Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 70

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 65 ← Archive 68 Archive 69 Archive 70 Archive 71 Archive 72 → Archive 75

Nashira (AK-85)

I came across this article (by way of the January auto-assessment check over at MILHIST) and it seems to me that since the ship never actually saw service as Nashira, it should presumably be moved to Richard R. Arnold. Anybody have thoughts? Parsecboy (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Spent much longer as Richard R. Arnold. Llammakey (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Question

With the Endurance on the main page, I have a question regarding reference. The ship is referred to as "she" throughout the article, but the wreck is referred to as "it". Is this a common convention? Once a ship (she) becomes a wreck, is the ship a "she/her" no more? Primergrey (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Always been my understanding that is correct - but I have nothing to back that up. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Or it could be that the article was created 17 years ago, while the wreck was only discovered last week, right around the time the "she vs it" debate was started on the MoS talk page. Funny timing. - wolf 20:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Looking at the edit history of the article, the usage of "it" for the wreck predates this year's news of the search and subsequent discovery. However the article is a complete mess of whichever usage one goes for, as the general description of the ship in service uses "she" and "its" a lot - as if an editor did not realise that one could use "her". The original usage of the article was definitely "she/her" so I guess one would be within one's rights to go in and fix it. That might throw fuel on the fire of the MoS discussion - which is still ongoing. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
I've already changed the "its" to "hers" because that's how it was originally written. I'm just wondering about the wrecked ship, if that is still a "her". And, FWIW, I came to this page because it's on ITN. Primergrey (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
That should not be controversial from an editing point of view as consistent with current guidance. My habitual usage (not knowingly based on any convention) is, like ThoughtIdRetired, "she" for the ship, "it" for the wreck of the ship, and hence "her wreck was found"/"it is remarkably preserved". Davidships (talk) 07:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I've fixed a few remaining "it"s in the article, and the odd "she" for a repetitive "the ship". I will be interesting to see if this triggers any action from those with strong opposing views (despite the existing compromise of WP:SHE4SHIPS). I have left "it" when it refers to the wreck. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
That makes sense. I was just curious if there was an actual convention. Thanks for all the responses. Primergrey (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Help needed at CCI

The following Contributor copyright investigation case - Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/DeltaSquad833 has recently been opened which is relevant to this Wikiproject. The editor in question (who has since been blocked) has created large numbers of articles about ships, and the more hands to help the better.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

There's also the overflow at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/DeltaSquad833 02. Hog Farm Talk 16:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
In addition to the copyright issues - many of the articles need massive clean-up.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Could use some more input in a split discussion

See Talk:Knik Arm ferry#split?. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Earwig's Copyvio Detector for USS Lofberg

It's showing an 89.89% of a violation and lists this document from http://www.hazegray.org/ which has a copyright notice on the homepage.Dawnseeker2000 20:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

It's a copy of DANFS, which is a US Navy publication and hence public domain - see [1]Nigel Ish (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

ARA Santa Fe (S-21)

ARA Santa Fe (S-21) could use some attention. A whole bunch of new material is being added to the article, almost all of it unsourced or sourced to unreliable blog sources. The new material is also full of typos, style goofs, and bad grammar. There may be some BLP problems too. GA-RT-22 (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

www.convoyweb.org.uk under discussion in WP:RSN

The input of the members of this wikiproject would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#www.convoyweb.org.uk. Thanks, Ljleppan (talk) 08:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020 needs your help!

WP:URFA/2020 is a working group dedicated to reviewing and improving featured articles that were promoted before 2016. This year, URFA/2020 wants to finish reviewing all articles promoted from 2004-2006, and make significant progress on the 2007 articles. This is where we need your help.

We need ship specialists like you to look at these articles and either document that they meet the featured article criteria, improve them until they meet the criteria, or document concerns on the article's talk page. Subject matter experts are especially important because they know if the prose includes all necessary information, the sources are high-quality, and if there are any other concerns that an unfamiliar editor would not know to look for. This has been a really active area at WP:FAC, so I'm hoping that we can bring some of that energy into reviewing these older FAs.

Below is a list of articles that fall under WikiProject Ships's purview. If you believe the article meets the featured article criteria, please mark it as "Satisfactory" on WP:URFA/2020A. If you are working on the article, please mark it as "Working", and if you leave notes on the talk page, please mark it with "Notes" and a link to the diff. More detailed instructions can be found at WP:URFA/2020.

Here is the list of articles under this project's purview that were promoted or last reviewed in 2004-2006:

Here's 2007 articles:

Thanks for your help with this. If you have any questions, please ping me. Z1720 (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Review request

I'm hoping to get CSS Baltic up to FA before December in order to run a TFA for the date of it's CS Navy purchase. Having never taken a ship article about GA before, I was wondering if some people more experienced with writing such content could take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/CSS Baltic. Hog Farm Talk 15:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Vorpostenboote name question

Hello all. I've dabbled in creating some articles about German Vorpostenboote from World War II (a topic which I believe is sorely neglected in the encyclopedia). They are patrol or flak ships usually created by converting fishing trawlers or other small ships. A while ago, when I first created an article on one (forgive me, my memory is foggy and I don't recall details), it was moved to have a title of German trawler V### Foo from V### Foo. V### is the numeric designator of the ship by the Kriegsmarine, and Foo is typically what the ship was called either at the time of its creation or requisition by the German navy.

I didn't think much of it as an editor unfamiliar with the topic, but I recently went back and thoroughly read WP:SHIPNAME which pretty clearly states that V### Foo would be the more acceptable title. I've created maybe ten or so of these articles by now, and want to move them back to the less clunky and more right name, but figured I should swing by here before doing so to make sure I'm reading everything right and to see if there is precedent about this that I may have missed. Thanks all for your help, Fritzmann (message me) 21:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Ship naming convention says for those that don't use prefixes (eg HMS, USS) that " <nationality> <type> <italicized name>" is the preferred form. GraemeLeggett (talk) 04:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Support Graeme, continue to use German trawler V### Foo. See German destroyer Z4 Richard Beitzen for how it is dealt with in larger ships. Llammakey (talk) 11:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
@Fritzmann2002: If you work from the List of Vorpostenboote in World War II, the correct links are already formed there. Thanks for your interest in these ships. From personal experience, some of them proved to have very interesting histories. Mjroots (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Frigates or destroyers?

I came across Tariq-class destroyer, which refers to the ships as frigates in the text, but the title has them as destroyers. Given that they started out as Type 21 frigates, I'd assume that classification would remain. Thoughts? Parsecboy (talk) 10:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Appears they were classified as frigates (Type 21) during their original service with the Royal Navy, then reclassified as destroyers by Pakistan when they got a hold of some them. - wolf 11:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
According to the sources given (a lot of them are dead on that page), it is a situation much like the French where they should be called one thing, but the nation operating them defines them as another. According to the majority of sources, they are frigates, but those that do discuss the change in designation state the Pakistan Navy themselves defined the ships as destroyers. Llammakey (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
I found a reference (Singh 2002) and have added the reclassification to the article. Alansplodge (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

FAR for USS Missouri

I have nominated USS Missouri (BB-63) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 02:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Ship Infobox - "Namesake" field

The template usage guide for this field reads If the ship's name originates from a particular person, location, event, or object, it may be added here. However, descriptions longer than a few words (e.g. a person's name or "Finnish for "potato"") should be placed in the article body (my emphasis). That is, simply put, the meaning of the name. Where, as is common tractice, especially with naval vessels, the same name is reused, it continues to have its original meaning. For example all five ships USS Yorktown were named for the Virginian town where the 1781 battle took place. This principle is clearly followed by DANFS as the Navy's published official history [2], which draws no distinction between any of the USS Yorktowns. See also [3]

At the same time, there can be specific reasons for the next use of a name having particular significance - the decision to bring forward the next use of Yorktown for CV-10 was occasioned by the loss of CV-5 and a desire to pay tribute to the men and their ship (and I suppose to boost morale). This is well-attested, for example at [4], [5] and [6] (indeed, Navsource, sets out the two aspects of the naming rather elegantly). Such references do not assert that the CV-10 was not named after the town as the others were. There were similar circumstances with Wasp (CV-12), Lexington (CV-16) and Wasp (CV-18). Nonetheless, some editors have taken to substituting the established Namesake entry with the name of the previous ship rather than the meaning of the name. Of course that material whould be explained in the article itself but not, I feel, in the Namesake field.

We had a similar discussion on this last year, but I am wondering whether some additional clarity should be included in the template guidance? Davidships (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree Davidships. Same thing happens in Japanese warships, where modern warships with the same name are given their WWII vessels as namesakes and not that actual basis for the name. For example JDS Asagumo. Llammakey (talk) 11:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I dunno, does it need to be more explicit? Or do we just need to follow the sources better? CV-10 wasn't named after CV-5, the sources are pretty clear on that. The name was chosen for that particular hull to honor the earlier carrier, but that doesn't mean it's the namesake.
On the other hand, there are cases where ships are named for earlier vessels, and I don't see why those shouldn't be in the infobox. Grille and SMS Grille come to mind; the former was named for the latter, not the play that the earlier vessel was named for. Perhaps it's a German thing, as there are other examples, like SMS Gneisenau, which was named for the earlier Gneisenau, which was in turn named after that Gneisenau. Parsecboy (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
The Type 31 frigate comes to mind [7]. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree with both of those points. However, since both of those would have to be explained in the text, would namesakes just be better placed in the text and not in the infobox at all? So far all of the examples given require explanation, be it Yorktown, Grille, Gneisenau or the Inspiration class and would require sources to back it up. Even something as simple as USS John Paul Jones should have an explanation of its namesake in the text. As it stands it seems like a field that can filled in by drive by users without requiring sources. Llammakey (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
It is tempting to agree with that, but this is a commonly completed field and must be in thousands of ship articles, both naval and merchant, the vast majority of which are not at all controversial or in doubt. "What does that name mean?" is a reasonable entry-point question for a reader. Where too complicated for an infobox entry, better to point the reader to the article itself. Davidships (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Glossary of nautical terms has been split

Due to size problems, Glossary of nautical terms has been split into Glossary of nautical terms (A-L) and Glossary of nautical terms (M-Z). In an ideal world, the two new articles would have been called Glossary of nautical terms (A–L) and Glossary of nautical terms (M–Z) – that is with an n-dash – but that didn't happen (mea culpa). This can be fixed with a page move on each of these new glossary pages. Does anyone see any problems with this? All I can think of is that for article titles including an n-dash, less adept editors may have trouble linking to glossary terms.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

For information, most of the articles that link to a term in the old Glossary of nautical terms have been changed to the correct destination - but over 100 remain. You are welcome to fix them, especially if they are in articles you have worked on. It is the ones that need changing to the M-Z glossary that are the problem. The redirect from the old page points to (A-L).

On a related point, much of the content of the glossary suffers from a serious lack of references. Consequently some editors have linked to the glossary from an article with a perfectly correct usage, but the glossary has the target term is poorly defined and does not explain what the linking editor intended. (I recently fixed amidships which only had one meaning of the term and the shortened midships was also wrong.) Thoughts on fixing the scale of the referencing problem would be appreciated.

Incidentally, I was surprised to see warships articles using the glossary - terms like J.G. Hitzler Schiffsw and gunport. (That's me trying to drum up some interest in the subject.) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Seems sensible to me. Looks like the contents panel at the bottom of the page needs to be updated to match though. Martocticvs (talk) 11:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Tables of contents have been fixed. There might be a more elegant solution, but what is there now works OK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThoughtIdRetired (talk • contribs) 13:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
The contents tables look nice. What would be more elegant is to include the "Part 2 of this glossary...." within the same box, if that is technically possible, or at least a matching box. Davidships (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
I've not been able to find a way to put part 1/part 2 in the table of contents list. Doesn't mean there isn't one. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

There's quite a few links which now solely go to A-L eg Merchant ship when they relate to any nautical term. Should there be an index page of some sort? Lyndaship (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there's much value in links like that - I was removing See also links when I was working on cleaning those up earlier. Parsecboy (talk)
Agreed but not all of the links come from a See also Lyndaship (talk) 06:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to ask the "idiot question", but just what are these pages for? And what links to them?

About half of the entries seem to be also the titles of relevant articles, so why would readers be brought here?

I can see the point for those which are nautical expressions, or nautical applications of common words, which will never justify an article; indeed, WP is not a dictionary. However Wiktionary can provide suitable references (eg there is a ref for the right meaning of aback).

Some in-article links lead to non-existent entries, eg advance note has link to absent "ship's articles". - Davidships (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

List of auxiliaries of the United States Navy

The article List of auxiliaries of the United States Navy is, frankly, unusable. It is over 260KB in size. Scrolling through it, at least on my computer, is impossible.

I am proposing that this article can be reduced to 148KB upon taking the following steps:

To repeat, the articles 'List of United States Navy amphibious warfare ships' and 'List of United States Navy oilers' do have sections that repeat some of the lists in 'List of auxiliaries of the United States Navy', simply because some types fall into two list categories. The oilers article in particular is very well written and should be the primary source. All of these lists are treated equally in 'United States Navy ship types'.

Due to the extent of the proposed changes I don't want to attempt this without some consensus. Thank you for your consideration. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

NI Mar Portugal - NI Mário Ruivo

Hi, The vessel was acquired by IPMA, I.P. (https://www.ipma.pt) in 2015 In 2020 the NI Mar Portugal was renamed NI Mário Ruivo (https://www.ipma.pt/en/navios/mario-ruivo/)

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.115.229.54 (talk) 08:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Russian cruiser Moskva displacement

If you have access to Jane's Fighting Ships and can look up the displacement of Russian cruiser Moskva, please comment at Talk:Russian cruiser Moskva#Full load displacement. GA-RT-22 (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

proposed ship-infoboxen template merger

An editor has nominated these ship infoboxen templates for merging:

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 April 30 § Template:Infobox ship begin

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Passenger-Only Fast Ferry-class ferry § Should we change the names of the vessels listed?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Passenger-Only Fast Ferry-class ferry § Should we change the names of the vessels listed?. Awhahoo (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Navboxes for deletion

Several class navboxes are up for deletion here. This may be of interest to members of the project.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Can people watchlist Ålesund-class destroyer, Spanish destroyer Ariete (1955) and Spanish destroyer Audaz (1951) as judging by the win at all costs attitides of those demanding that the navboxes be deleted, that the articles themselves will be targets for disruption or deletion.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Tfd's are not Afd's. It's the template that is up for discussion. Not the articles. If the template is deleted, it will be removed automatically from those articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
I cannot assume good faith that you will not disrupt the articles - as you are already disrupting the templates just so you can win and make sure that they get deleted. As you are pursuing me here, where I have requested that people watch out to make sure that the articles are not attacked, I have to assume that my contributions to any articles or to any talk page discussion is not wanted. I will leave this discussion so do not bother to reply to this message.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
@Nigel Ish: - hope you don't leave WP over this. Would hate to see a known content creator and regular contributor to wt:ships driven away over the way you were treated. Cheers - wolf 02:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Another has been nominated on 8 May Template:Douro-class destroyer Lyndaship (talk) 06:03, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Picture needed: civilian working boat under oar

The article Rowing needs a picture to show a working boat (of the European/Western maritime tradition) being propelled by oar. Until the outboard motor came along, generally it was oar or sail for such craft. There are plenty of photos of military boats under oar and many of sport or leisure rowing. However, it is a real challenge to find a copyright-free picture of fishing, pilot or other examples of people doing their regular work in this way. Best I can find is some salvage work[8] but this is still within copyright. Does anyone have anything suitable? I guess most will be historic photos in libraries and museums, so we are at the mercy of the copyright retaining policies of such institutions. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

There's a lot of stuff floating around Commons, though a lot of the older pictures of (presumably) fishing boats are not obviously working rather than recreational so aren't great here.
I quite like c:File:The cruise of the Cachalot - round the world after sperm whales (1906) (20686877656).jpg, which shows several boats being launched from a whaler (there's a range of other similar illustrations in c:Category:Whaling in art). c:File:London labour and the London poor; a cyclopædia of the condition and earnings of those that will work, those that cannot work, and those that will not work (1861) (14577164330).jpg shows two men with oars on a Thames lighter - I'm not sure if these are strictly "rowed" or if the oars are mainly for steering, though.
Alternatively if you'd prefer a photograph, c:File:Halibut fishermen in dory, ca 1909 (MOHAI 6217).jpg is quite a nice one. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
BTW, the bargemen are actually rowing or "driving" the lighter with oars; the skill is preserved in an annual race, see The Thames Barge Driving Race. Alansplodge (talk) 09:14, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
I like the photo. Busy day today, but I think I will try and find a place for that in the article sometime soon.
Any other potential candidates are still welcome, though. (Sorry if that sounds ungrateful, it is not intended that way at all.) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Here are some suggestions. File:1228. Finmarken, Fiskekvæner - no-nb digifoto 20160111 00031 bldsa AL1228.jpg, File:Jahn Ekenæs - Bønder Fiske.jpg, File:Fishermen working (SM sg381z).png, File:FMIB 43044 -Fisherman in Row Boat-.jpeg, File:Ferryman Varanasi 462751819.jpg, File:Veerman Ferryman.jpg. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

New article, need some assistance

In response to one of the ship-class TFDs, I've hammered out USCGC Barberry in a rather short period of time to provide another link for the template. I've never worked with an article about a post-1865 vessel before, so this will likely need some serious help. For one thing, I'm not sure if the current title is the best one, there's probably some formatting issues, and while I'm pretty sure the darned thing is notable, others may have a different opinion. Any help, including on where to link to this article, as the only inbound links are currently from the class template, would be much appreciated. Hog Farm Talk 04:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

SS Messina

I am unable to link SS Messina with its dewiki counterpart "Messina (Schiff, 1937)", because they have separate Wikidata pages. SS Messina is Q7394049; "Messina (Schiff, 1937)" is Q102189444.

I have no idea how Wikidata works. Someone who does, please will you fix this?

Thankyou, Motacilla (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Done. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Thankyou! Motacilla (talk) 06:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Construction of the Titanic has been WP:REFUNDed, so I've opened this thread to explain and discuss it

This was a draft I created at the end of last summer. Since then progress has been slow. A lot of the content was copied from the Titanic article. The proposed article would go over the development and the pre-voyage history of the Titanic, the construction, and how the construction and faults could've led to the sinking. The draft at this point needs improvement. If you search for information on the "Construction of the Titanic," it's often scattered to different places. People don't have time to do deep dives on the internet, so that's where Wikipedia comes in. RanDom 404 (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

AfD notice

The German trawler V 206 Otto Bröhan article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 12:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

HMS Hardy

Does anyone know of any particularly good sources that discuss the namesakes of ships? While the SIA itself suggests Vice-Admiral Sir Thomas Hardy, I'd be interested to know who exactly the various HMS Hardys were named for, given that we also have Vice-Admiral Sir Charles Hardy, Admiral Sir Charles Hardy, Rear-Admiral Sir Thomas Hardy, and Captain Temple Hardy. Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

According to Manning & Walker's British Warship Names (Manning, T. D.; Walker, C. F. (1959). British Warship Names. London: Putnam. pp. 221–222.), the 1912 destroyer and later ships were named after Sir Thomas Hardy, but the earlier ships were named for the adjective Nigel Ish (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Infobox flag - Flag of Registry or owner?

Hello, everyone! I have been working on an article, and have a question regarding what the flag in the ship infobox represents. Is the flag of registry (the nation/authority which the vessel is under) or is the current owner of the vessel? If so, would it be appropriate to place the flag of a private company into the box to indicate such?

Thanks, GGOTCC (talk) 11:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Does Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide § Infobox ship career > Ship flag answer your question?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
It does, thank you. GGOTCC (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:SS Lavia#Requested move 4 June 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:SS Lavia#Requested move 4 June 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 14:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Square rig - Austronesian content

There is some discussion on Square rig as to whether mention of an Austronesian V-shaped mastless sail should be included in the article. I have tried to give a summary of it in a subsection of the discussion at Talk:Square rig#Back to basics. This is not intended to be a fully neutral summary, so please bear that in mind and consider the arguments put forward by the other involved editor as well.

I would welcome the views of other editors. Thanks, ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

New discussion at List of shipwrecks in 2022

Hello all,

I've started a discussion at Talk:List of shipwrecks in 2022 dealing with the way we organize maritime disaster and shipwreck list articles, as well as the criteria for inclusion. I'd appreciate any input you lovely folks might have before I start working on a course of action. Best wishes, Fritzmann (message me) 00:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Cruiseferry

The article cruiseferry has been without sources for thirteen and a half years now. I tried to find sources by googling for "cruiseferry" but could not find anything usable. The article Baltic Sea cruiseferries linked from the article, on the other hand, has quite many sources. Otherwise I would suggest merging cruiseferry to Baltic Sea cruiseferries or deleting it altogether, but then there would be no article on the English Wikipedia presenting a world-wide view of cruiseferries. JIP | Talk 15:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

This is basically just a list of world-wide cruiseferries, the references are in the linked articles. Let it lie... --Broichmore (talk) 10:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Could someone please improve Draft Prima class cruise ship

I would really appreciate it if someone were to improve Draft: Prima-class Cruise Ship. I can not get a link here so you can access it from my talk page. A link should be in the title of the heading closest to the bottom. History Buff1239ubj (talk) 23:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

You had a lowercase "s", not an uppercase one. Link added. Mjroots (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
There's an existing article on the subject - Project Leonardo. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

HMS Rosemary

drafT:HMS Rosemary was rejected as being a "disambiguation page" and not a notable shipname, with no articles. Do with it as you wish, as I'm done with working on this. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 06:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

The page should be judged as a Set index (i.e. a list of items of a similar type that share the same), where redlinks are allowed, rather than a disambiguation page (where they are not). Saying that, it should be noted that the first two entries (i.e. the sloop and the survey vessel) are the same ship - the sloop Rosemary served as a fishery protection vessel in the 1930s and discovered Rosemary Bank during a survey to find new shipping grounds, and that there appears to be no LSD called Rosemary in Royal Navy service during WW2 - the RN only received four LSDs under Lend-Lease, Eastway, Northway, Highway and Oceanway, so that would leave only the sloop and the trawler Lady Rosemary.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately I cannot see any obvious way to make this viable as a list article. There is only one properly-cited HMS Rosemary - but that could probably be made into at least a worthwhile stub - and there are leads to further content here, here, here and here. Davidships (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
The vessel listed as "HMS Lady Rosemary (FY 253)" should properly be HMT Lady Rosemary, with HMT meaning His Majestey's Trawler. FY 253 was her pre-war fishing boat registration. Mjroots (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Article for the sloop now at HMS Rosemary.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
By the way is this photo from from the IWM (unknown author) or this (credited to the Oscar Parkes collection free enough to use in the article?Nigel Ish (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps this draft (or at least some of it) could be merged with Rosemary (disambiguation)? It currently does not mention any ships at all. Alansplodge (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Have added the existing article to the dab, since there aren't any other articles and dabs function differently than set indices. Parsecboy (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Graveyard names

Ships are often given abbreviated names when they are sold to scrappers and sailed or towed to the breakers. In the case of MS Golden Iris a name Gold Club was substituted (unsourced) by an ISP editor. Since the name was unsourced, and I didn't find anything on my search, presumably it was her name on the way to the boneyard. How is the project handling these names within articles? I thought it might only be a passing mention within the ship article as in: "...she was beached at Alang under the name Done..." Does the project include the "graveyard" name in the infobox or in a list of ships owned by cruise line or shipping company? Blue Riband► 04:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

From what I've seen, ships typically keep their name right to the end. There has been times where the name has been changed for some reason or another, but the change needs to be reliably sourced. In that case, when the ship is no longer active, and is awaiting, or heading to, some type of disposal, the name change is simply noted in the article, and sometimes in the infobox.

There are some differences between civilian ships and warships, such as US Navy ships which may have been commissioned. Once they are decommissioned, (or just taken out of active service), they may be prefixed as "ex-" (eg: "USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63)" was decommissioned and is now "ex-Kitty Hawk", while awaiting disposal).

Or the name might be changed so that it can be given to a newly commissioned ship, eg: after "USS Chicago (CA-14)" was decommissioned, she was renamed "Alton", to free up the name "Chicago" for a new ship: "USS Chicago (CA-29)", (which then got her own article).

Or after decommissioning, the ship might go on to have a new name, as part of a new career with a different navy. This may become part of the existing article, or become a new article itself.

Sorry, this is longer than I intended, so TL;DR - there are various instances when ships get different names, and there are different ways that can be handled (as noted above), but it must always be supported by a source. Hope this helps - wolf 05:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Most commercial ships are renamed for the final voyage, usually by painting over part of the old name. IMHO it's worth noting at least in the article body as you suggested and, if the ship has already operated under multiple names, perhaps also in the infobox together with possible flag changes and such. However, the article title should follow WP:COMMONNAME unless the ships somehow becomes more notable under its "graveyard name". Tupsumato (talk) 05:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you both for the input, and WP:COMMONNAME is the most sensible approach. A "graveyard name" is part of the ship's history but it is a one-week footnote in a service career that spanned decades. A "graveyard name" might become notable if, for example, a tow line broke and the dead ship drifted off and beached in front of a busy harbor.
In this case a new ISP editor had apparently made a good-faith name change based on something he/she read somewhere but had trouble re-locating the exact source. Blue Riband► 12:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Tupsumato and Blue Riband summarise it well. There are various reasons for so-called "graveyard names" (sometimes accompanied by a short-lived change in registry), but it would indeed be unusual for one to become the vessel's most notable name and an article title. As it happens, in the case in hand it probably wasn't related to demolition and it took place seven months earlier, without change of ownership - it looks more like a name for a trading sale, perhaps to be a floating casino, that fell through, but I have found no sources which clarify that, only that the change happened. Davidships (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Newport Medieval Ship images copyright violation

These images, File:Petit Blanc.png and File:New Newport Ship.png used in the Newport Medieval Ship article were uploaded by a new account about three years ago and were credited as own work. They both appear in this BBC article where they are credited as coming from “Newport Museums And Heritage Service”. Im not certain but I think they may both be copyright violations Implacable18 (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I flagged one up as copyvio on commons. See what happens. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
It got deleted, so I'll flag the other. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Both gone now. Well spotted. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Ship linking templates and {{lang}}

I saw another editor add {{lang}} templates to an article (SMS Schlesien) and on reflection, it seems like an idea that makes sense, so I finished the rest of that article and have started working on some others. But it occurred to me that ships linked via templates like {{SMS}} won't have the same markup, so screen readers will render those names differently, which could cause confusion. How feasible would it be to build the lang functionality into templates like SMS? (Obviously, it would probably be too difficult to work it into more general templates like {{ship}} and {{sclass}}, which would require manual work-arounds if we want to ensure the same functionality). Parsecboy (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Not exactly sure what to do with them, but I note that three of the lang templates in that article are broken and the references are in an..erm..interesting situation. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Ha, I saw the same thing and wondered what on earth I had done, but it's unrelated. Trappist seems to have accidentally messed up the Module:Citation/CS1 with a recent edit. It's been reported in a number of places, but no doubt they'll fix it. And not a minute after I posted this, it's been fixed Parsecboy (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

USS/CSS Arctic

This is apparently the same ship, but the USS Arctic (1855) article neglects to mention she fell into Confederate hands and served as the CSS Arctic until she was sunk, before being returned to Union service as a lightship. I am not very sure if it's advisable to merge the two pages, or how to merge their histories. Both pages list the sold for scrap date as 16 April 1879. Seloloving (talk) 13:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Why not merge these two very short articles about the same ship? As straight cut-and-pastes from DANFS they are due an overhaul and some better referencing in any case. Davidships (talk) 00:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Submarine collision 1929

I have been doing a bit of work on HMS H28, but an item in the lead, "HMS H28 collided with a steamer in the Bruges Canal in May 1929", has no reference and all I can find on Google is Wikipedia related. Can anybody help please? Alansplodge (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

"In collision with steamer in Bruges Canal, 05-1929." Hutchinson, Robert (2001). Jane's Submarines: War Beneath the Waves. London: HarperCollins. p. 49. ISBN 0-00710558-4. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
It has a section here but no additional information on collision. Kablammo (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you both. Alansplodge (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
The collision is mentioned in a couple of news reports in The Times - [9] and [10] - it occurred on 28 May in the Ghent–Terneuzen Canal with the British steamer Vale of Mowbray.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Nigel Ish, any chance you could find date and page numbers for those please, as I can't read your links? Alansplodge (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Added them to the article.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you kindly sir. Alansplodge (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Resolved

Shortening the ship infobox

General characteristics
Class and typeBenjamin Franklin-class nuclear-powered fleet ballistic missile submarine
Displacement
  • 7,320 tons surfaced
  • 8,220 tons submerged
Length425 ft (130 m)
Beam33 ft (10 m)
Draft31 ft 4 in (9.55 m)
Installed power15,000 shp (11,185 kW)
PropulsionOne S5W pressurized-water nuclear reactor, later replaced by one S3G reactor; two geared steam turbines; one shaft
Speed
  • 16 knots (30 km/h; 18 mph) surfaced
  • Over 20 knots (37 km/h; 23 mph) submerged
Test depthgreater than 400 ft (120 m) (classified)
ComplementTwo crews (Blue Crew and Gold crew) of 140 each
Armament

Inspired by a lengthy discussion at Talk:USS Missouri (BB-63) and the comments that I've occasionally received over the years, I'd like to propose streamlining the infobox and amending the guidance at Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide accordingly. Let me begin by saying that I think that some editors are misunderstanding the purpose of the infobox and trying to make it as complete as possible rather than a summary of the most important info about the ship as is stated in the usage guide. All the extra details can be placed in the main body So let me begin with the ship characteristics template as that probably less controversial than ship career template.

  • I think that we should link the jargony terms like displacement, beam, draught, etc. so non-experts can quickly learn what exactly they are? Some will object that we'll have a mixture of black and blue terms in the infobox, but we should already have that if people have been linking to the gun, engine and boiler types, etc. For a look at how that can look for the leading terms, scroll down to the bottom of North American P-51 Mustang and find the specifications page. It's a little odd, but I believe that the informational advantages of linking outweigh the oddity.
Firstly, apologies for somewhat hijacking your thread with the post below - I've now added a subheader to keep the two discussions separate. With regard to blue-linking elements in the infobox, I agree that would make ship articles more user-friendly and although aesthetics are an important consideration for me, it would be difficult I think to object to the proposed change solely on that ground. Gatoclass (talk) 05:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
  • One entry per measurement field like displacement, length, etc., the others can go into the main body. An exception may need to be made for all the various civilian tonnages. I'm particularly interested in hearing from editors who do more work on civilian ships than I do.
    • As someone who works primarily with civilian ships, I can support this. For most ships, the relevant dimensions are length overall, moulded beam, and summer load line draught. There are of course special cases particularly with variable-draught vessels, but IMHO there's no real need to include largely arbitrary dimensions such as length between perpendiculars in the infobox. As for tonnages, all there (GT/GRT, NT/NRT and DWT) are relevant. Tupsumato (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
      • Trappist's selection of a sub for his example reminds me that submarines need to be an exception to this rule as they generally need to show both surfaced and submerged data. Beam for modern warships is to the outside of the hull plating; moulded beam is to the inside of the plating, IIRC. Is it worth differentiating between them by adding moulded beam or is this sort of detail better saved for the main body?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
        • Considering that the difference between a moulded beam and the beam measured outboard of shell plating is few tens of millimetres, there's no need to specify both. However, which beam is given should perhaps be mentioned in the article body if known. However, as with other exceptions, if the vessel has some otherworldly appendages, the maximum width should be mentioned at least in the article body and, if notable enough, perhaps even in the infobox. Tupsumato (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Specify the type of tons, length, etc. in the field with links. I prefer to do it parenthetically after the measurement like foo ft (o/a), but I'm sure that somebody out there cannot see the infinite superiority of my preference (that's a joke, friends!). Just so long as it's indicated one way or another, I'm content. BTW, after some discussion earlier, I've come to believe that we need to link both long and metric tons as Americans confuse long and short tons, while the rest of the world cannot remember the difference between them. I dislike using the default conversion for long tons into metric and short tons as it bulks out the conversion and none of our sources use short tons.
    • We should probably provide examples of the conversions, explaining that long ton cannot be abbreviated, and showing how to avoid outputs in short tons. As a minor point we should also prescribe all disambiguators surfaced, submerged, standard displacement, etc., should be enclosed in parentheses for consistency.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't believe that we need to provide the manufacturer or the exact model of a piece of equipment unless that manufacturer has an article relating to their house design of boiler or whatever. Parsons just links to the company and is unnecessary while there's an article for Yarrow boiler which is much more useful for the reader. Similarly the two most important facts for a gun are its size/weight and type; the mark or model number and its caliber length can be relegated to the main body.
    • Although guns are not my thing, I'm against leaving makes and models of key equipment such as engines out from the infobox unless they complicate things too much. While we are not writing Wikipedia only for specialists, we are not writing it only for the laymen either. Of course, if one writes "4 × Wärtsilä 8L32E" in the infobox, one should also write an explanation about it ("four eight-cylinder four-stroke medium-speed diesel engines") in the article body. Writing just "four diesel engines" (or, heavens forbid, "four diesels") among all that other numerical data feels like dumbing down too much. Still, name-dropping should be limited to principal equipment and not every piece of gear onboard. Tupsumato (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
      • I've gone back and forth on this a bit myself. Perhaps we should just limit the field to a single line? Your example of Wärtsilä would fit, but Babcock & Wilcox would probably not. Would that be a reasonable compromise?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
        I can think of too many multi-line examples (e.g. two different types of main engines, a combined this-and/or-that power plant, etc.) that such compromise would unlikely to be reasonable. Tupsumato (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • We are massively inconsistent about how we present the layout of guns and turrets. I prefer 3 x twin (with an implied 'mounts' at the end) vs the (3 x 2) used by others. Is that two triple mounts or three twins? I can never remember and there's no way to actually tell the reader which one is meant. We certainly cannot expect ordinary readers to have perused Conway's or Whitley's books to know that ahead of time.
  • Let us not provide multiple armament listings or even additional infoboxes unless the ship has been rebuilt or converted like HMS Glorious or Japanese battleship Ise. The additions of light anti-aircraft guns do not each need their own listing. Pick one date and everything else goes in the main body. Generally I prefer to use the armament as built, but some editors prefer to use a wartime armament. Should we standardize on one or the other?
  • Almost all units that can be linked, should be linked, including ihp/shp/kW (lk=on), nautical miles, knots (lk=in). I don't see any need to link feet or meters, though.
  • Seeing the HMS Ouse infobox linked below by Nigel reminded me that the date of the data should be noted. I like to do it in the header caption as that wouldn't add an extra line.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I forget who maintains the template, but can I request a sandbox version with displacement, beam, etc. linked so people can see for themselves what it looks like?
    • Thanks, Trappist, I thought it might be you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Please put your comments under the appropriate bullet points so that we can keep them focused. They'll make a bigger impact that way than if you just throw out one great wall of text covering all of these points together.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Agree that currently infoboxes tend to be way, way, too long - for example - look at HMS Ouse, which is by no means a stub, but the infobox dominates the whole right side of the screen and at least for me is the length of the article text.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
      • It's pretty damn long. The biggest space-saver that I can think of would be to trim down the armament section along the lines that I proposed above. We don't need to know the exact mark of the guns and certainly don't need to know the exact gun mounts used! And standard displacement is a bit of a misnomer since the ship had been scrapped three years before the Washington Naval Treaty defined the term. But it could just be a mistake for designed or normal load displacement.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
        • A more minor thing, but IMO I don't see much point in listing the amount of fuel that the ship could store, like the Ouse infobox current does. We don't need to be going for comprehensive details for infoboxen. Hog Farm Talk 20:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
          • Agreed. I saw that, but forgot to mention it specifically. In fact, I usually save the amount of fuel for the class article, just saying in the individual ship articles that they carried enough (fuel type) to go x nautical miles at y knots.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
            • I would question whether the service record section of the infobox (as used in HMS Ouse) is appropriate - also note that in that particulr case things like the gun mounts aren't in the body of the article and aren't actually sourced - the Jane's cites are just for the class. We shouldn't have anything in the infobox that isn't properly sourced in the article body.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
              • I was going to save that discussion for later, but everything in the service section should be covered in the lede, IMO. Links for everything in the infobox is already specified in the guide, IIRC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
                • What would we do for articles for more modern warships like Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, where the armament section has been broken up into subsections? Or the Type 26 frigate, where the armament, aircraft carried and sensors sections have all have subsections. Llammakey (talk) 12:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

While we're here, it would be nice if we could agree on a standard wrt to metric, imperial and knots. And I also know of some people that have had issues with displacememt; short & long tons, and tonnes, along with full, empty and normal loads. Some articles use one format, others use two and some use three, and even then the order in which they appear also varies. Some standardization would be helpful. (imho) - wolf 22:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I try to use whatever system was in use when the ship was built, but that's just me. I'm not sure what exactly you mean about issues with displacements. I know that I've had sources get mixed up between metric and imperial tons, not to mention confusing myself over the issue. But I'm not sure that's what you mean; can you link to some examples?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Some other issues

I've been considering proposing wholesale changes to the ship infobox template for years, but just haven't been able to find the time or energy to do so. And while I agree that infoboxes are often too long, I don't necessarily agree that we only need to eliminate fields - some might theoretically be eliminated, but in some cases I think we need more fields (which wouldn't necessarily lengthen the infobox). For example, it's long been a source of annoyance to me that the "Builder" field ends up having the place of construction squeezed in, which is untidy and confusing. The builder field should be for the builder alone, and it should be followed in the infobox with a "Where built" field, which is consistent with many reliable sources.

That would be fine by me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Other fields are confusing or badly named. "Installed power" is about the worst as it breaks into two lines of text and it isn't at all clear what it is supposed to represent, with some using it simply as a horsepower field and others using it for boilers and/or the engine, or whatever. "Propulsion" is also confusing as it can refer either to the propulsion type (screw, sidewheels, etc) or to the entire system including the engines, and thus also gets used by different users in different ways. I'd prefer to see "Installed power" simply renamed "Powerplant" or "Engine(s)" so it's clear to everybody what that field is for, and then the meaning of "Propulsion" also becomes clear. A separate field for "Boilers" would also be useful - which again, would not lengthen the infobox, since the amount of information added is the same, it's just presenting the same information in a more clearly defined way.

At least one field that I would like to see go however, would be the "Ship recommissioned" field. IMO this kind of information should be presented as ranges, ie "Ship commissioned: 3 Oct 1896 - 8 Jan 1910" etc. (in which case, is the "Ship decommissioned" field even needed?) Just some thoughts to go along with. Gatoclass (talk) 08:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Re:long infoboxes, would it be possible to add a collapse button so that all sections of ship infoboxes can be collapsed? Mjroots (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
It would be possible I assume, but I don't think it would be desirable. Users shouldn't have to make extra clicks to peruse the basic information IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 04:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Set to display, with an option to hide? Mjroots (talk) 09:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
That would work for me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I support revising "installed power" one way or another as well as agreeing on a clear division between that and "propulsion" (e.g. where to put steam engines or turbines). Boilers could be separated with a note emphasizing that the field is only intended for boilers producing steam for propulsion, not for auxiliary heating boilers; this would allow renaming the "installed power" to "engines" (though is gas turbine an engine?) or more generalized "power plant". Of course we could combine everything into a single field describing the whole drivetrain, but that comes with its own problems... Tupsumato (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I rather like the idea of a boiler field. Is that where the horsepower/kW info should go? We still need to tell the reader how that power is delivered to the water, though, via propellers or water-jets. Some editors use screws/propellers rather than shafts, which is a problem for early destroyers that had multiple propellers on a single shaft, which is why I generally use shafts. Currently most ship articles use two lines for installed power (boilers + power) and one to three lines for propulsion (shafts/propellers/paddles + powerplant). If we rework this as suggested we could have 1 for boilers, possibly another for power, 1 for delivery method, and another for powerplant. This was change things from the current 3-5 lines to a standard 4 lines. This latter would probably be the least confusing for editors but would bulk up most infoboxes for modern warships. The guidelines are going to have to address how to fill out a couple of these in great detail, particularly for the newly popular combined powerplants like CODAG, COSAG, etc., while keeping each field to a single line.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
It really depends on what power is given. My general rule of thumb for civilian ships has been the following:
  • Mechanical propulsion: power defined only for main engines (typically diesel engines or gas turbines) in "installed power" as propulsion power is typically this minus some drivetrain losses that are usually not known or really significant (the exceptions are few and far between, and can be covered in the article body)
  • Electric propulsion: power defined for both main generators in "installed power" and propulsion motors in "propulsion" as both ratings are usually given and relevant
  • Steam engines and turbines: power defined for steam engines or turbines in "propulsion" as this is typically the only rating given (I have rarely, if ever, seen any power rating given for fuel-fired boilers)
  • Nuclear propulsion: reactor thermal output defined in "installed power" and propulsion power (electric motors or turbines) defined in "propulsion" as both ratings are usually given and relevant
When writing new articles, I try to balance between infobox entry length and level of detail. With "simple ships" such as typical deep sea cargo ships, I would have no problem with including propeller diameter in the infobox, but with some obscure CODLAD or CODLOG system I'd try to keep it simple and perhaps only specify the number of shafts and whatever other rotating bits there are...
Anyway, while the present infobox could use some improving, I think the current split between "whatever generates power from fuel" and "whatever makes the shaft turn and ship move" make sense. I don't want to split these fields into too many small parts or have separate fields for power. I'm also opposed to any kind of "if you can't condense it to a single line, don't write anything" limitations. Tupsumato (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Can you link to an example of one of your complicated propulsion schemes? I'd never put propeller diameter in an infobox as I regard that as too trivial for the infobox, not to mention as its often not available for warships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Boats and landing craft - People have taken to putting every RHIB that a ship carries into that section. Is it meant for that or should it be retained for how many landing craft an amphibious warfare ship could carry? Llammakey (talk) 12:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Pennant number

Looking for help on Commons: Commons:File:Battleship and boats in the Lake Washington Ship Canal, ca 1922 (SEATTLE 2507).jpg is in Commons:Category:Ships with pennant number 57. I wouldn't have thought of this as a "pennant number". Could someone with more expertise please comment? - Jmabel | Talk 22:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I must admit that is an impressively inaccurate caption for the photo - that's an Eagle-class patrol craft, not a battleship and PE-57 - 57 is part of the ships name or Hull number (which in this case is the same thing) - not a pennant number - but the photo is on Commons where they do do things differently.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
A note on the image's talk page is usual (I beleive) for an incorrect caption on Commons. I see Nigel Ish has already changed the Commoms category to "Eagle boats". Alansplodge (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Resolved
 – Jmabel | Talk 03:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

SS Cayuga peer review

Does anyone have any suggestions on how to improve this article? I was advised to post the peer review at a WikiProject talk page relevant to the topic, as it has been inactive for over a month. GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 14:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

msy (lower case)

Any idea why "msy" (motor sailing yacht) is lower case at msy Wind Spirit and msy Wind Song? And what is the cited source "Equasis"? Reminds me of the coded message sent to the bomb maker at the beginning of Casino Royale. GA-RT-22 (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Equasis is a database that should be cited using {{csr}}. As for prefixes, I don't know why they are lowercase, but I'd prefer see them dropped altogether... Tupsumato (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
It seems to be a bit of an affectation - it is used a little in that l/c way by Windstar Cruises, but they do not usually use prefixes at all. Some ship-position sites (like Marine Traffic) show it as a "previous name", used until 2020, but it was never the official name of the ship, according to Lloyd's Register, BV, Equasis etc. Davidships (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Per MOS:TM, we shouldn't be using odd capitalization just because the company does. But if they aren't an actual prefix, and aren't part of the name, then they should be dropped. Parsecboy (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I've moved msy Wind Spirit to Wind Spirit (ship). Davidships, do you have access to Equasis? Can you look up the id so I can put in a Template:Cite ship register? GA-RT-22 (talk) 02:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the move. The Equasis ID is the IMO number. Do you have a problem with accessing Equasis? It just requires a free registration. Davidships (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Got it, thanks. It didn't occur to me they might just use the IMO, that almost seems too easy. Although it says so right in the template doc so my bad. GA-RT-22 (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Ship disambiguation question

Per the current NCSHIPS guidelines, launch year should be used in cases of ships with identical names and pennant numbers. INS Vikrant (2013), which ship was just commissioned within the day in India. The article was moved to INS Vikrant (2022) with the edit summary, "Previous ships of same name differentiated by year of commission. 2013 happens to be year of laid up for the newer ship." The previous ship is INS Vikrant (1961), which was previously at INS Vikrant (R11), was moved recently, as the new ship is supposed to use the same pennant number.

I reverted the move from "2013" to "2022" per the guidelines to use launch date. However, I'm not clear on what date ought to be used for the earlier ship. It was originally laid down as as HMS Hercules in 1943, launched in 1945, laid up in 1947, sold to India in 1957, and commissioned in 1961 by the IN. Should it use 1943 as the disambiguator, or is 1961 correct in this case? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 01:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

As I recall, for a situation like that, we'd use the year of acquisition by the later navy (so 1957 in this case). Parsecboy (talk) 01:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. BilCat (talk) 01:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

American Blimp MZ-3, name or hull number?

In American Blimp MZ-3, is "American Blimp" like a prefix, and is "MZ-3" a name or a hull number, that is, should it be italicized? Or does this just not fit in to the traditional US Navy naming scheme at all? GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

"American Blimp" is the manufacturer of the airship - which name wise should probably be treated as an aircraft - after all it does have a Bureau number like an aircraft.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah you're right. I was thinking "American Blimp" was a description, like "US submarine". GA-RT-22 (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
See American Blimp Corporation. Alansplodge (talk) 10:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Huntsville-class ironclad

Hog Farm (talk) has already started to work on expanding the CSS Tuscalosa article and while discussing sources and info, I suggested combining that article and her sister CSS Huntsville into a new Huntsville-class ironclad article as the documentation on the sisters is sparse, to say the least. Both were failures as warships and were relegated to service as floating batteries that saw no action until the end of the war. Since most of the information available on these sisters is related to their similar designs and service, there would be a very high level of duplication between the two individual ship articles, which just seems redundant. So we propose to turn the current individual ship articles into redirects and copy the relevant info from them into the new class article. Thoughts, comments? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Titanic conspiracy theories...

...looks like an embarrassing collection of WP:PROFRINGE nuttery. Anyone want to take a shot at cleaning this up? -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Update: I gutted the section on the Gardiner theory which was largely unsourced and monumentally UNDUE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Archive_70&oldid=1113167293"