai. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Aggressive Editing

Hi All I have some concerns as to the editing currently underway by User talk:DoctorKubla. I have raised this concern with them in relation to their editing of the Advance (1874) where they have conceded that “I may have been a bit over-zealous in this case. I'll have another look at it later”

But they have not followed up on this and have subsequently made other significant edits typically removing more than 2/3 of the entry in their editing

By placing just the main body of the articles into MS Word you can get a feel as to the extent of the article that has been removed

Ænid was 1788 words now 328 words reduction by 1460 words thus 82% of the article removed

Adelphoi was now 1108 words now 370 words reduction by 738 words thus 67% of the article removed

Alhambra was 2656 words now 837 words reduction by 1819 words thus 68% of the article removed

Advance (1874) was 3583 words now 1590 words reduction by 1993 words thus 56% of the article removed

I absolutely concede that these articles may need reworking and editing but strongly feel this is exceedingly aggressive editing and has removed considerable details

As I have raised this with the group and in no way wish this to become a dispute I shall leave it to the group as to the outcome (revert/leave as is/ some intermediate) and shall live by the group condenses and play no further part in the dicussion

Regards --Whodidwhat (talk) 04:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I did have another look at the Advance, but I stand by my original edits. Word count isn't everything; these articles were comprised mostly of blockquotes from contemporary newspapers, so there was a lot of repetition and redundancy. Furthermore, every scrap of information that could be dug up about the ship had been included, resulting in passages like this:

On the 19 May 1876 the Adelphoi sailed from Newcastle, New South Wales harbour for Lyttelton, New Zealand and arrived on 9 June 1876

In September 1876 it was reported that the Adelphoi and Natal Queen were loading at Lyttelton and bound for Melbourne, with 10,000 bags of oats.

On 15 December 1876 the Adelphoi arrived back at its new home port at Newcastle harbour after having completed her trip

On 26 April 1877 the Adelphoi again sailed for Lyttelton from Newcastle

...etc, etc. I tried to cut out all the minutiae and retain as much of the relevant information as I could. I've also been removing the extensive "further reading" sections of these articles, which may account for some of the reduction in size.

Anyway, I'm also willing to abide by the group consensus, and I'll hold off on editing these articles until the matter has been resolved. DoctorKubla (talk) 05:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The articles definitely need heavy copyediting and the blockquotes must go, but I also think that removing two thirds of the content may be a bit too much. Of course some minor details may be left out, but sometimes even small bits of information may be of interest if there's nothing else to write about. While there's no need to include everything just to increase the length of the article, it would be nice if the articles were longer than just a few sentences. Tupsumato (talk) 06:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

TSS prefix

The prefix TSS was used at the advent of the marine steam turbine to refer to turbine-powered craft, as was TS. Such usage seems to have lapsed as turbine power became more common. Wikepedia has articles which use "TSS" for twin-screwed steamers (and a dab page TSS and unreferenced article Twin screw steamer which claim the same), and other articles which seem to use "TSS" even where contemporary usage did not. (One cannot be sure of this without access to the sources.
Does anyone know of the historic use of "TSS" to refer to a twin-screw ship?
And should we retrospectively use "TSS" to refer to a turbine vessel, even where usage at the time did not? As to this, I believe we should conform our usage to the sources.
Kablammo (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm against using any prefix retrospectively, and if a certain prefix is not used in reliable sources in combination with the ship's name, I'd leave it out completely or use a more generic prefix like "SS" iff there is need to disambiguate from existing articles. After all, our naming convention for ship articles does not say that we have to use a prefix. Tupsumato (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

ST ship prefix

I have noticed a few steam trawlers articles have been with the prefix ST, e.g. ST Leukos and ST Koraaga (1914). Should this be SS Leukos and SS Koraaga, or is ST acceptable as a prefix in these instances?? Newm30 (talk) 05:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally I am against introducing yet another prefix. What's wrong with "Leukos (trawler)" or "Leukos (1914)", or even Leukos considering the fact that there are no other articles with the same name? ST can also be mixed with St., which is used by many trawlers according to a quick Google lookup. Tupsumato (talk) 06:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

If the prefix is used in reliable secondary sources, then it should be used. If not, it shouldn't. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Many trawlers have the same name. The use of the ST prefix helps dab those from motor trawlers. Armed naval trawlers are listed with the HMT prefix, so it seems natural that steam powered trawlers are listed with the ST prefix. That said, I wouldn't object to articles being housed in the format "Foo (steam trawler)" or "Foo (motor trawler)" as appropriate. I would oppose any move of HMT Foo articles. Mjroots (talk) 09:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm with the honourable Bushranger on this one. If sources actually called a vessel "ST Foo" then I'm happy with that as a title; if not, then ST has no place in the title. Bracketed disambiguation has its own drawbacks, but at least readers aren't led to believe that the term in brackets is part of the subject's actual name. bobrayner (talk) 10:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Are there any other cases where ship article titles are routinely given a prefix which is not necessarily used by sources? bobrayner (talk) 10:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I took a quick look through a number of categories, and while there were some prefixes that were unfamiliar to me (like TIV and DCV), Google came up with quite many hits, so I guess it's okay to use them. Still, when it comes to article titles, I think we could still do without... Tupsumato (talk) 10:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

On a not entirely unrelated note, do we encourage people to use disambiguators (either prefix or bracketed) even if there is no need to disambiguate? I'm thinking about all those articles with "MV" or "MS" next to a title that can't be anything but a ship's name. Of course we can always use redirects, but still... Tupsumato (talk) 10:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Tne use of MV/MS is necessary, for example RMS Mulheim is not RMS Mulheim! Mjroots (talk) 11:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Other than the many sites which have copied this title from wikipedia, is there any source which uses the name "MV RMS Mulheim"? bobrayner (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make is that RMS in this case is not a ship prefix, whereas Titanic is RMS Titanic. See the difference? Mjroots (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Right. But is there any source which uses the name "MV RMS Mulheim"? If not, why do we have an article with that title? ;-) bobrayner (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

See ship prefix. Sailing ships were known by the name of the vessel. We distinguish these by ship type, or year of launch, or both as asppropriate. With the advent of steamships, these were identified as such by the use of the prefix S, or SS. When diesel engined ships ships came imto service post WWI, they were identified by the prefix M, MS or MV. My personal preference is for MV, but MV and MS are interchangeable. Mjroots (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Who "identified" the ship like that? I see no sources that call it "MV RMS Mulheim". bobrayner (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I did, per WP:NC-S as noted in my edit summary at the time. Mjroots (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

So we (or you) have a system which assigns ships names that do not exist in reality? Shouldn't we use names that are used in the outside world? bobrayner (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It's "we" rather than "I". NC-S is accepted practice, and was in place long before I started editing Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, getting back on track. Is there such a prefix as ST (steam trawler), currently used for steam tugs, or should we use SS (steam ship) for the articles. I will leave HMT as this is an acceptable prefix. Newm30 (talk) 23:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, ST is steam tug. I'm not sure that SS should be used for trawlers as SS means steam ship. Many trawlers are under the 100/100 barrier so wouldn't qualify as "ships" within the scope of this WP. For that reason, I'd lean towards Foo (steam trawler) as a better title than ST Foo in these cases - see Lydia Eva (steam drifter). Mjroots (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Rules and guidelines

If WP:NC-S tells us to use a ship name which is not actually used by any sources, then WP:NC-S should be corrected so that it's compatible with WP:V. If WP:NC-S has merely been misinterpreted in a way that clashes with WP:V, then its wording should be improved to reduce the risk of such mistakes in future. bobrayner (talk) 09:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It isn't obvious to me that WP:NC-S says anything about using ship names not actually used by sources. Can you quote from WP:NC-S?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Mjroots suggested above that ships like MV RMS Mulheim got named according to WP:NC-S. However, that name is not in any sources. Therefore, either (A) NC-S has some inherent contradiction of WP:V, or (B) it's a problem of ambiguous wording which has allowed individual editors to interpret WP:NC-S in a way that is not compatible with WP:V. Personally, I've read NC-S and don't see where it requires us to make up a new name - so I think case B is more likely than A - but I'm open to suggestions from other editors. Whether it's A or B, the problem needs to be solved. bobrayner (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Whilst I can't comment on specific cases, generically, sources such as The Times do differentiate between sailing ships, steamships and motor vessels, as do websites such as Fakta om Fartyg in the latter two cases. The use of SS and MS/MV is long-established practice in the maritime world. Mjroots (talk) 12:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I commented on the RMS Mülheim name issue in the requested move discussion.

As for WP:NC-S: "If a ship is best known in combination with a ship prefix, use the prefix as part of the name" seems to be the only part that applies; a judgement call to be made by the article's creator.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be missing the main point of WP:NC-S - It begins, "If a ship is BEST KNOWN in combination with a ship prefix, use the prefix as part of the name". It doesn't say "ARE KNOWN". It doesn't matter whether there some citeable sources with a prefix if there are a much larger number without. The vast majority of ships are not "best known" with a prefix, just the name. There are plenty of "Exxon Valdez", but only a handful with "MS" or "MT" (and probably no examples of "MV RMS Mülheim" if you eliminate all those copied from here).

I read the discussion behind WP:NC-S some time ago, and I would hate to reopen all that again. However, for what it's worth, my opinion is that almost all (if not all) ship articles would be better without prefixes in the title. Those that are genuinely "best known" with one or more prefixes would be able to justify a redirect. A printed encyclopedia would not dream of putting all the articles about motor ships under "M" or all the steam trawlers under "ST" (or all the male biographies under "Mr"). Davidships (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

My point exactly. It would be nice to discourage people from adding a M* prefix to nearly every ship article even if there's no need to disambiguate. Tupsumato (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

That's what {{DEFAULTSORT}} is for. Mjroots (talk) 06:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I know. I was primarily talking about the actual article titles, not how they behave in lists etc. Tupsumato (talk) 09:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

A discussion concerning the use of {{USS}} and similar templates on disambiguation pages

A discussion concerning the use of {{USS}} and similar templates on disambiguation pages is started at Talk: MOS/dab Use of {{USS}} and similar templates on disambiguation pages. Your participation welcome.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)