Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 65

Archive 60

←

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

→

Archive 70

Cost of ships in infobox

User:Trigenibinion is adding an inflation adjusted cost and a US$ conversion to ships infoboxs even when the ship has no connection to the United States such as MV Coruisk, MV Hallaig and RRS Sir David Attenborough. I can accept that having an adjusted inflation cost in the prose has some merit (although I feel its pointless unless its going to be updated every year) I feel it is excessive detail in the infobox. I see no merit on mentioning a US$ cost anywhere if the ship or contract was not so denominated. I have raised this on his talk page and on MV Queen of New Westminster suggesting that the US$ issue should be raised at a more appropriate venue. In the meantime I would appreciate thoughts as to if the additions to the infobox as have been done should be kept? Lyndaship (talk) 11:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It's inappropriate to convert cost to USD (plus US-centric) unless it has a bearing on the article, eg built in a US shipyard or the contract is in USD. The user seems to have created a shortcut template (Template:GBPConvert) from other templates (template:FXConvert ) they have made to make the process quicker for them to do. They also add the same sort of thing to lots of aircraft articles at the end of 2020. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree; this is a global encyclopedia and there is no reason to give such conversions for vessels with no substantial connection with the US. Kablammo (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see the point in including the cost at all - what value is there in presenting a large number completely out of context? Is 100 million dollars/pounds/euros/yuan/etc. a lot? Or is that comparatively "cheap"? Adjusting for inflation has its own problems too - governments don't pay for ships the same way you or I pay for groceries, so trying to convert costs based on CPI or some other market index doesn't make a lot of sense. Which brings us back to not including costs, because people will inevitably misunderstand and misuse them. Parsecboy (talk) 13:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

That's why it's important to be able to compare values across time and countries. Also, there's a GDP index for some countries which has been used when possible for non-consumer prices. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

You've completely missed the point: if you can adjust using a GDP index for some countries, you're still ending up comparing apples and oranges (and that ignores the WP:SYNTH issues). What you're looking to do effectively cannot be done, because we lack the sources needed to do it correctly (because they don't exist). Parsecboy (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

If the only index available is consumer, the adjustment is indicative. This is clarified by the footnotes that the templates add. It is also possible to disable the adjustment and convert at historical values using the 'mode' parameter. ToUSD only goes back to 2002 at present, however. Trigenibinion (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I can't speak for the others, but personally I consider the cost of the vessel to be relevant enough to be included in the infobox. While conversions to other currencies (namely USD) may sometimes (but not always) be useful for the reader, they should be in the article body or as a footnote. I have not reverted Trigenibinion's edits in the articles on my watchlist, but I was already thinking about bringing the issue up here as I didn't agree with what was happening. Tupsumato (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Conversions were already there, they allow comparing values from different countries. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The conversion is not US-centric, it is globalized as the world still goes by the USD. The day this changes, Template:FXConvert can simply convert by default to something else (it is thought for it to have a 'to' parameter in the future like Template:INRConvert to request conversion to a specific currency). It is not a "to USD" template. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• >groan< ...it's Talk:MV Queen of New Westminster#Infoxbox detail all over again. Good luck - wolf 14:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Nobody has talked here about showing the cost of major overhauls in the infobox yet. Trigenibinion (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Big values of currency are not something the average reader will be getting their head around - they won't be comparing the cost of a ship against their salary for instance. Comparing one value in one currency with another value in another currency while throwing in inflation and - in the case of military vessels - ignoring unstated costs, unstated benefits, reported versus actual cost, if the cost quoted is fully equipped or includes maintenance contract and so on and so forth could be interpreted as heading off into Original Research territory. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The idea is to compare items of the same kind. It also shows how planes have increased in price more than ships and in turn land vehicles. Trigenibinion (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

But you can't do that. We don't have the sources to do an accurate job of it, because they don't exist. What you are advocating is a disservice to our readers. Parsecboy (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It is a disservice to obfuscate information. Trigenibinion (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

If you present information in an inaccurate way, without appropriate context, you are obfuscating information. You don't seem to understand this issue at all, it would be wise if you stopped. Parsecboy (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It was not me who started converting and adjusting costs in infoboxes. The templates are a way to standardize this process. Trigenibinion (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

You are filling the infobox with a bunch of close-set numbers with mulitple brackets - that sounds more like obfuscation. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

If somebody has suggestions on how to improve the presentation, they are welcome. I just added the year to the way Template:INRConvert does. The templates also provide a standardized display with minimal wikitext. Trigenibinion (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Not in the infobox for a start - in the body of the article only, where it can be presented in sourced context. The infobox is for quick and simple presentation of basic information - historic price of ships and the like is not basic information - and the older it gets the less useful it is.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

That is not a suggestion about how the templates can better display all information. Trigenibinion (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The idea is to compare items of the same kind. But it doesn't succeed. Ships are not homogenous, especially in the passenger field of the examples given - just compare the tonnage, length and capacity of Coruisk and Hallaig, not to mention the completely different propulsion systems.

It also shows how planes have increased in price more than ships and in turn land vehicles. Does it? Do you have a reliable source for such a statement. Changes in shipbuilders' prices (ie shipowners' costs) over time are way more complicated than that - just as an example to hand, a standard 70,000 deadweight bulk carrier cost $25mn (1974), $16mn (1977), $30mn (1980) then $15mn (1985)[Stopford, Maritime Economics (1st ed, 1988, p305)]

If a readers are interested in either of those questions they will look for relevant articles quoting reliable sources, not look in random ship articles to find data of doubtful validity. Davidships (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

This article came up after what became apparent here: . The comparison with land vehicles is not clear, too few numbers have been entered. One is indeed able to compare the cost of similar ships (eg., current frigates). Then you can investigate further if there's a large discrepancy (justified?) or if the prices are similar (better deal?). One can also see how the cost of the category increases with time, and how often the "same" ship becomes more expensive when it is built elsewhere instead of just being exported. Trigenibinion (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources

• @Trigenibinion: - you have what appears to be more than half a dozen editors, all experienced, some admins even, trying to tell you something, and yet you keep arguing against everyone. You have an idea, and may be a good one, but that doesn't mean it's good for Wikipedia. Please read wp:consensus and wp:tendentious editing, carefully and thoroughly, before proceeding with this any further. Otherwise you may find yourself facing possible sanctions, such as a topic ban. This is just a friendly heads up. - wolf 18:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I am now just cleaning up what is already there. Trigenibinion (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion cost is not of much value or interest for most ships. Only where cost is notable do I think it worth noting. Yachts in particular sometimes had notable costs, particularly during hard times for everyone else. It was sometimes the cost that made the yacht notable. It was the cost that drove news articles that contained descriptions and information about owners, designers and builders and "debut" to yachting society and thus "notability" for Wikipedia. Same with some luxury liners. For most ordinary commercial ships the cost is not of much note. For many it was just a contract price for a number of ships. Maritime Commission contracts often were for batches and the per ship breakdown really has little meaning and no direct application to the actual cost of the individual ship. On a fixed price the last ships might be built at much less and thus the builder made more profit (though shipbuilding was often a horribly unprofitable business). Personally I do not think cost belongs in an infobox. If notable for some reason such as I've mentioned it can be a comment in text. Putting bells and whistles on the infobox cost as in this discussion? No. On that I strongly oppose. Palmeira (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes people just want to quickly find out the cost of things, not look at whole pages. Trigenibinion (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I have a solution for you: let's just put "Large, arbitrary number that you will not understand because we've chosen to present it without any context in a way that prevents context" in all ship article infoboxes. Parsecboy (talk) 11:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

It is clear from the comments made that there is no support for either an inflation adjustment or conversion to US$ in the infobox. As consensus has been clearly established if Trigenibinion (talk · contribs) does not revert his changes adding them I will shortly. Some editors have expressed an opinion that cost should not feature in the infobox at all, as previous editors have chosen to include that information and there is a field for it I will leave it as is Lyndaship (talk) 10:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Lots of plane and ship pages had conversions and adjustments before I got involved. Trigenibinion (talk) 11:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Please remove them too then or send me a list of the ships and I'll get started immediatedly! Lyndaship (talk) 12:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

That lots of other articles are wrong is not a justification that we should make more articles wrong. Parsecboy (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

That could always be up for discussion, so in any case what would be wrong would be to just revert instead of normalizing with a ship-specific template that can always be adjusted to the current mood. Trigenibinion (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

And what would be right is to start fixing them. Parsecboy (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I have already started working on the abstract normalizing template. Trigenibinion (talk) 13:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I think you have reached WP:ICANTHEARYOU - the discussion has been had, consensus is that this information is not appropriate for the infobox regardless of any template Lyndaship (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The template will be similar to the ones I have been using to clean up, but not apply any adjustments or conversions. Trigenibinion (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I now start replacing the usage of the templates like Template:CADConvert with Template:ShipCost. Trigenibinion (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

You would have to take it up with the Indian maintainers about what is supposed to happen with their ships. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with a cost figure, but I will delete any and all conversion templates I find as warship costs are capital costs and are not subject to the standard CPI-based inflation conversion templates. There's simply no way to compare a 12-billion-dollar, 95,000-ton Ford-class aircraft carrier to 30-million-dollar, 35,000-ton Lexington-class carrier without getting into proportions of budget or GDP, which is outside my remit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

People were already adjusting US items with US-GDP (I took care of some that wrongly used US). I was using UK-GDP for British ships. I did not see a an IND-GDP option in Inflation, but Template:INRconvert uses it own stuff, I don't know what. I think they use it everywhere on Indian items, so people might not like if someone just replaces it. One can use mode=historical to avoid inflating with this template, but it will still convert (USD default)Trigenibinion (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I can add IND to Template:ShipCost if there is an agreement. It could work like for everybody else or wrap Template:INRConvert (no year or references display) Trigenibinion (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

While I'm not bothered (within my strict limits) by a cost figure in the infobox, most other people seem to be and the consensus is definitely against you. I suggest that any further work is not going to be a productive use of your time and energy.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I am following the consensus here, I just don't know if touching the Indian pages would be a problem. Next I will add handling to Template:ShipCost for the countries (including USA, but not India) that I came across for which I had not made a Convert template to continue the cleanup. Now there's just EUR for the Eurozone, but the right way is to use the country code. Trigenibinion (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I see that you have started work on the articles that you had added the conversion and inflation template by replacing it with another template which formats the original price and adds a visible year alongside. Where are you getting the year from which you are manually entering in the template? Also see Rubis-class submarine and Maestrale-class frigate for other example errors being generated , the former has a French franc figure for 1981 adjusted for Euros in 2019 - why 1981, the project was started in 1974, the first ship laid down in 1976 and commissioned in 1983, the last ship laid down in 1987 and commissioned in 1993; on Maestrale you have Lire in 1991 converted to Euro in 2019 - the ships were built between 1978 and 1985. You are obviously very skilled in creating templates but perhaps you should find one to create which someone wants Lyndaship (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The years were originally in the infobox, page, or came for references. For a couple of French and Italian stuff I dug up parliamentary documents that had the figures. The Lire and French Francs I had manually converted using the official websites because people now do not know what all those old values mean. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I have added the old Rubis reference. Trials in 1981. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The reference should have been added when the edit adding the cost was made. On checking it I find that it does not support the entry in the infobox, it gives a cost for the first boat, it's WP:SYNTH to assume that future boats did cost the same Lyndaship (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I suspect such kind of cost assignation must be quite common here. Trigenibinion (talk) 10:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I am only finding some kind of blog with those numbers for Maestrale. At the Senate I have only seen the yearly construction costs. Trigenibinion (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

(arbitrary break)

Why are you creating templates to format text when ordinary markup does the job eg £15 million (1978)<ref>text</ref> and is more accesible to editors new and old.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:ShipCost is an abstraction to ensure consistent formatting that can be globally changed anytime. People were doing different things. Trigenibinion (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

It's introducing a unnecessary complication to the process and even inflexibility is what it's doing.

Eg for River-class offshore patrol vessel you have the obscure for many {{ShipCost|GBR|348|m|year=2014|r=0|ref=<ref name="reuters2014"/>}} to deliver "GB£348 million (2014)^[1] for 3 vessels", and not even "GB£348 million (2014) for 3 vessels^[1] ". (I'll mention in passing that "GB£" is an overcomplication in an article on patently British topic)GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

That is one of the things, people were putting the references in different places. With a template, you can normalize that. With respect to adding the trailing phrases, I have already thought that the abstraction/normalization template maybe should support simplifying that. Trigenibinion (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The template now also supports simplifying and normalizing the addition of such phrases. Next I will simplify the entries I already took care of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trigenibinion (talk • contribs) 10:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The template also takes care of normalizing the display of currency symbols and their links. GB£ is the standard symbol that wikipedia assigns. If people here agree on displaying just £, it is trivial to change it. This is an example of how people were entering values in a non uniform way. Trigenibinion (talk) 11:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

That's not simplifying - that's making the template more complex. I don't think you took the right lesson from the example I gave. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

References

HMS Prince in 1618

Does anyone know anything about the HMS Prince that existed in 1618? Apparently she was a first rate whose length of keel was 115 ft. I find her mentioned in Boats of Men of War ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Manning and Walker has a 55-gun Prince (alternate names Royal Prince and Prince Royal follow the heading - but it isn't clear whether they apply to this particular ship or to other Princes) built in 1610, named for Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales, which was renamed Resolution under the Commonwealth and again named Prince in 1660, before been "surrendered" in 1666. This appears to be the English ship Prince Royal (1610) - built in 1610, named Resolution during the Commonwealth, renamed Royal Prince in 1660 and burned by the Dutch in 1666 during the Four Days' Battle.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

This one, Prince Royal? Mjroots (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

It appears so, although it is interesting that that source says the ship was broken up for rebuild - I wonder how much of the original ship was left?Nigel Ish (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

"Broke up for rebuild" is normally a paper exercise for political purposes. Navy says "we want a new ship". Government refuses. Navy says "can we rebuild Foo. Government say OK. Navy scraps Foo, uses some parts and builds new ship named Foo. Everyone happy. Railyway companies used to do the same with locomotives. Mjroots (talk) 07:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The clue on the rebuild/new ship has got to be the increase in length of keel. I don't think a wooden ship of this era could be effectively lengthened. Thanks for the input aboveThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

References

EML Lembit (?)

Please assign a correct title to the second (actually first) Estonian ship named Lembit in dab page Lembit (disambiguation). Lembit Staan (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks, David. Lembit Staan (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not very neat as integration of shipname template and interlanguage template defeated me. If anyone knows a smart way, please re-edit. Davidships (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Ship namesake articles

I'm basically wiki-retired. In a former life, I made ship namesake stub articles to prevent the namesake from over burdening the ship article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert G. Bradley is in progress right now and some of you still active may wish to weigh in on if ship namesakes are worthy or not worthy of their own articles. Maybe this has already been something WP:Ships has solved, so I will leave it here for your information. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

They are...if they meet WP:GNG/WP:NPERSON/WP:SOLDIER etc. They don't inherit notability from the ship named after them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

U-Boat or u-boat?

Which form should be used in a sentence as in "In the First World War a u-boat sank......" or are both equally acceptable? Lyndaship (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

U-boat is correct. Mjroots (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Sovremenny-class destroyers/naming conventions

I am unable to figure out which naming conventions should be applied here:

• Sovremenny-class destroyer
• Template:Sovremenny-class destroyer
• And the actual ship articles here

In addition, why is this article named "Russian destroyer Moskovskiy Komsomolets" rather than "Soviet destroyer Moskovskiy Komsomolets", given that this is its name during the Soviet era and that it was renamed right after the collapse of the USSR?

Besides, it is an active ship of the Russian Navy therefore shouldn't we use its current name anyway?

Rather confused -could anyone help in this? -- UnaToFiAN-1 (talk) 09:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Not sure about the class article (I expect someone will help on this), but the individual ship article seems most odd, expecially as it was never commissioned as Moskovskiy Komsomolets. Russian destroyer Nastoychivy seems right, taking account of the modification from "yy" to "y" - see Talk:Sovremenny-class destroyer - and the apparent typo Nastoycvyy in the Lead. Davidships (talk) 03:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Why isn't CURV-III spelled in italics?

I asked this at the ref desk (miscell.) and was directed here. Why isn't a vessel such as CURV-III spelled in italics? I can see why the CURV programme itself isn't, but why not individual vessels, as is the norm with sea-going craft? Ditto the YFNX-30 and XN-3? After all, Pisces III is given in italics, as are U-boats. Ericoides (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Although it is open to question whether these pieces of equipment fall under this WP, in my view the title should indeed be CURV-III; see, by analogy, where it is an individual vehicle's proper name, WP:NCSHIP#Hull number only, alphanumeric names. The article itself is supposed to be about the type of object, so CURV, (to which Cable-controlled Undersea Recovery Vehicle redirects, is correct. However, the article is very unbalanced, being almost completely focused on CURV-III and could do with some expansion. Davidships (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Seems to me CURV is basically an adjective or prefix, almost like USS or HMS. That is, the "V" in CURV is akin to the "N" in PIN. Thus, a "what it is" acronym is not a name, and hence shouldn't be italicized. IMO. sbb (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Pisces III is a "passenger" carrying submarine vessel with a name. Thus italics. The CURV series are equipment. There were and are many remotely controlled or even autonomous pieces of equipment that are not in any way considered "vessels" or "ships" or "submarines" even in specialized literature. Palmeira (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Category for existing ship major reshape/rebuild?

Where would one look to find Wikipedia articles dealing with the topic of ships that go into shipyards for major refit of the ship, in either superstructure or substructure, such that the ship outline and/or function is materially changed during its time in the shipyard?

I'm not real familiar with ships nor ship articles, and didn't see anything in Category:Ships, and have had trouble finding articles on the subject. Not looking for the sort of routine yard maintenance and small welding jobs of any ship, but the large ones that change the ships characteristics in a major way, would def require marine architects or engineering design involved, and then (typically) months of substantial work in a yard. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Obvious examples are the conversion of battlecruisers into aircraft carriers in the 1920s, such as Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi, HMS Glorious and USS Lexington (CV-2). There doesn't seem to be a connecting category. Alansplodge (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Another spaceflight-related marine vessel(s)

Hi. Those of us who work mostly on spaceflight articles or with WikiProject_Spaceflight topics have only a small amount of experience, if any, with marine vessels and ships.

But as of two days ago, we now have two more very large vessels being built as floating launch platforms, this time for mega-large, 9-meter-diameter launch vehicles: specifically, SpaceX floating launch platform. These are intended to launch rockets larger than the US Saturn V, and are now in a couple of US ports for refit.

Would really appreciate it if some of the more ship expert eyes would take a look at the start article we've built (SpaceX floating launch platform) in the past couple of days, and suggest or fix a few things to make it comport well with Wikipedia marine vessel articles. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@N2e: I see that {{infobox launch pad}} is used. {{Infobox ship}} is also used for oil rigs. Take a look at the Deepwater Horizon article. Is there any way both infoboxes can be combined with the ship one at the top.

The article could do with a bit on the history of the rigs pre-conversion. Do we know when they were built and which country operated them? There are further categories the article can be added to once this is known. Mjroots (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@N2e and Mjroots: You should be able to merge the infoboxes. I recently did that on the Fort Bragg page. Look for the "|module=" parameter. fyi - wolf 20:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree with you. As a marine vessel, the article ought very much to have the previous history of the oil rig explicated. Definitely needs to be done. I and another editor from WProject Ships did do that with the landing ship that Jeff Bezos is building to land the large New Glenn rocket booster stage, while the ship is underway. That article has been for years called Blue Origin landing platform ship, but was very recently renamed as Jacklyn (ship) when the ship was finally named by Bezos.

Pinging User:N828335. You may be interested in this discussion, and in the further improvement of the article you started. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

USS Lillie B at AfD - and small US Navy vessels generally

USS Lillie B (SP-1502) is at articles for deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. There is an important and more general point with these kinds of deletions on WP:GNG grounds (there have been several such AfD nominations in recent years, and there could easily be many more similar ones). Turning these into Redirects is tantamount to deleting the content as the proposed destination isn't set up to receive even the modest text in the article. Proposing a Merge doesn't help much at present for the same reason as there is nowhere sensible to put the text.

This has happened before, in 2018, with USS Politesse (SP-662), in the AfD discussion it was agreed to merge, but it didn't happen, for exactly this reason, and this was also raised on this forum as a tangent in this discussion. Fortunately Admin @Patar knight: understood the difficulty and deferred the merger pro tem (as well as reverting two attempts to turn the article into a redirect. Also pinging the others who discussed this issue on that occasion: @Nigel Ish:, @Parsecboy:, @Thewolfchild: and contacting the participating IP 72.196.202.60 . Also @Palmeira:

The most sensible suggestion then was to follow the pattern of Lists of Empire ships and its daughters, created by @Mjroots:. This shouldn't be left unresolved again. If we could reach a view on what might be done, I would be happy to help create the structure, though it is certainly more than a one-man task. Davidships (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd be happy to lend a hand getting the lists set up if we decide to go the Lists of Empire ships route (which I strongly endorse). Parsecboy (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I stand by my solution from back then, setting up some system of lists to upmerge these ships to. Not sure how this would work, but it would probably have to be a WikiProject-level drive to get the necessary hands on deck. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Some sort of list article(s) seems sensible - if someone is prepared to write it -other possible templates are List of SC-1-class subchasers (SC-1 to SC-50) et al which I started to do for WW1 SC boats before I ran out of steam. These things do take quite a lot of effort though.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Since I've been suggesting that Empire ships model for years I'll be happy to support the decision to do that If someone else creates the form as that Empire list and gets it started. I'll dedicate some time to the project. The Empire ships model has real advantage for ships in which there is just a bit more than existing under a name, built, fate as in simple lists. Then, if previously unknown information develops to a level supporting an "article" a "Main article" can be created. I have a batch of bookmarks specifically targeted to developing SPs to more than a DANFS copy of nothing much. I've done a few when extensive and well known yacht history involved either notable people, events or some technology developments. And yes, (talk) has other candidates that fit well. Palmeira (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Status of a new list with brief account such as for Empire ships? I see the simple redirect to the bare list is done. Creating a more expansive list modeled on the Empire ships was supported in the delete discussion and above. Some of us volunteered to populate the list. What needs to be done next? Palmeira (talk) 11:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, it was me - it got rather buried. I'll do a draft in the next day or so. Davidships (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

No "sorry" needed at all. I don't even want to think of the things I've buried lately that really need to get done. Palmeira (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Cinco Chagas confusion.

An issue has arisen over at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities about our article, Cinco Chagas, a 16th century Spanish carrack, which according to C. R. Boxer, is actually two different 16th century Spanish carracks. If anyone would like to help sort out the mess, the discussion is currently at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Same_ship?. My thanks in advance. Alansplodge (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Now resolved. Thanks to all contributors. Alansplodge (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

SS Pacific sunk by U-boat 1941

I didn't see this ship on Pacific (disambiguation). Is it on Wikipedia? I was adding someone to WikiTree who arrived on the SS Pacific in Haifa, Israel, as an illegal immigrant fleeing German-occupied Poland.

• Pacific: British Steam merchant. uboat.net.
• SS Pacific (+1941). Wrecksite.

Thanks! KarenJoyce (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

No, WP doesn't appear to have a article for that particular ship. There is mention however of a Pacific being sunk by U-95 in March 1941 in the North Atlantic, with a little info and some sources. (fyi- uboat.net was down as of this posting) - wolf 01:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

If you are looking for the Aliyah Bet Pacific that arrived in Haifa from the Black Sea on 1 Nov 1940, this is the right one: a brief summary of her 60-year history (including a pre-WW1 photo), and a note on her voyage (with photo showing her somewhat changed appearance). Davidships (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Nice work! btw- uboat.net appears to be back up. fyi - wolf 06:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

She has an entry on the List of shipwrecks in March 1941. Mjroots (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Yup, the "U-95" link in my comment above connects to that list at the 2 March entry. fyi - wolf 08:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Help needed

Hello, I'm posting here because I'm not an experienced ships editor (and don't have enough time or interest to go down that path at this point), but got led into creating this page after stumbling into a ship of this name: Lalla Rookh (ship). I did my best with what I could find, but... long story short, would someone be interested in having a look and making some improvements, or letting me know where I went wrong with regard to style, etc.? I did create two stub articles for two of them, but have left it at this point and move on. I cannot find a definitive source for linking that 1850 incident at Worthing with the 1848 ship, although it seems likely. I am hoping that someone has access to some ship's registers or other sources which can help sort out the bits I haven't been able to. TIA. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

An interesting question comes up with regard to what is modeled on a disambiguation page but far exceeds such a page's usual level of detail. I expect some might disapprove (I've had some lesser expansions on such pages reverted). The information is useful, particularly with regard to Australian history, and might much better fit the kind of thing we were discussing above, USS Lillie B at AfD - and small US Navy vessels generally. I've suggested that the Lists of Empire ships is good for that sort of thing. That model fits quite well where many vessels share a very common name. Some my be or evolve to "articles" while others are just notes. It would be perhaps Lists of vessels named Lalla Rookh. Palmeira (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Would suggest going with Palmeira's idea and move the page to ""List of ships named Lalla Rookh". - wolf 20:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Palmeira amd Thewolfchild, and thanks for your responses and suggestions. Just a quick comment before you rename, that I believe that this is a set index page rather than a DAB page, and therefore not subject to the same rules as a DAB page, although I agree that the level of detail that I ended up including way exceeds most pages of this type. Trying to find which details belonged to which ship, and then the ultimate fate of the ketch (due to conflicting reports of when she was lost) drew me in for far longer than intended. Having now created so much detail for the ketch (re-suffixed to 1875 ship), I think I'll be creating a separate article for that one too. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I realized I linked to the wrong part of that list for what will likely be a much smaller group of ships. The format I was thinking might be useful is seen in any of the individual pages on that index page. List of Empire ships (A) shows what that looks like. For your list, indeed any list of ships of the same name with widely varied substance, from a few lines to even a few paragraphs or that with a link to a full article can be accommodated. It allows for an introduction, possibly explaining significance of the name itself, a navigation list to the right and the ship descriptions in sections. I was not thinking of moving your page and think you should probably do the conversion and move. I did just take maybe three minutes to copy the templates from the List of Empire ships (A) page, putt == each side of the ship name and fix text as (using dash instead of the sectioning = in example) below:

--Lalla Rookh (1825 ship)--

A ship of 380 tons, . . .

--Lalla Rookh (1839 ship)==

A barque, 372 tons, used . . .

The preview shows that modification gives the format of that Empire ships page which will be quite easy for you or anyone else to expand. Now about that introduction. What is the significance of the name "Lalla Rookh"? What is the significance of any widely used ship name? A perfect intro would be that "namesake" discussion. For example, I suspect quite strongly we have Lalla Rookh as the origin here with more here. Palmeira (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that Palmeira. I've had enough of ships for today but will have another look in coming days. Another option might be to just cut all of the info on the list article from those ships for which I've created articles (4 so far), and possibly consider stub articles for a couple more of those...? And yes, I can add an intro. re the origin of the name. I started looking into that when I created the Lalla Rookh DAB page originally, but I have a couple of sources I want to add to the poem article about its meaning, first. And I have just found yet another ship! And there are more listed on that subscription-only ship index, but I've had enough for now. I take it that you're happy with the naming convention I've adopted? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I just took a few minutes to format the page in the way we were discussing so you could see how it looks. If you do not like the format a quick revert will be easy. Even if it is edited and additions are made all that it would take is to remove the "=" sectioning and go back to bullets. If you like the format then a move to a more descriptive title might be in order. Since I'm "stuck" on larger projects I may see if I can pin down some of those ships without a place and time of build. Palmeira (talk) 12:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

MV Avatar

Hello, I recently create a page for the cargo vessel MV Avatar. In the course of my research into the origins of the vessel, I came across three companies which previously owned it: USSR (Baltic Sg Co), Astrapride Sg and Willows Maritime.

However, I have been unable to find any sources of these companies' existence and whether they were subsequently merged into a larger corporation. I am also unsure what the Sg prefix stands for in the first and second companies, and if it's part of the company name or akin to 'private limited' or something similar.

Would anyone have any ideas? Thank you. Seloloving (talk) 08:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The accounts of the construction and operation of the ship are a big garbled at the moment, with the article currently suggesting that the "Baltic Sg Co" both constructed and operated the ship - I suspect that Baltic Sg Co means the Baltic Sea Shipping Company, a major Soviet (and now Russian) shipping company - who will not have built the ship - delivery at Warnemunde in 1983 suggests the ship was built in East Germany. Astrapride Sg might be Astrapride Shipping [1] [2], a defunct Cypriot shipping company.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt reply! I am going to guess that 'Sg Co' stands for Shipping Company. I have also clarified the text to say that it was only operated by the Baltic Shipping Company. Now I need to find who built her...it seems to be a bit of a mystery at the moment.

Would I be allowed to infer that she was built by the Rostock shipyard? There seems to be an existence of the company, located in Warnemunde, Rostock, where she was delivered. Seloloving (talk) 11:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Mirimar gives her builder as Warnowwerft in Warnemunde Lyndaship (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Would you be able to link the source in which you found the information? I have tried googling Mirimar, Warnowwerft and Warnow Shipyard (google translate) to no avail. Seloloving (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

https://www.miramarshipindex.nz/ship/8314586, German wiki shows the class being constructed there https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warnowwerft_Warnem%C3%BCnde Lyndaship (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the sources, unfortunately the first link is locked behind the paywall, but the German wiki help immensely. Thank you. Seloloving (talk) 13:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Would it be possible to identify the date it was handed to the Soviet Union? This photo depicts the construction of a LORO-Type 18 ship to be handed over on the anniversary of the GDR. It would be interesting to see if it does depict Avatar, even though the photo was taken in 1984. Seloloving (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

You can get a free 7 day trial access to Miramar or free subs are available through the Wikipedia library ticket system. The ship was completed on 30 December 1983 Lyndaship (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

1903 HMS Charger grounding?

This newspaper article refers to the destroyer HMS Charger (1894) running aground in "Loch Ness" in "The Hebrides" in September 1903 - however, Loch Ness isn't in the Hebrides, and I can find absolutely no other mention of Charger being involved in an accident in 1903. Did this incident occur, and if so where and when?Nigel Ish (talk) 10:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The commander at the time was George Halliday Brown but no information on grounding. Alansplodge (talk) 12:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

According to this, the ship grounded in Loch Nevis on 23 September. There's a bit of info on the damage incurred here. Parsecboy (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Annoyingly, neither link is viewable for me, and the "Marine Engineer" volume doesn't seem to be one of the ones that is on the Internet Archive.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

That's frustrating; the first is a simple table of maritime accidents, and the entry for Charger reads: "Grounded at Loch Nevis. Struck on a sunken rock." and the date 23 September. The second reads: "It is expected that the Charger will be in hand [at Pembroke Dockyard] for about a month. On examination, the destroyer was found to be free of holes in her hull, but the boat had had a good deal of battering on the rocks on which she struck, and several plates will have to be replaced." Parsecboy (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't suppose someone who can actually see the sources can add the grounding (which seems like a notable incident) to the article?Nigel Ish (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I had a look at The Times for the period immediately after the grounding. Nothing mentioned there. Mjroots (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

A British Newspaper Archive search gives several hits, which give a bit of information. Inverness Courier - Tuesday 29 September 1903 states "...having been towed off the rock successfully, now lies in a safe position near the shore, She is, however, almost submerged, being only four feet above the water. The frames are badly strained, the keelson twisted and there is a hole in the forefoot. The cruiser Venus is standing by......the divers from Venus do not hope to finish patching before Monday.......Charger has been stripped of all material which has been transferred to the Venus, where the Charger's crew have also been accommodated." Then we have The Scotsman - Wednesday 30 September 1903 "...Charger... which met with a mishap last week in Loch Nevis, arrived in Oban Bay last night, the Charger sailed down under her own steam, but was escorted by the Admiralty tug Alligator, to which she was lashed after arrival in the Bay." Western Morning News - Wednesday 30 September 1903 tell us that Alligator was based in Pembroke and sent north to recover HMS Charger. Lloyd's List - Friday 09 October 1903 says that "...the damage extends from the stem below the waterline to the fore boiler, about 25ft in length" (ship still in transit to Milford at this point.) Western Evening Herald - Friday 02 October 1903 states that Charger had to shelter in Loch Ryan on Tuesday and "....is drawing a considerable amount of water, and cannot continue...until the weather moderated." Quite a lot of detail in Shields Daily News - Thursday 01 October 1903 "...on her way down to Oban from Loch Nevis one of the four engines which supplied the stokehole with air smashed up owing to the great vibration. Damage also done to the starboard circulating engine, causing the piston to be knocked through the cylinder cover......Charger is making about a foot of water per hour but the pumping arrangements set up..... empties two flooded bulkhead compartments in five minutes each." Also states Alligator was used for Charger's crew accommodation and that the rock she struck was shown on Admiralty charts with ten fathoms of water. There is probably something later than these dates, which will hopefully tell how the damage was assessed once seen in dry dock - but I have to go to work now. (Incidentally, I have found newspaper reports then to be just as unreliable as now - always look for confirmation from a later date.)ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The following may be of interest for the article: Hampshire Telegraph - Saturday 23 April 1904 "The destroyers Contest and Charger were commissioned at Devonport a week ago take the place of the torpedo-boat destroyers Lively and Vixen in the Devonport Instructional Flotilla. The Charger, which struck last autumn a rock in Loch Nevis, has undergone considerable repair." Not sure if this is a second assignment to the Devonport Instructional Flotilla - does not seem to fit with the article to me.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Norwegian Spirit Article - Possible Review for B-Class Status?

Hello. I worked on the article for the Norwegian Spirit (cruise ship) yesterday, including adding references throughout and more information/coverage. I noticed it was currently at C-Class due to insufficient referencing and citation and lacking coverage and accuracy. As such, I was wondering if it could now be re-checked to see if it fulfilled the criteria for B-Class status? Many thanks. J850NK (talk) 15:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Referencing good, but it's still C class. This is due to the article missing a Description section giving details of dimensions, engines etc, facilities. Take a look at the Costa Concordia article for an idea of what is missing. Mjroots (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much for reassessing. I see what's needed for a better description - hopefully I'll be able to get some more information to add enough to the article at some point. Thanks again. J850NK (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The info is there in the infobox, just need putting into the article too. Mjroots (talk) 05:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

USS Ouellet/HTMS Phutthaloetla Naphalai

These articles have been tagged for merging. Should they be, and if so, at which title? --Paul_012 (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Each article contains the merge template, each pointing to the talk page of the respective article. Neither talk page has a discussion started. I don't see the need for a merge. The vessel has served approximately the same time in each navy (23 years, exclusive of time in the yard) and neither use is primary. Unless there is objection here I will remove the tags. If there is objection, please start a discussion at one of the talk pages, with a link from the merge tag on the other article. Kablammo (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree. No reason to merge. Palmeira (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Hold up - the proposer added the merge tags improperly and didn't start a discussion, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be one. USS Ouellet (original name) has a decent sized article while HTMS Phutthaloetla Naphalai (second name) is basically a stub and could be easily merged into the other page. This is fairly common on ship pages. I fixed the tag and stated a section at Talk:USS Ouellet#Merge proposal. I Would suggest further comments be posted there. - wolf 17:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

While the Thai service article is a stub, the US service is packed out with the usual DANFS inconsequentialities of transiting Panama and named port visits.GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

List of ships of the Imperial Japanese Navy - featured list?

List of ships of the Imperial Japanese Navy is a featured list, according to the little star at the top right of the article. It shouldn't be, as it's unsourced, but as I prepared to propose it for featured list removal, I found that there are no article milestones on its talk page. I am unable to find out when, why and by whom it was promoted to featured list status. Is there someone here who can solve this mystery? Lennart97 (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The {{featured list}} template was added to the article with this edit by Editor Rif Winfield.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I've removed it. Parsecboy (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks like an accidental copy/paste from another bulleted list. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Fastest featured list removal ever? :) Thanks! Lennart97 (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Re the note that the list is unsourced, I have added a general source covering, in principle, the list from 1868 onwards. I'll check off the index - if there are any not included in the book I'll check the relevant article for alternatives, hopefully generic (as I read it, inline cites are not required per WP:LISTVERIFY). Davidships (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Hull classification symbol backlinks

Hull classification symbols are used in lots of articles, but seldom explained - or with links to the Hull classification symbol article. In other words: that article need more backlinks!

Please see discussion over at Talk:Hull classification symbol#Backlinks regarding this if you are interested. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 11:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Long term guidelines

Good morning participants. We need to hash some things out. We never settled whether this section should be amended.

"Do not use the definite article the before a prefix or when introducing a ship for the first time; e.g., at the beginning of the lead section:

HMS Victory was ..., not The HMS Victory was ... Generally, a definite article is not needed before a ship's name, although its use is not technically wrong:

Victory was Nelson's flagship ... (preferred) The Victory was Nelson's flagship ... (not recommended)"

The previous discussion ended rather petered out with the general thinking that no one way should be demanded and that the section of the guidelines that states "not recommended" be omitted. Just want to finalize the discussion and get permission to eliminate the everything after "not the HMS Victory" and replace it with

"Use of a definite article before a ship's name is accepted, though not required, with the exception of ship prefixes that contain a gender (for example, His Majesty's Ship, Her Majesty's Netherlands Ship, His Majesty's Thai Ship), which would grammatically incorrect."

and the placement of the year before other optional disambiguators. It has been brought to my attention that <ship>(<year><optional dismabiguator>) is nowhere in the guidelines? Should that be adopted. Wikimedia uses <ship>(<optional disambiguator>,<year>). Should we align ourselves with Wikimedia as one person has suggested to me, or should we put the year/optional disambiguator in our NCSHIPS guidelines.

Thanks for your comments.Llammakey (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

We do not align ourselves with Wikimedia. Our system works just fine as it is. Mjroots (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I guess you refer to Wikimedia Commons, e.g. commons:Category:Sea Haven (ship, 2008). It's often just called Commons but not Wikimedia alone. The Wikimedia Foundation runs Commons, Wikipedia and many other Wikimedia projects. Several of their wikis are at wikimedia.org like Commons. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

We can stick with our own ways of naming ship articles which is based on en:wiki article naming guidelines, if Commons has any trouble with mapping categories to ships then I'm sure they have wikidata to help them. I noticed just now that while we have HMS Hood, Commons has images at "HMS Hood (51)" GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok then, but then should we not formalize the format then? Because as I said, nowhere does it state that it has be that way. This came up in a series of page moves/link changes where a person complained that putting the date first affected their ability to transfer stuff from Commons. When I tried to say "this is how we do it here" I couldn't, because it is not in the guidelines anywhere. Can I suggest wording like -

"Civilian ship articles should follow standard Wikipedia naming conventions. These rules apply to named boats and yachts as well as to ships. Use of comma-separated disambiguation is discouraged as it changes the natural order of words."

This is to highlight the reason why we discourage the use of Commons naming criteria. It took me a while to find the reason why we put the year before the optional disambiguator. I can only imagine how long it would take for the newbies. Llammakey (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

As mentioned above, we do not put "the" before ships with an "HM" prefix ("the Her/His Majesty's Ship"). There is nothing ungrammatical about using "the" before other prefixes, nor omitting the prefix entirely in text ("the Queen Mary"), nor in omitting the prefix at all if the context is clear. And my understanding of the last discussion was that there was not a consensus to impose a naming convention (other than the "HM") question. We do not need one; we do not need to demand a format which is not followed in real life. As for years or other methods of disambiguation (see Ark Royal): where necessary to disambiguate we can title articles accordingly, but we don't need to do it in text where we know which vessel is being discussed. Kablammo (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

That's exactly what I am suggesting. As currently stated in the guidelines, the use of a "the" before a ship's name is considered "not recommended". People took issue with that. So to replace that wording I suggested the new wording, which states either form is acceptable with the exception of before a gendered prefix such as His/Her Majesty. As for the disambiguation rule, it is because Commons use a different setup and when asked why we use a different disambiguation method, it is not clear. I am just trying to clarify some vague wording in the guidelines and I'm trying to get support to rewrite those guidelines to further clarify what participants want. Llammakey (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Good. I support those efforts. My cursory review of outside sources of "the" before a ship's name is set near the end of this discussion a little more than two years ago. Kablammo (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I see this as a use of English issue. In the days of the great ocean liners, if someone said "New York welcomed the Queen Mary on her arrival yesterday with displays of the utmost enthusiasm" that conveys a completely different meaning from "New York welcomed Queen Mary on her arrival yesterday with displays of the utmost enthusiasm". (The first version is a quote from a newspaper dated 2 June 1936.) That tells you that sometimes, the definite article is required for sense. Looking at modern newspapers, I see the Times uses the definite article in this way (December 2020 was the first search hit I found.) I think quality newspapers are a good indicator of real English usage. They take a generalist position. So should an encyclopaedia. The definite article should be permitted, especially when it removes ambiguity.
I note that specialist sources (even the shipping pages of old newspapers) drop the definite article, because sense is clear from the context. Clearly no need to use it in front of HMS (or a similar prefix). But, without "HMS", normal usage is "he was due to join the Hood just before her last voyage, but came down with the 'flu and was left ashore." ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

On the point made by User:Llammakey ... with the exception of before a gendered prefix such as His/Her Majesty - I think one needs to consider what the prefix stands for - it's not a case of whether it is gendered. If the abbreviations were in full, natural English usage is to say "we saw Her Majesty's Ship Ark Royal" and "we travelled on the Screw Steamer Himalaya" (yes, most people think "SS" stands for "Steam Ship" - it does not alter this illustration.).
On another aspect:
Richard Henry Dana Jr. in Two Years Before the Mast always refers to "the Pilgrim".
Eric Newby sometimes uses "the Moshulu" (but note, "Moshulu" is not a word in English, so less need for a disambiguating "the").
Basil Lubbock in The Log of the Cutty Sark always (as far as I can tell) uses "the" in front of ships' names (except in lists).
Howard I. Chapelle usually uses "the", omitting it most often, it seems, with names in a foreign language.
David R MacGregor (Fast Sailing Ships, and many other key books) usually uses "the".
I'm still looking, but I have yet to find a notable author who does not use the definite article at least some of the time. I accept this might reflect the aspects of maritime history on which I have sources to hand. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

That's exactly what I am suggesting in my edit to the guidelines ThoughtIRetired. I want to change it to reflect what the majority of people have said. Use of the definite article is accepted with the exception of gendered prefixes. Using just the name such as "the Hood has no gendered prefix before the name and therefore can be used. However "the HMS Hood" is grammatically poor according to participants and should be avoided. In the previous discussion I linked the majority of participants wanted to write ship articles their way, either using the definite article or not. I just want the guidelines to reflect that. Llammakey (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Two things, if I may.

First, commons and how it names ships. The word ship is used there indiscriminately as a filing tool, to disambiguate watercraft images from all the other trillions of available images. It's merely the first sieve in separating out images for classification, and was meant to solve the problem of multiple fuzzy nautical terms covering types of watercraft. The way Commons names ships is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Their system is supposed to assist machine understanding, and enabling search. Other idiosyncrasies in commons are explained away, by the fact that barge people, created and dominate policy making there. That's why they fixate on build rather than launch dates. It's my belief that they should follow (in the main) Wikipedia guidelines, we should integrate the rules, and both sites should follow the same guidelines. Wikidata will resolve the issue, but only when the search engine improves, something that has not happened in commons in spite of the considerable efforts thrown into the Wikidata database. Filling up Wikidata with spelling variations for artists names or places in India, has so far been demonstrably fruitless in aiding search within commons database at least.

Second the definite article. The only rule that should have been enacted from kick off, was "Use of a definite article before a ship's name is discretionary, with the exception of ship prefixes that contain a gender". This has always been the case since the dawn of time. Why we put in a rule in the first place was inappropriate and wrong. It's not our place to create English grammar rules. To prefix HMS with the is understood to be wrong, and always has been the case. It's a part of the language.

Still, we have all agreed that (purely for style purposes). We do not use the definite article the before a prefix or when introducing a ship for the first time; e.g., at the beginning of the lead section. This is the only rule we need.

At this point we should agree that if the original writer of an article chose to, or not to, use the definite article we should respect that. Is there an exception to that? Clearly before independence many countries were areas as opposed to nation states. Historically "the Gambia, "the Ukraine", and "the Crimea" were correct descriptors, and in historical chapters, should still be used as appropriate. As appropriate mainly is just a way of smoothing out or varying the prose. Allowing it to roll, as opposed to being curt and clipped.

Generally I think it a mistake to attempt to write up rules that are non specific to the project, grammar rules are real world rules not just ours. For style purposes we already go against the grain with using lower case for titles, that's another piece of nonsense; however it is a style decision, whereas grammar is emphatically not. Writing up these kind of unnecessary and unusual rules, expose us to trolls, who can use the system to thrash us, and get away with it. Rules should follow KISS, and be as few as possible, too many and they will not be read or followed.

It's been mentioned, but I believe the use of hull or pennant numbers within the names of article or category titles to be wrong, and much prefer using launch dates. Dates give sequence; hull numbers are only good for Navy ball caps. I have never heard a sailor routinely refer to his ship by a number if it had a name. Please allow me the hypocrisy card, let's restrict this conversation to the definite article, and start up asides to a new section, if required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Broichmore (talk • contribs) 18:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you Broichmore. I'm just trying to get the wording right so that the guidelines reflect the wishes of the participants. As for the disambiguation, I agree once again, I just think the reason why we put the date before things like ship/barge/corvette instead of the opposite like Commons should be explained somewhere in the guidelines by taking the wording straight from the MOS about title disambiguation and just slipping it in. As has been pointed out to me, this is just a guideline, not the MOS and therefore is not the final word on things at Wikipedia, but the place to explain our joint madness should reflect it. Llammakey (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

In short, Yes to "Use of a definite article before a ship's name is discretionary, with the exception of before ship prefixes that contain a gender" or something like it (though don't forget that some other prefixes that we use in enWP are derived from languages where all nouns are gendered, eg I can see "the ARA General Belgrano" in quite a few articles. So strictly speaking the exclusion really only applies to prefixes that begin with a gendered possessive adjective (usually his or her; or, rarely, the plural).

Yes to <ship>(<year><optional dismabiguator>), though I would put it: <ship>(<year if required><further disambiguator if required>). Davidships (talk) 02:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Davidships: - what about ships such as SS Espagne (Anversois, 1909) and SS Espagne (Provence, 1909)? I think that putting the builder before the year looks better than putting the year before the builder. Mjroots (talk) 06:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it looks better or worse, but to me it certainly implies that we first dab by yard and then by date - indeed both years would be redundant since neither yard built another (incidentally year of launch for French one was unsourced, now filled). As a dab the shipyards are largely meaningless - in my view "French" and "Belgian" would be more help to the reader Davidships (talk) 11:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, I picked an odd one there. Normally we dab by year. If there had been a screw steamer and paddle steamer built in the same year we'd use the ship prefix to dab - PS Foo (1909) / SS Foo (1909). In this case, I was faced with the situation of two screw steamers built in the same year and having the same name. I chose to further disambiguate by builder as that was something that was "solid", so to speak. Mjroots (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Could have been SS Espagne (1909 cargo ship) and SS Espagne (1909 liner) - but these are rare cases? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

So just to clear things up because I am confused...we want to go <ship>(<optional disambiguator if required>), then <ship>(<year if required><optional disambiguator>) for further disambiguation based on what the MOS suggests? Or are we making an exception for the builders and how would we phrase that for the guidelines? Llammakey (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that "if further disambiguation is required, it is at the discretion of the writer". There won't be a vast number of cases similar to that highlighted above, so we can allow editors some leeway. Mjroots (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

So what you are suggesting is that we ignore the MOS? I just want that in writing so when the eventual discussion as to why ship articles are exempt I can point them here. Btw, at this point "it is at the discretion of the writer" is becoming quite the refrain here and we should just eliminate the guidelines all together. You cannot "guide" people if all the suggestions are "do what you makes you happy." That's not an encyclopedia, that's a fansite. Llammakey (talk) 12:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

In that case substitute with "if further disambiguation is required, then it should be handled on a case to case basis with reference to general guidelines on disambiguation and local consensus". GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

GraemeLegget's suggestion is a good one. Mjroots (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I personally dislike the use of the definite article in front of ship names, to me it's as annoying and archaic as the New York Times' insistence on using "Mr." before surnames. But I accept that there is no compelling reason to ban the use of the definite article, especially when other people have different preferences. So I guess Llamakey's suggestion, or something close to it, will have to be adopted.

With regard to disambiguation, IMO it should be year of launch first, or failing that year of completion or of entering service, whatever is available, followed by ship type where that works as a disambiguator. In other cases, I guess you can use place of construction or failing that, builder. But I see no reason to ever prefix the date with other disambiguation information, for example "Provence, 1909" could just as well be "1909, Provence" and that way it would be more consistent with other ship articles. Gatoclass (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the definite article, I would say there IS no particular rule specific to ships. It's simply a case of (as with literally any other subject) if you expand out the abbreviation, does it make gramatical sense? The His Majesty's Ship Lollypop is gramatically nonsense, but the United States Ship Donut is perfectly fine. That should be all there is to it. The gender thing is an easy shorthand, but there might be some other non-gender ones that break the rule (can't think of any right now). Martocticvs (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

For what's it worth, the very formal: H.M.S. The Royal George. Broichmore (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Duplicate Regina (1917) articles

The caption says "SS Regina"

I have created a new article SS Regina (1917) without realising that User:Indylover2010 had already created an article RMS Regina five years ago. I apologise to colleagues for my mistake. I found a redlink on the SS Regina disambiguation page, found the articles about Regina on Catalan, German, French and Dutch Wikipedia, and none of them linked to the "RMS Regina" article on English Wikipedia, so I wrongly concluded that the article did not exist.

There is a Regina article on Estonian Wikipedia that is linked to the "RMS Regina" article, but not to the articles in other languages.

I have not yet found an authoritative source to confirm Regina was a Royal Mail Ship. The only source that the "RMS "Regina" article cites is a self-published website by someone called Richard Coltman, whose website in turn does not cite an authoritative source. White Star Line's own postcard of Regina calls her "SS". Therefore I do not propose to revise or expand the "RMS Regina" article or replace "SS Regina (1917)" with a redirect to it.

However, if I were to replace the "RMS Regina" article with a redirect to "SS Regina (1917)", readers looking at the latter's edit history will not see the work that Indylover2010 and others did from 2016 onwards. What is the fairest way to end this inadvertent duplication of articles about the same ship?

Best wishes Motacilla (talk) 11:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I have applied a solution that I hope colleagues will not think is too drastic. I have moved RMS Regina to SS Westernland, and then revised and expanded it with the material I wrote for SS Regina (1917). This preserves the edit history, broadens the article, and reduces the consequences of deciding whether or not she was a Royal Mail Ship.

Wikidata has two entries for the ship under her two different names. I have reported the duplication and proposed that they be merged, so that the English and Estonian articles can be linked with the Catalan, German, French and Dutch ones.

Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

A nice piece of work and an elegant solution to the duplication. With the article at Westernland my inclination would be to have the infobox photo with that name. Davidships (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The above shows why it is good practice to create redirects from all names, with and without prefixes, to the title the article is housed at when creating an article about a ship. Mjroots (talk) 04:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

And also why "List of ships named Foo" is better than having separate ones with different prefixes, whether merchant or naval. (Incidentally, there has been at least one ship named Foo - the bulk carrier IMO 6812730 carried this name for a few months in 1991.) Davidships (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Another example of how making prefixes appear as part of a ship's name and core identificaiton can be confusing or even erroneous. Prefixes, even those connected with propulsion type, do change and are truly a weak reed for uniquely identifying a hull. The "honorific" ones for commercial vessels such as RMS are particularly bad choices. I personally think the deletion of that term from the title of Titanic should be applied across the site. I'd make an argument about naval prefixes — even the naval registers do not tend to use them — but that is probably a hopeless mission here with the absolute fascination with U.S.S. even misapplied in the extreme down to yard craft. My preference is to apply what most countries apply to people. Birth date. Even ships modified out of recognition initially had a keel laid or first met water only once — despite an old habit of the U.S. Navy to get past "new" ship limitations by "repairing" an obsolete vessel from keel up. Palmeira (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Type 054B frigate

Greetings. Recently the rumour mill started speculating about this ship class again and the article was remade. Given it's a Chinese design, basically nothing is likely to be officially known until (if/when) it physically appears, including whether anything is actually in the works at the moment. The current sources (articles from The Diplomat) seem to be fine as far as WP:RS goes for suggesting that something is likely to be in the works.

In one of the sources ([3]), the author speculates on the specifications of the Type 054B. I summarized this in the article by noting the Type 054B is expected to be a general improvement over the Type 054A, without using specifics in the body or infobox. More recently, there has been interest in adding the speculated tonnage to the infobox.

1. Are there guidelines for determining how much specification detail should be included for unofficially projected/speculated ships?
2. In this case, which bits from the speculative specification are notable enough to be included in the article?

Thanks. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 19:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I greatly dislike the words "Rumours claim ..." Please can there be some precision as to the source of such rumours. Rif Winfield (talk) 09:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Age of Sail

The term "Age of Sail" is used quite a lot in Wikipedia. Age of Sail is linked in 439 articles. Outside of Wikipedia, the term is much rarer and not usually defined. For instance Seamanship in the Age of Sail, an account of the ship-handling of the sailing man-of-war, 1600-1860 by John Harland appears to completely avoid saying what is meant by Age of Sail. (Yes, I know there is a date range in the title, but that does not preclude that range being a subset of the overall Age of Sail.)

I searched the Mariners Mirror (magazine of the Society for Nautical Research) and found only 16 occurrences over their extensive back catalogue. Most of these are in the titles of books reviewed, and several talk about "the Golden Age of Sail" - which is a narrower term. The articles in this journal barely use the term at all. (I note that the Golden Age of Sail appears to be a trade-related concept - lots of goods crossing the world in sailing ships - or have I misunderstood?)

The Wikipedia article Age of Sail is based on just two references, and I have just corrected the article text to match the centuries referred to in one of the refs for the Golden Age of Sail. The article seems to have other failings - muddling commercial and naval history together and perpetuating the myth that steamships replaced sail in a simple seamless transition - when the actual story is much more complex.

• Just to give a bit of detail on this last point. The total amount of tonnage built and registered in Britain for sailings vessels and steamships is shown by year in Merchant Sailing Ships 1850-1875 (David R MacGregor) (pg 17). It shows that the largest tonnage constructed in sail was in 1864: 272,500 versus 159,400 in steam. (To be clear, that is built in this year and then put in British registration.) Building of steamers exceeded sailing vessels for the first time in 1870, but in the mid 1880s, new construction in sail briefly exceeded steam again. MacGregor mentions Gerald S Graham's article in the Economic History Review titled the Ascendancy of the Sailing Ship 1850-85 (vol IX, pp 74-88) as explaining some of the complexities of the competition between sail and steam.

Two points out of all of the above:
Do other editors think Wikipedia is too fond of the term "Age of Sail" when it is not widely used by serious writers on maritime history?
Age of Sail could do with a full rewrite - something I am reluctant to do without any good quality references that actually define the term.
Any thoughts? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The tension between writing for technical accuracy and writing for the average reader? I see Rif Winfield uses the phrase in titles of several books. Gardiner uses the phrase in text. I don't think it matters that the period is not precisely defined with an end year. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

If we're going to talk about Rif Winfield it's only fair to let him know. Mjroots (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

And there I was going through google books when I could have just looked at British_Warships_in_the_Age_of_Sail. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems that the term "Age of Sail" is possibly used differently in naval versus merchant marine situations. One piece of evidence to support this view: search book titles on Amazon including "Age of Sail" - the vast majority are about naval rather than merchant marine. There is a much clearer single step transition to steam with naval vessels - so this would appear to be a usable concept (and certainly well supported by sources). The building stats mentioned above shows there was a gradual blend from sail to steam in the merchant situation. To cite another, Basil Greenhill in The Advent of Steam, the Merchant Steamship before 1900 (editor Robert Gardiner) (pg7) "The relationship between sail and steam in the 19th century was a complex one, and not the straightforward battle between old and new so often presented in earlier histories."

When considering the phrase in a merchant marine context, I feel it comes close to a Weasel Words situation (emphasis on "close to"). By that I mean we have a woolly phrase which does not seem to have a widely accepted definition of any value, which could probably be rewritten to say "before steamships" (or something similar). The danger of the article Age of Sail is that it actually gives a precise date range (1571–1862) based on an online reference (for a warship) that says it "could technically be said to have existed in the 250 year period between about 1600 to 1850". The source goes on to explain that obviously people had been using sailing vessels for thousands of years before then. The Wikipedia article does not.
At a minimum, articles that link to Age of Sail [4] are at risk of being devalued by linking to a poorly written and confusing article, which is not necessarily of help in the linking article. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd fully agree that the Wikipedia article entitled Age of Sail is oversimplistic and needs to be revised and expanded (I'm NOT volunteering to do so). It is absolutely true that it would be misleading to try and identify a specific date for its conclusion (or indeed, for a 'start date'!). I would make clear that among authors on the topic (among which I might modestly include myself - BTW, thanks GraemeLeggett and Mjroots for mentioning me) the term "Age of Sail" is clearly understood, but any attempt to pidgeonhole it precisely would be flawed. And there is certainly a massive difference between its application for naval and for mercantile purposes. Naval historians would tend to conclude the end of the sailing warship era as around roughly 1860 - but please note that this includes the whole era of the paddle-driven warship (from the late 1820s to the early 1850s) which finished before the last bout of sailing warship construction. And even after this, warships with steam screw propulsion continued to carry a full sailing rig for quite a few years. It is confused by the fact that there were three technical revolutions in naval warfare which took place in roughly the same era, but overlapped considerably - the change from sail to steam, the change from wooden hulls to metal, and the change from solid cannon to shell guns. The changeover for mercantile shipping is much more difficult to pin down. The change was more gradual, and certainly lasted more than the entire 19th century (the earliest steam ships pre-dated the Napoleonic Wars, albeit not by very much, and some commercial sailing ships were still being built at the start of the 20th century). Rif Winfield (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Rif.

And it would come as a surprise to the ratings setting out stunsails on the vessel pictured in 1898 that the "Age of Sail" had ended a quarter century earlier (1873, per Age of Sail). Kablammo (talk) 11:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The term is usually used in the same way as someone might say some piece of pottery belongs to the Ming Dynasty period... except as noted above that can't work because there aren't any defined dates. To me the term is really more of a romanticised 'woolly' expression that conjures up a certain impression in the mind, whilst at the same time not being any kind of definitive historical period. When used in book titles it seems more of a way to quickly pull in the target audience, but it will always be backed up by a specific date range that the book covers. Does it have a place in an encyclopaedic article? Maybe. Personally, I wouldn't use it in anything I write. Martocticvs (talk) 12:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Purely as an observation the "Age of" is almost always descriptive of a bell curve as in Age of Dinosaurs or more broadly Age of Reptiles and Age of Ferns. In every case there were extensive examples in the fossil record before that "Age" and even dinosaurs are among us as birds according to modern knowledge. There were sailing vessels in ancient times and they remain among the vessels currently "sailing" the waters. Any "Age of" should explain the bell curve nature of coverage and that the term is a general, rather than specific, period of time in which the subject dominated. There is another factor. The "Age of" may well have different periods in different regions and we "Western" folk often ignore some pretty significant events in the Eastern Hemisphere outside Europe. My main memory of entering and leaving Hong Kong in the late 1960s would belie the age of non-pleasure, trading sail being entirely over then. If I recall there were some sail exploits by sailors over in the Pacific while Europeans were still more or less crawling into the age. Palmeira (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

All the above is true, but all the same, the term "Age of Sail" is recognised among most maritime historians (and their readers) as one which pertains to the development in European waters (spreading out around the world in line with European expansionism) of ocean-going sailing ships. It is of cource technically unfair to adopt such a Eurocentric approach, and ignore the ocean-going traditions in the Asia-Pacific nations, going back thousands of years, as well as the pre-16th century European developments in the history of the sailing vessel; nevertheless this is the practical way in which the maritime history has developed, and I think the article must follow that perception, albeit with an introductory paragraph which mentions the technical inaccuracy of limiting the term. I would recommend that a rewrite of the article highlights separately the naval and mercantile histories of this period (i.e. in separate sections of the article), to avoid confusion. In dealing with the naval part of the article, it should point out that the period could originate with the development of sea-based cannon and the construction of gunports cut into the body of a ship, and the introduction of the ocean-going galleon by the Mediterranean and Iberian powers. This points to using a date in the very early part of the 16th century as a point of departure (the first decade of the century) rather than later in that century. I would recommend that those re-writing the article should read Nicholas A. M. Rodger's "The Safeguard of the Sea" to follow the technical aspects of the adoption of ships as weapons platforms, as well as many of the applicable volumes in the 12-volume Conway's "History of the Ship", among numerous other excellent series and single books which should find their way into the article's Bibliography. Rif Winfield (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

That appears to be a good approach. I do think the introduction and early body must clarify that it is a term in a European context used in more modern times to describe a period in nautical history. Palmeira (talk) 14:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

It probably appears ungrateful of the very useful comments above, but I think we are still left without a source that states what "the Age of Sail" actually means in (a) the Naval context and (b) the merchant marine context (if the term can be rightly used in that field). I accept that a relatively woolly definition probably fits the situation better. The closest to a source that I have seen for (a) is actually the one used (and misused, in that it does not follow the source) in the article (that's an archived version of the website for HMS Trincomalee). Do any of the Conway's History of the Ship make any explanation of the term? (I only have one of that series available - The Advent of Steam.)
For usage (b), mercantile sail, without a widely understood meaning, one could start the subject with bronze age ships trading in the Mediterranean (lots of data on them from archaeology, even down to the brailing rings for the square sails that were used) and carry right on to the diffuse, slow and spasmodic decline over the 19th and early 20th centuries, as mentioned above. But without a reference that makes some attempt to define the subject, that could/would be WP:OR.
I still feel some of the articles that link to Age of Sail could be rewritten to avoid the term if they are not about specifically naval subjects - some element of "buzzword bingo" among the editor community perhaps? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I disgree. "The age of sail" clearly falls into the sky is blue category of terms. Its meaning is obvious to all but the most obtuse of readers and does not need a citation. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this would be a WP:BLUE issue, if naval historians did not have a start to this period (approx 1500 +) that is a point in the development of warships that is not really related to the method of propulsion. Then add to that the the common misconception (for which there are several RS) that mercantile steam took over from sail in a simple competitive transition. If this really were a case of WP:BLUE, there would be no need for an article. If the meaning is different from what an ordinary reader would expect, then there is a clear need for an article, supported with citations in the normal way. If not, there is no need for an article. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if further refinement to Age of Sail belongs here, or on the talk page for that article. I have elected the latter (viz. Talk:Age of Sail), mainly because this page will be archived frequently. If it is thought preferable to centralize the discussion here I will gladly transcribe it to this page. Kablammo (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

White Ship, date of sinking

AFAICT a change made to the article the White Ship was made using an unreliable source. Please see Talk:White Ship#Date of sinking. As this is not a page I watch, could someone interested in the topic please watch the page for a few weeks and also check that my revert improved Wikipedia. -- PBS (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)