Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Cleanup listing

When does this get updated? It says it is a snapshot from March 12 and many of the articles listed no longer apply, reducing it's usefullness as a working list. Weakopedia (talk) 09:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

According to the FAQ, the bot depends on database dumps. There database dump on Jun 22 seems to be the last one since January. So, presumably, soon. Haus^Talk 09:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Weakopedia (talk) 10:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Alas, it seems that the bot operator hasn't made any edits in over 3 months and that the bot doesn't do the work all by itself, so the cleanup listing may not be updated anytime soon. Weakopedia (talk) 06:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

CatScan can be used to generate similar information. For example, go to catscan, put "en" in the first box, put "Ships" in the second box, and put "NPOV disputes" in the next box down. For the ship category depth, put in a big number like, say, 20. For the NPOV category depth, a smaller number like 3 should work. Click scan, it will chug along for a while, and then spit out a list of pages. Most, if not all, maintenance tags will put the article in a category, even though they won't necessarily show up at the bottom of the page. HTH, Haus^Talk 07:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Alas x 2, Article Alert Bot hasn't worked in a month or two because the same owner is apparently not editing any longer. Very annoying when an excellent and important bot goes dead because the owner doesn't run it anymore. Bots of this nature should be turned over to others so that this doesn't happen. Brad (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

MS Pride of Rotterdam - copyright violation

Hi all, the article MS Pride of Rotterdam has been flagged for a copyright violation and is at risk of being deleted in its entirety. Does anyone have the time/knowledge to replace the article with an article that does not violate copyright? I think this article needs to be saved as she represents P&O Ferries flagship. JonEastham (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this a copyvio? The website claims a copyright date of 2010, yet the article has been on Wikipedia since 2006. Is this a case of Wikpedia info being reused without attribution and compounded by copyfraud? Mjroots (talk) 09:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The first edit summary looks fishy: "(Info about ship from P&O Ferries under free info act)". Haus^Talk 09:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Using the wayback machine for http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/hull/ you can see that the text has existed there since 2002, so I am pretty confident that it is a copyvio. Obviously this ship is one we should have an article about so it could just be stubbified until someone has the time to re-write it rather than deleting it completely (with the offending revisions deleted if neccesary). ascidian | talk-to-me 10:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, so we accept that it is a copyvio. Let's bash up a new article to replace it then. Mjroots (talk) 11:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I've made a start on the temp page. Mjroots (talk) 12:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Old article deleted and replaced with new article. Mjroots (talk) 11:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Courageous class battlecruiser now open

The A-Class review for Courageous class battlecruiser is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 19:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

HMS Empire Spearhead / Ormonde

A new article has been created on HMS Empire Spearhead. It's a bit of a mess but nothing that can't be sorted out. One thing that I've discovered is that it is claimed that the Navy named her HMS Ormonde, although that is not borne out by Mitchell & Sawyer or Mariners. Maybe the case is similar to that of HMS Empire Battleaxe where it was decided that the Empire name was unsuitable for a RN ship and it was changed.

I intend to improve the article in the next few days, but haven't researched it deeply yet. Mjroots (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The navy did indeed renamed her Ormonde, it is a curious and frankly bizarre omission on Mitchell and Sawyer's part. The navy renamed all their surviving landing ships during 1944/45, naming them after 24 class sloops (themselves named after famous racehorses). Empire Spearhead was renamed Ormonde in 1945, but reverted back to Empire Spearhead (as a civilian vessel, not an HMS) later that year on her return to the Ministry of War Transport, and was returned to the USN in 1947. Benea (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I see you added that information to the disambiguation page for HMS Ormonde - what was the source that you used? It isn't clear from the text of that article. Weakopedia (talk) 08:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't exactly add it, it's been in the ship index page ever since it was created in April 2009. J. J. Colledge's Ships of the Royal Navy. Benea (talk) 09:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

PMARS

The PMARS website at http://www.pmars.imsg.com/ doesn't work any more. It looks like it has been replaced by https://pmars.marad.dot.gov/default.asp which works. Do we need a bot to sort out the changing of the urls in various references to PMARS material? Mjroots (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess that would depend on what needs to be changed. If all of the references only needed a change like this one then a bot could do so. Brad (talk) 11:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be the sort of thing that needs to be done. Mjroots (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The "Royal" Swedish Navy

I have posted a proposal related to the use of the prefix "Royal" to the Swedish Navy (not part of its official name) in article and category names at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sweden#The "Royal" Swedish Navy. There may be some interest in this subject from this project as well. Please take part in the discussion there if you have any inputs. Tomas e (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The "Royal" seems entirely unnecessary to me. The category moves in the links above should be moved unless someone presents a good reason for the original naming.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga now open

The featured article candidacy for Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 22:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Article naming clarification

In recent time the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has operated three vessels, the Steve Irwin, Bob Barker and Ady Gil (formerly Earthrace). According to SSCS, these vessels were all last registered as Motor Yachts,[1] so should these vessels currently be at MY Steve Irwin, MY Bob Barker and MY Ady Gil? --AussieLegend (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the articles should be moved, titles suggested are in accordance with WP:NC-S. Mjroots (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

All three article moved, double redirects fixed. Mjroots (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for bringing this back. Concerned editors ere ot notified of the discussion on the articles' talk page. The Steve Irwin lost its flag when it was realized that they had registered incorrectly as an MY. Many sources also say it is an MV. So are we going off of what the current registration is? If so, can someone provide a source that isn't self published since Paul Watson has admitted to not be honest with the media and spinning the truth so the SSCS page is far from reliable?Cptnono (talk) 03:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The Steve Irwin was classed as a "Fishing Support Vessel" by Lloyd's Register from 1975 to 25-07-2007. The French Ministry for Transport (registration required) lists it as currently flagged in the Netherlands, although if something happened recently, it may not be showing up in their database. The US Coast Guard also lists it as flagged in the Netherlands. I can't find a ship list at the Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management. Given the complexity, I think probably the best thing would be to skip the MV/MY debate. If it were still classified at Lloyd's, I'd lean towards referring to it as MV. Good luck. Haus^Talk 04:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

How come that first link has a little padlock next to it? I can't seem to make it load up. Weakopedia (talk) 08:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it is because the target link is encrypted, with a certificate. Martocticvs (talk) 10:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. Just a quick note, the flag being pulled for it not being a motorized yacht was another vessel in their fleet so sorry for not getting the facts right up above. Point is similar though. I also noticed that the MY Bob Barker is not sourced in secondary overage from my search. MV does pop up in some newspapers for that one. Basically, SSCS has incorrectly called their vessels something it looks like or tried gaming the registry system for whatever reason. Can anyone provide something similar to Haus's search or something concrete in the coverage that says MY for any of their boats? Maybe "Vessel name (ship)" would be better but the majority of reliable sources point to MV by name and description.Cptnono (talk) 08:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

All three still need to be changed. Should I open up separate discussions? They were moved without much of it so I might also just do that if it is OK.Cptnono (talk) 04:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS Westfalen now open

The A-Class review for SMS Westfalen is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 21:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Board of Trade wreck reports

I need help with writing a correct citation form for a Board of Trade wreck report from 1891 (plain text or PDF scan). I've found that it could be either Casualty Returns or Wreck Registers ([2]) - ?? What's the correct full name of this publication? TIA, East of Borschov 17:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah; this is a confusing one. I would use the plain text version and title it Wreck Report for 'Utopia' and 'Anson (HMS)', 1891 the publisher being the website. Apparently they are using an old report from 1891 but they aren't allowing the reader to see where it actually came from. Brad (talk) 09:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

RNLI Task Force

The RNLI Task Force has been formed as a Task Force of WP:WS. Would it also be suitable as a TF of this WP too? Mjroots (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Not likely. This project wouldn't help their specific goal since we don't do articles about land based installations or bio articles on the same topic. Brad (talk) 09:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No, but we do have articles on individual lifeboats, so maybe just have a TF on this project intersted in these only, and leave the rest alone. Mjroots (talk) 09:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I like the spirit of this proposal, but am not sure RNLI would be the best first candidate for a ships task force. There are projects at the bottom of WP:SHIPS that seem to fall wholly within our scope and there might be bilateral benefit from including them as a TF. Of course, merely suggesting such a thing might make us look like imperialist bastards and precipitate wikidrama. Haus^Talk 10:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Been there; done that. Several months ago I thought it would be a good idea to merge shipwrecks (which appears to be abandoned) into this one as a TF. Drama ensued and one person in particular created so much drama, including bombing me with emails, I dropped the subject.

But all over WP there are projects that sit abandoned and inactive and are usually redundant so in general I'm against creating new projects or TF's. Most new ones go silent a couple months after their creation anyway. There are many maritime related projects that could be consolidated into one general topic project with respective TF's but organization is not a strong point of WP. Brad (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone read Spanish?

At http://www.histarmar.com.ar/Armada%20Argentina/Buques1900a1970/AcARAMoreno-Historia.htm, can someone give me a sense of whether the information is backed up by reliable sources? (Several sources are mentioned, but I don't know which lines are supported by which sources.) This is for ARA Moreno. - Dank (push to talk) 18:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't specify each line source. It said most is taken from Volume 5 of "Apuntes sobre los buques de la Armada Argentina" written by Cpt Arguindeguy (which i found a pic on a reseller here [3]) and he thanks the Naval Museum Library to let him check the books there. At the bottom of the page are some historical photos from "La Prensa" newspaper. Hope that helps --Jor70 (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Google translate does a reasonable job on the text. Mjroots (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay I've got the worldcat.org link and there are some copies in the U.S. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 20:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Slashes in convoy names?

I don't recall this coming up before, but perhaps it has. There are a number of articles such as Convoys ONS 18/ON 202 that have slashes in their names. I remember when we had articles containing slashes like M/V, S/S and so forth, that the slash was undesirable because the article actually lived in a subspace of the article space. Should we look into changing these, or has it been hashed out somewhere? Thanks. Haus^Talk 10:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a technical issue, as outlined above. Either we use a - to separate the titles, or the article lives at one title with a redirect from the other title. Mjroots (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I went looking for more info on this, and apparently it is no longer a problem, cf WP:NC-SLASH. Cheers. Haus^Talk 03:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Canadian Forces

A discussion is currently underway at Talk:Canadian Forces#Maritime Command, or Canadian Forces Maritime Command regarding the use of "Canadian Forces" in the article titles of the Canadian Forces Air Command, Canadian Forces Land Force Command, and Canadian Forces Maritime Command articles. Any input from the project would be welcome, whatever your views on the issue. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 10:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Russian battleship Slava now open

The featured article candidacy for Russian battleship Slava is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

HMS Princess Royal (1911)

Per User_talk:The_Land#HMS Princess Royal (1911), I'm interested in finding a British editor of ship articles who can make changes to the article that will be acceptable to The_Land before Sturmvogel brings it back to FAC a second time. - Dank (push to talk) 18:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

isn't that an editor of British ship articles? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I like to think of myself as an editor of British ship articles. I'm thinking The_Land wants someone who has a better ear than mine for British English, or at least I'd like to try that route first and see if it works. - Dank (push to talk) 19:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

1) How urgent is the need for copy-editing, and 2) would an Australian be an acceptable alternative if no British editors are able to come forth? -- saberwyn 06:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Two weeks, and it depends on the Aussie (that's "Ozzie" for the hemispherically challenged) ... in your case, absolutely. - Dank (push to talk) 12:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll start playing with it sometime in the next few days. -- saberwyn 21:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be great, mate.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Rivadavia class battleship now open

The A-Class review for Rivadavia class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 05:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

List of battlecruisers of Russia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of battlecruisers of Russia/archive1 needs more reviewers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

FPSO Seillean

FPSO Seillean needs attention because of the possible plagiarism. Beagel (talk) 08:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for SMS König now open

The featured article candidacy for SMS König is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 19:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon

There is a discussion if the name of Deepwater Horizon should be in Italics or not. Beagel (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Courageous class battlecruiser needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Courageous class battlecruiser; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 01:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Borodino class battlecruiser now open

The A-Class review for Borodino class battlecruiser is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

German orthography reform of 1996

Since at least 1996, Germans have used the sharp S (ß, pronounced "ss") in fewer words (for instance, see in the German Wikipedia: Grosser Kurfürst). Can we agree that if the Germans aren't using "ß" in a word now, the chances that English sources will prefer to use it are slim to none? I'd like to move pages like SMS Großer Kurfürst to the current spelling. - Dank (push to talk) 03:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Inserted to clarify: some words are written both with and without the "ß", and I'm not clear on the details. I'm just thinking that since there's support in the German Wikipedia for "Grosser Kurfürst", and since the letter rarely appears in English sources in any word, the argument against it seems a bit stronger here. - Dank (push to talk) 19:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be nice... Good luck with that. There is a community of users on Wikipedia tend object vehemently to anything that looks like English and not German. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 06:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure. I would expect authors of English language sources to use the spelling rules they are familiar with which could be pre-96 (I learnt German with the set-S and would use it if asked to write in German today), or to use the spelling in their sources. Or however it was painted on the stern of the ship. In the case of primary sources I would expect these to be pre 96 spelling. Is there any wikipedia policy or style guide on the question? GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The replies at Wikipedia_talk:TITLE#German_sharp_S were great, I thought, but we weren't specifically talking about the case where even Germans now write the word with "ss". - Dank (push to talk) 13:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been editing many of the articles this will affect, and I've got to say I rarely (if ever) see the eszett in English-language sources. Which is why I moved, for example, SMS Kaiser Wilhelm der Große to SMS Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse. Parsecboy (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

<Pout>But I like confounding the English speakers with it!</pout>--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm neutral on the subject, but WP:GERMANY has considered the question. Cheers. Haus^Talk 16:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it was helpful to read the arguments on the talk page, but the page itself says "The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy or guideline ...". - Dank (push to talk) 16:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I know it's not quite the same thing, what with English being an unregulated language, unlike German, but is it not somewhat similar to renaming, for example, HMS Lowestoffe (1756) on the basis that today we spell the town's name Lowestoft? If the word was spelt Großer at the time, and the ship never had Grosser on her, to me it seems more encyclopaedic to stay with the historically appropriate form. Dar Młodzieży is completely untypable for someone with an English keyboard layout (the ß is at least instantly recognisable in the character map if you don't know the alt code off the top of your head like I do), but you can type the simple latin equivalents into the Wiki search box and you arrive at a redirect to the correct version - after all, it is what is written on the side of the ship. Martocticvs (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with that. And the German squiggle does look kind of cute ... Gatoclass (talk) 09:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point, Gatoclaß. :) Haus^Talk 09:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Oi! Quit vandalizing my nic. Gatoclass (talk) 12:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm more inclined towards the arguments at WT:TITLE#German sharp S ... which is our policy page on the subject. Although it's not a cut and dried "you have to write it the same way the source wrote it or it's OR", the general principle that we follow the rules in English sources rather than making up rules applies. If we need a ship name, and it's appeared so little in English sources that we have to use German sources, and it appears that way in the German sources, then it's totally okay to use the sharp S, but if we're reading about it in English sources and they don't use a sharp S, then that's what the sources we're using say. The principle lurking around here somewhere (for me, and my reading is that this is what WP:TITLE and WP:UE are getting at), is: if you find yourself thinking "this would be more logical than what English sources do" or "this would be more sensitive to other points of view than our sources" ... don't do it, because we're not here to make the world a better or more logical or more sensitive place, we're just trying to reflect the sources ... and if that points out inconsistencies or flaws in the sources, great, maybe it will encourage others to go write better books. - Dank (push to talk) 12:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's not rewrite history. If a ship had a name spelt with the "ß" painted on it, then that is the title we should use, with a redirect from the "ss" version. It's the same as ships that have letters with diacritics - use the correct name, and create redirects from the non-diacritic form of the name - such as SS Ljusneälf. Mjroots (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

And "Continental Congress" was spelled "Continental Congreſs", with a long s. (And if you look at how "Congress" is spelled in the image at the top of that page, you can see how the German "sharp s" looks almost the same as "ſs".) Is it rewriting history if we don't title the article "Continental Congreſs"? - Dank (push to talk) 02:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The long s question is outside the scope of the German Orthograpy Reform of 1996, is it not? Mjroots (talk) 08:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Our policy, WP:Use English, says "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage". You're saying that that is "rewriting history" if contemporaneous sources wrote the word in a different form. I'm a little skeptical of your argument; it suggests we'd have to write ""Continental Congreſs". - Dank (push to talk) 12:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that we should generally use the actual name the ship carried for article titles where that name includes diacritics or the esszett. If you take a close look at this image of RMS Mulheim, you will see that the umlaut on the "u" is rusty, indicating that at one point her name was changed from RMS Mülheim to RMS Mulheim, which is why the article is at the latter title. The long s was generally out of use by the early C19th, although there is no good reason why an article title cannot include that letter if desired, but that is not what we are discussing here. Mjroots (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for HMS Speedy (1782) now open

The A-Class review for HMS Speedy (1782) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 10:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

laid down

Hi, currently, laid down is a redirect to keel, an article that does not have that phrase in it. How does this even make sense? I'm not totally surprised that laid down isn't an article, but is there a better place to link or redirect to? 0¹⁸ (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither Shipbuilding nor Shipyard have a didcussion of the steps or operations involved in building a ship.Dankarl (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"Laying down" is in the second line of keel, but if you prefer, it's also at Glossary of nautical terms#L. - Dank (push to talk) 00:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Dank, I noticed that when I went back. I was so jarred to see that a search for "lay down" brought me to keel that I just figured it was a huge mistake and left without reading anything. There is also an interesting discord between the keel article and the other references on lay down. First, the article on keel claims that the term is laying the keel, but Infobox Ship uses the phrase, laid down and presumably uses this for ships where the keel was not laid down to initiate ship building. Then there is the fact that on a ship like a CVN probably has a keel, but it is nothing like the keel on, say, a monohull sailboat (which I assumed the keel article regarded). I'm just saying all this to state the problem, I don't really have a good solution (sorry!). 0¹⁸ (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS Rheinland now open

The A-Class review for SMS Rheinland is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 01:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Itinerary information in cruise ship articles

Over the last few days, there has been some editing back-and-forth on the inclusion of itinerary information within cruise ship articles (a few examples: in the lead for MS Westerdam and in the "Highlights" section for MS Nieuw Amsterdam). The most recent edits have been primarily with ships from Holland America Line; but I've seen similar back-and-forth edits on other cruise lines in the past.

I haven't seen a format guideline from WP:SHIPS on this - but I feel it's something that should be clarified within the guideline. The question is how does consensus hold the appropriateness of this content? Personally, I view it as advertising type content which is rarely sourced - and when sourced, it is frequently to a commercial travel agency or to a primary source such as the cruise line's own site. But, obviously others have other views on this.

The question is then if the content is appropriate or not - and if it is, where should it be inserted within the article (is the lead acceptable, or should it be within a later section), and what sourcing is appropriate to support the content (travel agency, the cruise line's own site, or press releases about the itinerary)? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the listing of a ship's itinerary is generally not appropriate and smacks of advertising. The only time the itinerary would really be notable enough for inclusion would be when the ship is designed for the particular route, i.e. RMS Queen Mary 2 and RMS Queen Elizabeth 2 and the transatlantic run and her world cruise, etc... The itinerary should not be mentioned in the lead unless the exception I have noted above has been met. As to sourcing, the use of travel agents is in all instances pure advertising. The only acceptable reference for itineraries should be the cruise line itself via press releases or printed reference materials from someone who does not have a stake (i.e. travel agent, etc.) -MBK₀₀₄ 00:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It woud depend on how much detail the information goes into. In general terms, basic information in the body of the article would help educate on the history and operations of the ship. The basic version would be along the lines of "From June 2217 until December 2221, Completely Made Up was based in Brisbane and operated on three- and seven-day cruises of the Great Barrier Reef, as well as an annual circumnavigation of Australia. She was relocated to Alice Springs in early 2222..." and fleshed out with sourced incidents and happenings as required. Of course, all of it would have to be reliably sourced. Getting into detailed sailing dates and lists of port calls would be going too far. I would avoid having any of it in the lead section, unless there were good reasons to do so. -- saberwyn 11:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Clear advertising in my opinion and the itinerary should never be allowed in the lead. If it is ever included in the article (and I feel it should likely not be) links to travel agent sites should be excluded as non WP:RS and spam. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

there is a major difference between itinerary and ports of call. i believe the issue at hand with regard to those vessels was seasonal ports of call, in which case it doesn't even come close to advertising. --emerson7 01:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Knowing that there is this difficulty with itineraries being tantamount to advertising, I created Ship Spotting World very recently with the familiar Mediawiki user interface to allow just this type of what I might call "colleague data" to be entered, linked to from here, and referred to. You might wish to look, for example, at The World which just left port in Dartmouth, Devon, today, which contains much information lawfully cited from WP plus the details of part of the visit that are truly not encyclopaedic. I see thsi site as a resource for WP editors to place things that are not placeable on WP. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME

I'm hoping people will take a moment to read this short section of WP:Article titles, and the short section WP:UE (for "use English") too, please. Most of my edits are just suggestions, but not this stuff ... this is policy. Just about everyone I copyedit for occasionally picks a name for something that's a foreign word, or a name that just one source likes, or the name that sources used to like over the name that's obviously preferred by English-language sources nowadays. If you've got an argument for why that shouldn't be our policy, feel free to discuss it here or join the fun at WT:TITLE; if you don't have an argument, and your article winds up at A-class review, I'm going to fix it. It's usually fine with me if you want to put the non-standard name you prefer for something second and in parentheses, as long as it really is used occasionally in English sources, and in italics if it's a foreign word or quotes if it's not, or sometimes a short explanation or qualifier is best. (Yes, the policy literally concerns only article titles, but it's also influential on what we call things in the text.) It's true that sometimes a foreign word or sentence lends some charm and authority to an article ... but it needs to be clear that's what you're doing, and even then, readers generally have a very short attention span for stuff they don't understand, so do it sparingly if at all. - Dank (push to talk) 14:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Are we talking about ship names here? My opinion is that we should use the name carried on the ship, not some Anglicized version of it (they can be redirects). Mjroots (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at Dank's contributions, I presume it is a reference to this edit in the Rivadavia class battleship article. — Kralizec! (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't going to point a finger, because everyone does it sooner or later. MJ, as long as the sources you use (or sources that people add or suggest adding) back you up, no problem. Also, if it's not at A-class review or FAC, I don't personally care. - Dank (push to talk) 21:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind getting pointed at, no worries. ;) I included it because I think it's interesting to know the foreign words for certain items. A reliable source, Breyer, also provides the acorazados translation in his section on the Rivadavias. From now on I'll keep the foreign words second and in parenthesis, however. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Why would it matter at A or FA class review whether an article was at a title with a foreign name? Mjroots (talk) 06:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Citations & Format redux

The issue that JonEastham raised on 29 June is apparently carrying on unabated. Emerson7 is moving footnotes away from the relevant material in violation of Wikipedia:CITE#Inline_citations and has upped the ante to a violation of WP:NPA here. I'm at 3 reverts for the first time in over 4 years, anyone else feel like chipping in? The page I've gotten involved in isMV Capt. Steven L. Bennett (T-AK-4296). Haus^Talk 16:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

i'm more than happy to work within prescribed guidelines, but you're at reverts for executing indiscriminate wholesale reverts, instead of addressing discreet issues of interest. --emerson7 17:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I can be more specific, I suppose. The first twelve words of Wikipedia:CITE#Inline_citations and the first eight words of WP:NPA. Haus^Talk 17:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

perhaps a friendly note in the outset would have been more effective and more in the spirit of collaborative editing, rather than executing pedantic reverts and ex parte conversations that are almost sure to elicit a negative response. --emerson7 18:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

An idea for a remedy posted here, for consideration- Talk:MV Capt. Steven L. Bennett (T-AK-4296). Yours aye --Cruickshanks (talk) 05:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for wading into this Cruickshanks. The sense I got from the previous conversation was as follows. 1) If a piece of information exists in the article and is cited in the article, it makes sense to remove the citation from the infobox. 2) If a piece of information doesn't exist in the article, or is not cited in the article, keep citations next to the information they support.

Moving an inline citation away from a particular claim has another side effect. If another editor comes along and adds a new claim to the infobox that is not supported by the existing citations, it gives a false sense that the existing citations support that claim. This, of course, happens all the time.

If we had an editor methodically going through our articles and moving footnotes from the end of sentences to the end of paragraphs, that would generate significant interest from the project. This situation seems pretty analogous to me. Cheers. Haus^Talk 07:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I concur with Haus on this - only cite in the infobox if the info is not in main body text, and then put the cite next to the relevant info. Gatoclass (talk) 07:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this is more complicated/intriguing than first appearances. (I am new to Wikipedia and hope that helps me with a NPOV albeit wiki-inexperienced.)

Noting that Wikipedia:CITE#Inline_citations suggests "Where the issues are not contentious, you can combine references to avoid clutter..." (it gives an example with citations at the end of a sentence rather than in-sentence), it seemed appropriate in this present situation. As the two relevant references in the article overlap to cover the fields in the career and characteristics boxes, then an in-line citation against each and every field in the Infobox would be undesirable due to the extreme clutter. A one-off citation at the end of the Infobox should have served the purpose reasonably elogantly (the information was not in the body of the article).

So then I pondered why a seemingly uncontenious matter of having an in-line citation next to the Full Load displacement had become contentious. After visiting www.archive.org I think I can now see why:

• When the wiki article was first created in March 2007, it quoted a Full Load Displacement of 53,727.26 tons from the U.S. Navy fact file dated 11 April 2005.
• However, in the version of the U.S. Navy fact file page dated 22 August 2007 all reference to MV Capt. Steven L. Bennett (T-AK-4296) had been removed! This occurred after the wiki article had been created.
• But, in the 22 January 2008 version of the fact file, the ship had reappeared but with a revised displacement of 40,357 long tons full load!!!

Thus I suspect that one POV is that a revert was necessary because it was very important for one particular field (Displacement) in the Infobox to be directly tied to an in-line citation. I suspect that the other POV was that they had put considerable time into researching and adding new information to the article and that effort was being lost by a wholesale revert.

Thus it seems necessary to not do the wholesale revert to avoid losing the new work/info, and instead correct the specific underlying issue (that seems to have been inadvertently impacted because it is not readily apparent) by either:

1. having a Permalink citation placed next to the Full Load Displacement field and insert a 'commented-out' note in the Infobox data explaining why the citation needs to be kept with the field, and preferably find another verifying reference, or
2. deleting the (perhaps) dubious Full Load data all together, or
3. taking a different course of action such as quoting a different Tonnage characteristic.

I do hope this NPOV contribution helps to resolve this issue which might actually have been caused by Link rot. --Cruickshanks (talk) 09:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, from the point of view that I first raised the concern, it doesn't. My concern was that inline citations were being removed from specific sets of data from the infobox and then being wholesale replaced in the infobox notes section. This therefore in theory could lead to any future information being added to the infobox by another user effectively being cited under the existing sources, even where these citations do not cover that specific information. I, like Gatoclass, also support Haus's idea above, to provide inline citations in the text for any information in the infobox, if there is information that can not be represented in any logical or readable format, then inline citations should be placed directly next to the specific piece of data it supports, so that it does not end up looking like all of the information in the infobox is being cited, when in fact there maybe some that have no support at all.

Support - only cite in the infobox if the info is not in main body text, and then put the cite next to the relevant info

JonEastham (talk) 10:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

with specific regard to infobox inline citations, i would support nearly anything that didn't end up looking like this: MS Statendam. --emerson7 10:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Please recognise that the original issue raised here related to a 3-revert dispute (between others; this editor mistakenly trying to arbitrate) with respect to MV Capt. Steven L. Bennett (T-AK-4296). The issue is really how to deal with citations for an article that is a victim of severe Link rot. Not only did the original technical data, that was referenced when the article was first created, disappear from the official USN website, when it reappeared about two years later, the details for the ship (summarised by a class name) reflect the wrong ship. For example, the new details on the USN website relate to a ship built in France rather than Korea. Reference to an old archive of that source reveals the (presumed) correct details. There is also conflict between USN and Military Sealift Command citations. There is likely no way of ever resolving the disparity between the two reputable sources. Therefore using citations to point the reader to the conflicting sources is likely the best that can be achieved. Two options for remedying the citation problem for this specific ship's article based on the above comments have been posted here: Talk:MV Capt. Steven L. Bennett (T-AK-4296). Please consider this issue with respect to what is best to fix this particular article. Because it is complicated, it needs special consideration from the specific article's POV. A consensus is sought on Option 1 or Option 2 shown on the Talk page (or an alternative might be suggested) --Cruickshanks (talk) 05:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm in favor of any sort of guideline that could solve the problem with infobox citations. I've seen several articles go to ACR and FAC where one editor claims citations are needed regardless if the article text contains the information or another editor claims they're not required if backed up in the article text. So we flip and flop over this just to get an article past its review. Brad (talk) 19:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Should we treat the infobox like/as part of the lead section for purposes of citations? I.e. there should only be citations if 1) the information is not anywhere else in the article (whether because there is no other approprate place for it, or it hasn't been written into the body yet), 2) if the information is contentious or has been contested in the past, or 3) there is local consensus that particular pieces of information need to be cited. If there is information being cited in the infobox, the cites should be attached to the specific facts to avoid confusion and 'false citing'. -- saberwyn 00:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Treating it that way would be a good guideline. I intend to do this for the articles I'm working on but I'm not suggesting a mass campaign of changes to articles that already have them. Brad (talk) 00:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Very well thought out & presented, Saberwyn. Haus^Talk 01:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Clydesite

The Clydesite website is experiencing server problems, which will hopefully be resolved soon. In the meantime, can we please ensure that any refs relying on Clydesite are not tagged as dead links. Mjroots (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the website is up and running again. Mjroots (talk) 07:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Use of USS when ship type is named - style question

For a phrase like "the gunboat USS Bancroft", USS seems redundant. Is it conventional to include it anyway, or should it be "the gunboat Bancroft? Context in this case makes it clear it was a US ship, otherwise it could be the "US gunboat Bancroft" The article in question is Richardson Clover. Dankarl (talk) 14:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

"the gunboat Bancroft" is the way I would write it since the article clearly establishes that Clover was a US Navy officer. Brad (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

ThanksDankarl (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Extra resource now available

A few days ago I completed, insofar as such things will ever be complete, the setting up and making live of the resource Ship Spotting World which looks, at present, like a clone of a lot of the nautical area of Wikipedia, something allowed under the licensing schemes. I've previously set up Trains and Planes. The rational behind setting these up is to provide enthusiasts who can't add their enthusiasm to Wikipedia, with a place to add unencyclopaedic content, and, perhaps more importantly, to act as a repository for those article that are at serious risk of being deleted from Wikipedia, that folk feel 'ought to be saved', but which, within Wikipedia guidelines, are hopeless cases for preservation.

I don't intend to make much of the resource in messages to people, and links to SSW will only ever appear in articles when there is something of value at SSW that is not here in WP. And I imagine and trust that you guys will treat it the same way. At present the only value it adds as the original source of the picture of Nahlin which I took yesterday, and also uploaded here, based upon the licencing there. That's today. If and when folk adopt it as an extra resource then the value it can add will be large. That's really up to you and how and whether you choose to use it.

The main thing is that it gives a chance to voice opinions, make records of ship sightings, etc. We're also planning to add AIS very soon, as soon as we figure out how! That will add immediate value and change it from a pure WP clone (never the final intention) to something entirely different. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool! I think I may have edited the Train Spotting World once upon a time. Assuming that you get a vibrant community at SSW, picture collaborating could be very beneficial for both of us. :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it worth adding a link in our Resources section? Mjroots (talk) 08:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I know it's a small thing, but, as the creator, I don't feel it's my place to add that link. The decision must be up to folk in the project here Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Since I'm not sure of the 'best' way of handling interworking, I've only uploaded my pictures of Skat in Dartmouth today, to Ship Spotting World and added them to the Skat article there, placing a link in External links on Skat in WP. I'll probably do that with any interesting ships that arrive in Dartmouth over time.

Obviously nothing stops the pictures on SSW being copied under the Creative Commons and GFDL licences there and added to WP or to Commons. All that is needed for attribution is a link to the SSW file, after all.

What happens in the future is up to enthusiasts here. SSW can hold details such as sightings that are not necessarily appropriate here, for example. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

We have made Google Maps, Youtube video embedding and Flickr picture embedding live now. This already creates substantial differentiation form Wikipedia where such things are described as Original Research. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

HMS Investigator (1848)

The wreckage of Robert McClure's ship in his Arctic expedition to find Franklin's lost expedition has been found. I have expanded news of the discovery, but I wwill appreciate help from this project from here on to expand the ship's Career section as I have little knowledge on the topic. Thanks! —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 05:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

A little further to this, Polarworld (talk · contribs) has been copying and pasting a fairly detailed report to this article, and to other polar exploration-related articles (Francis Crozier, Francis Leopold McClintock, Jane Griffin (Lady Franklin), John Franklin, McClure Arctic Expedition, Robert McClure, Franklin's lost expedition) about a ceremony and drinks reception in 2009. For an example see here. It has some issues with a POV tone, and is sourced almost entirely to blogs, but apparently this reception was hosted by an organisation called 'Polarworld', which makes me suspect some form of self promotion as well. I've removed it from the Investigator article as being only very tangentially related to the ship, but perhaps these other contributions need reviewing. Benea (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking through his contributions I suspect that User:Polarworld might be Huw Lewis-Jones, who is described as directing the event. Benea (talk) 15:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Messy categories on Commons

I've just been taking a look at the categories on Commons and some of them are quite messy. For example, the "Steamboats of Long Island Sound" category [4] includes categories in the form "steamboatname (steamboat 18xx)", "steamboatname (sidewheeler 18xx)" and "steamboatname (steamship)". This kind of categorization is quite unnecessary and looks very untidy.

I would like to suggest that all the paddle steamer categories be moved to names in the form "PS Steamboatname", or "PS Steamboatname (18xx)" where a date disambiguator is required. Likewise all categories in the form "Steamshipname (steamship)" be moved to "SS Steamshipname". I'd do this myself but I'm not an admin on Commons. Gatoclass (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC on italics in article titles

There is an RfC regarding the use of italics in article titles and if their use should be decided by each individual WikiProject or dictated centrally. This may be relevant to this project – who is to determine whether the article title is displayed as MS Empress or as MS Empress ?  --Lambiam 13:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll reply over there. - Dank (push to talk) 13:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Courageous class battlecruiser now open

The featured article candidacy for Courageous class battlecruiser is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Multicolumn Royal Navy ship lists

Perhaps someone with better wikicode experience can help. Mjroots directed me here concerning the Royal Navy ship lists (e.g. List of ship names of the Royal Navy (A)). I recently cleaned up {{Royal Navy ship types}} to properly redirect each letter link and implemented its use on the ship name pages. However, there seems to be a problem when using this template with {{Multicol}} on these pages. When viewed in a narrow window, the text will overlap with the navigation box. I tried {{Div col}} to set flexible column width according to window size, but the functionality is limited to only certain browsers and particularly excludes Internet Explorer. Mjroots is concerned with the amount of white space when the list appears as a single column. Any help will be appreciated. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 20:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this is a "feature" of {{Multicol}}. The second example on the test cases page shows the same behavior. For reference, the version of the page showing the problem is here. As far as fixing the Multicol template, the Template_talk:Multicol page might be a good page to start. There are workarounds, but I don't think they'd be advisable in this situation. One way this sort of problem is addressed in portals is by wrapping the entire page in a <div width="500px">...</div> construct so that the page doesn't get squeezed down in smaller browser windows. Cheers. Haus^Talk 20:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Re the A list, I tried putting the template into a 1x1 table without headers. On preview, the table is displayed on the left, but the overlapping issue is resolved. However, only two columns are displayed whereas there were three formerly. Mjroots (talk) 09:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

USS prefix

I know this was brought up a few months ago, but looking at the archive, I can't really make much sense of the previous discussion or whether any consensus was made. An anon has suggested at Talk:USS Enterprise (SP-790) that the article should have the USS prefix removed because the ship was never commissioned. I invite more wise editors than I to contribute there. bahamut0013^words_deeds 21:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Russian military lists issue at ANI

See here for details. Lists falling under this WP are affected. Mjroots (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Rivadavia class battleship now open

The featured article candidacy for Rivadavia class battleship is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 22:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"ship"

Hello, I was wondering how big a watercraft would need to be to be under the purview of this WikiProject?

76.66.193.119 (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, good question. My personal opinion is that any sailing vessel over 100 tons or motor vessel over 1,000 tons is notable enough to sustain an article. For Victorian and earlier ships, these may be halved. Other, smaller, vessels may be notable too, as long as the usual formula of V x RS = N is followed. Mjroots (talk) 10:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for USS Massachusetts (BB-2) now open

The A-Class review for USS Massachusetts (BB-2) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 12:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Categories for the Great Lakes

I think we are going to need a Category:Steamships of the Great Lakes, but since there are both Canadian and U.S. steamships on the Great Lakes, I'm not sure what the subcats should be named. Should they be in the format Category:Country steamships of the Great Lakes, or is there some other format that would be more appropriate? Gatoclass (talk) 11:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

New template and standardized name format proposal for steamboats

While a lot of work has been done on categorizing steamships, not much has been done yet to establish a standard format for steamboat articles. As I said in a previous post above about Commons, there are a host of name formats currently being used for steamboats, none of which are terribly satisfactory, and the problem is not just at Commons but here as well.

I would therefore like to propose the establishment of some new conventions for steamboats. Firstly, I suggest that all paddlewheel steamboats be named in the format "PS steamboatname". This will take the place of the numerous formats currently being used, such as "Steamboatname (steamboat)", "Steamboatname (sidewheeler)", "Steamboatname (sternwheeler)", "Steamboatname (steamship)", "Steamboatname (steamboat type)" etc. It's consistent with our other naming conventions (ie SS, USS, HMS etc) and will help to quickly and easily identify ship types in categories. (Note that the prefix "PS" will only be used for steamboats and not paddlewheel steamships since these already take the "SS" prefix as they should).

Additionally, I would like to propose that a new template be made for the "PS" prefix, just as we have templates for steamships (SS), warships (USS) and so on. Gatoclass (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The prefix PS means paddle steamer. Normally this is applied to ships with paddle wheels at the side, but technically sternwheelers are also paddle steamers. Mjroots (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct, whether they are sidewheelers or sternwheelers, they are all paddle steamers and can thus be designated "PS". I think this proposal is well overdue as steamboat articles are a real mess currently and we really need to adopt a simple and consistent name format. Gatoclass (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Split of Category:Individual ship or boat stubs / Merchant ship stub template proposal

Any objections to creating a new stub template for merchant ships? Would you rather see Category:Individual ship or boat stubs split up some other way, and if so, how? Djembayz (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Merchant ships of Jersey

Civil ensign of Jersey

In June this year, a new civil ensign for Jersey was approved. Ships registered in Jersey that previously flew the British Red Ensign now fly their own civil ensign.

Therefore, current merchant ships registered in Jersey will need the infobox tweaking to display the correct flag, and the Category:Ships of Jersey (and subcats thereunder) will need to be created. But what about ships registered in Jersey before June 2010? They are currently categorised in Category:Ships of the United Kingdom etc. Should these also be moved? Mjroots (talk) 08:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Ships registered in Jersey include MV Clary (1939) and SS Polar Chief. Mjroots (talk) 09:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK Jersey is still a Crown dependency so I think they should probably stay in the UK category. Gatoclass (talk) 11:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Although I guesss you could make Ships of Jersey a subcat of Ships of the United Kingdom. That might be the best way to go for now. Gatoclass (talk) 11:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the Isle of Man, they are categorised under UK, but under merchant ships and not ships, so it would be logical to do that with Jersey (and Guernsey) ships. Mjroots (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on article titles

I copied the following from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships), as it may be of interest to project members. Haus^Talk 23:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a discussion on WT:AT, which has turned into a discussion of whether to change the policy on consistency to

• Consistency When other criteria do not indicate an obvious choice, consider giving similar articles similar titles.

This may have a significant effect on this guideline. Comments are welcome here. (The scope of the section has changed since it was titled.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for HMS Indefatigable (1909) now open

The featured article candidacy for HMS Indefatigable (1909) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 15:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for SMS Westfalen now open

The featured article candidacy for SMS Westfalen is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 16:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for German Type UB I submarine now open

The featured article candidacy for German Type UB I submarine is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 18:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Changes to {{Shipindex}}

I noticed that, as of recently, the text of {{Shipindex}} reads "This disambiguation page..." and half-remember strongly worded arguments years ago at WT:SHIPS about the difference between a set index article and a disambiguation page. Is anyone up-to-date enough on this subject to comment on the change? Cheers. Haus^Talk 06:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted it. WP:SETINDEX pages are specifically not classed as disambiguation pages by wikipedia as a whole, not just our project. Benea (talk) 06:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Japanese battleship Kirishima now open

The A-Class review for Japanese battleship Kirishima is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

FAC plea

There are currently four ships and four other MilHist articles at FAC (I also posted to MilHist), and I've been concerned for some time about review of these nominations, considering the FAC backlog and the need for independent eyes to check for issues like jargon. Some of the prolific FAC nominators rarely review other nominations, and many of the MilHist FACs rarely get review from independent editors. Perhaps if MilHist and Ship FAC nominators would spend more time reviewing other articles, that would encourage more independent review of these nominations and help reduce the backlog. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. If Sandy and SHIPS people approve, I'm willing to put up $50 (U.S.) a month at WP:REWARD for 3 months to attract copy-editors for ship articles who are independent of SHIPS and MILHIST. Feel free to spread the news. This is all just a suggestion; let me know if you guys want any changes. If it's okay, I'll ask at WT:GOCE if they will agree on a judge; assuming that goes well, I'll send $50 to some well-known Wikipedian to hold. The judge is to award the first $50 to whoever did the best job copy-editing ship articles at A-class review in September, meaning they seem to write well and know something about style guides and style guidelines and they work well with but independently of SHIPS. Editors who have been substantially involved at SHIPS or MILHIST are ineligible, and the judge will tell you if you are ineligible. After the first $50 payout, as long as Sandy and SHIPS people are not too unhappy with the judge's choice, we can do the same in October, and then again in November. DaddyWarbuck$ (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not a fan of rewards, and don't think FAC will benefit from such. I was hoping that FAC nominators-- who know the criteria-- will do more reviews themselves. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for HMS Courageous (50) now open

The A-Class review for HMS Courageous (50) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 15:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS Kaiser (1911) now open

The A-Class review for SMS Kaiser (1911) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 22:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for USS PC-1264 now open

The peer review for USS PC-1264 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Mentioning A-class review?

Do you guys think it helps or hurts to give a link to the A-class review when we put an article up at FAC? My guess is it would help, it would give new reviewers a point of reference, but I'm not sure. - Dank (push to talk) 11:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for USS Massachusetts (BB-2) now open

The featured article candidacy for USS Massachusetts (BB-2) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Japanese battleship Haruna now open

The featured article candidacy for Japanese battleship Haruna is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 04:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Mariam (ship)

The Mariam article is currently at AfD. Mjroots (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

WT:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors#WP:SHIPS

Just a pointer. - Dank (push to talk) 15:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for HMS Liverpool (C11) now open

The peer review for HMS Liverpool (C11) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD list

Does this WP keep a list of ship articles nominated at AfD and the result thereof? I'm thinking of something similar to WP:AVIATION's AfD record. Mjroots (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

We do now, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/AFD. This seems like a task for a bot - find all ships articles ever listed at AFD and expand the list by adding them to it. Mjroots (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Shortcut created at WP:SHIPS/AFD. Mjroots (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Issue with source

I know that this has been brought up before but I'd like another opinion on the reliability of Uboat.net. There is an issue on the source's reliability on an FAC of mine for the German Type UB I submarine and despite a past ACR and User:Bellhalla/uboat.net reliability, User:SandyGeorgia insists that the ACR and the sub-page fall under WP:OTHERSTUFF and believes that the site fails WP:RS. Can I get another opinion confirming or denouncing this site's reliability? Thanks!--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 20:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK, U-boat.net is a WP:RS. As Bellhalla notes, several published books use it as a reference. I see no discussion on either your or SG's talk page. In any case, the correct way to challenge the reliability of a source is to raise the issue at WP:RSN. Mjroots (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is in the article's FAC. I agree with Mj, although I will note that while Uboat.net is reliable, it may not meet FAC's "high quality" criterion. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

FAC for HMS Indefatigable needs some attention

The Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Indefatigable (1909)/archive1 needs some eyes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sturmvogel 66 (talk • contribs)

Actually, that one was archived today due to lack of attention (open 2+ weeks with no support). The bot hasn't run yet... Karanacs (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Karanacs. Sturm, I was going to give that one a full review, but how about you ping me when you renom it? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for HMS Speedy (1782) now open

The featured article candidacy for HMS Speedy (1782) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Forgotten Ship: A Daring Rescue As Saigon Fell

Last night my family and I sat mesmerized in the car listening to the story Ship: A Daring Rescue As Saigon Fell on National Public Radio. As a parent, I can barely fathom the anguish those parents must have felt dropping their children out of helicopters, desperately hoping that the sailors on the fantail of the ship would catch them. Sadly, much like the title of the story says, this amazing incident appears to have been largely forgotten, with the USS Kirk (FF-1087) article merely saying the ship participated in Operation Frequent Wind (and even the Frequent Wind article barely mentions the frantic scale of the helicopter evacuation).

Would it be possible for a member of this project who is a better writer than me to expand the USS Kirk (FF-1087) and Operation Frequent Wind articles to include some of the facts from this amazing, but mostly forgotten story? Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviewers needed

Two members of this project, myself and White Shadows, are in the final round of the WikiCup, a contest for content creation across all of en:Wiki. We would invite all members to review any and all articles submitted for Good Article status at WP:GAN or for Featured Article status at WP:FAC. The articles reviewed needn't be ours, any review will help reduce the current backlog.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Merchant ships and classification societies

Enhancing how we record the relationship between a ship and its classification society has been on my mind for a long time. In a nutshell, from the mariner's point of view, the "class" is "the cops." Many (maybe all) flag states delegate shipboard inspections to the class, and the class collects, records, and often makes public copious amounts of information about its ships.

There are a few interesting aspects of relationship from the standpoint of a wp editor. First, the class generally changes over the lifetime of a ship, often when a ship is re-flagged, but also for other reasons. Second, it can be difficult (maybe impossible) to track down what society classed a ship at a given point in time. Even under the best circumstances, you don't want to do it once, and come back a year later and try to figure it out again. Third, there is typically not a correlation between the flag state and the classification society: for example, I can think of U.S.-flag ships classed by Det Norske Veritas and Bureau Veritas as well as American Bureau of Shipping.

Here's an example of the type of info that can be found at a classification society: {{ABS name|9201758|USNS Big Horn|accessdate=2024-11-27 |year=2024}}.

So, my thinking at this point is to 1) create a category tree Category:Merchant ships by classification society under Category:Merchant ships, and 2) propose a new field in {{Infobox Ship Career}} along the lines of | Ship class = [[Bureau Veritas]].

In my mind, the trickiest bit would be naming subcategories. Some possibilities are of the form of Category:Ships of Bureau Veritas, Category:Ships classified by American Bureau of Shipping, and Category:Ships classed by American Bureau of Shipping.

Any thoughts? Thanks. Haus^Talk 22:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, not a single mention of the oldest society - Lloyd's Register. How would this work with past ships, and what happens if a ship change(s/d) society? Mjroots (talk) 05:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

History
Name	Venture 84
Owner	Emeraude Lines
Port of registry	France
Ship classification society:	Lloyds Register (1870-1891) Bureau Veritas (1891-1912)

Classification societies have been in operation since the 1760s, so many older ships will have been in class. If not, the infobox field can be left blank and no corresponding class category assigned.

I think that changes to c/s can be handled analogously to changes in flag. We categorize ships by their most recent flag (i.e. Category:Merchant ships of Bolivia), and a similar approach could be used wrt c/s. One of many possibilities for handling the infobox is presented to the right. Haus^Talk 06:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This just looks too esoteric for the general reader to me. There are already complaints that too much information is being crammed into infoboxes, and I can't imagine that many people will want to know these details. In regards to the proposed categories, again I can't see a point in this as it appears a ship's classification society changes over time, so it will just become a nightmare trying to keep the categories up to date. Gatoclass (talk) 07:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Ships get categorised by whatever country's flag they have flown, not just the current one. Mjroots (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but I'm still not convinced that the information is of sufficiently widespread interest to justify the existence of such categories. Gatoclass (talk) 06:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Putting the classification society in the infobox would help editors track down verifiable material on ships. If ship infoboxes are getting too crowded, perhaps the classification society could go into a tag, like the public domain material tags at the bottom of an article. I guess that using a category would help you to pull up all the ships from one classification society at the same time, but why would you want to do this? Djembayz (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Following this discussion, the idea of the category tree has become less attractive to me. On the other hand, I'm not really convinced that a few lines in the infobox would create unwieldy clutter. Especially since the ships this would apply to typically wouldn't have 50 lines in the infobox describing armament, armor, electronic warfare, sensor equipment, aircraft carried, and so forth. Haus^Talk 16:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for help on design of sailing boats

The article Center of pressure contains sections devoted to aircraft and missiles. There is also a rudimentary attempt to describe the application of center of pressure to design of sailing boats. See Center of pressure#Historical usage. I don’t know much about design of sailing boats but the section on Historical usage looks to me like it is based on intuition rather than science. It is also completely lacking in references and in-line citations. User:Skimaniac and I have discussed the situation HERE.

We would be very grateful if someone knowledgeable about the design of sailing boats could re-write the material under Historical usage, perhaps change the title of the section, and add an in-line citation or two. Thanks for any help. Dolphin (t) 06:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Courageous class aircraft carrier now open

The A-Class review for Courageous class aircraft carrier is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Altered picture

A very minor aside, I just happened to come across File:USS Tolland (AKA-64) underway, circa in 1945.jpg (seen right), a picture of USS Rankin (AKA-103), but with her hull number edited out to 'make the image a generic Tolland Class AKA'. It's being used on a number of the articles on her sister ships of the Tolland class, where it is described as 'A typical Tolland-class AKA'. The majority of the ships it's used on have pictures on sites like nav-weapons, which could replace the generic image, but is it appropriate use anyway? I would have thought that if a picture was wanted, and none survived of that specific ship, one of another ship in the class could be used, but would be better left unaltered and captioned as 'USS Foo', a sister-ship of USS 'Foo2'. This instead of altering an historic image to airbrush out details that identified a particular ship, in order to make it more representative. Opinions welcome. Benea (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer that the original ship be identifiable in the image. Use in articles other than the represented ship can be handled by using the "Sister ship of..." line, and if necessary, a hidden note explaining that no images of the particular vessel are available. -- saberwyn 23:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Gatoclass (talk) 07:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree, no need to de-identify a ship. See ROKS Cheonan for another example. Mjroots (talk) 09:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for SMS Goeben now open

The featured article candidacy for SMS Goeben is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 21:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS Deutschland (1904) now open

The A-Class review for SMS Deutschland (1904) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 21:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Linking script

I've put in a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests for a linking script or bot that would take a list of terms commonly linked in SHIPS articles and add the links automatically to an article if the terms aren't linked already. Anyone want to go through our recent A-class and FA articles and put together a rough list of what we like to link? I'll be happy to fiddle with it if it someone will start it. - Dank (push to talk) 12:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, there are the general ship terms I frequently use like Draft (hull), Beam (nautical), Freeboard (nautical), and Displacement (ship). There are also a few length terms, like length overall and length at the waterline. Parsecboy (talk) 12:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

If we want to be thorough, to avoid jargon, here are some more that I use: bridge, hulk, Scrapped, reserve, launched, commissioned, squadron, paid off, list, vertical triple expansion steam engines, Niclausse boilers, water-tube boilers, Compound steam engines, boilers, Babcock and Wilcox, Yarrow, Parsons, propeller shaft. Also Belt, Deck, Barbette, Gun turret, Conning tower, Bulkhead, anti-aircraft, captain.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Dank, you're asking for trouble here. While some of these terms are strictly nautical/ship in nature I see a lot of them aren't. A bot cannot determine the difference between the bridge of a ship or a bridge over a river or road. Same thing with Captain or deck etc. Please think this out before you sic a bot on articles or there will be a lot of cleaning to do. Brad (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I put the request in at WP:Bot requests because WP:Scripts has cobwebs growing on it, but my preference would be a script that stops in the "changes" window so that I can eyeball the whole thing for just those problems. In fact, two scripts would be better: one for terms that are highly likely to get the right link in a SHIPS article (hulk might give a false hit at WP:COMICS, but probably not for our articles), and one for terms like the ones you mention that could easily go wrong and should be examined closely before we hit the "save" button. Agreed that we should be careful. - Dank (push to talk) 20:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Right then. When I see "Bot" I think automated. Brad (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Golfo Azzurro AFD

Golfo Azzurro is up for deletion. 8 days and only a one on one exchange so far in the comments. Thought I should notify here. Brad (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I noticed this deletion discussion and "rescued" the article to http://ship.spottingworld.com/Golfo_Azzurro where all such articles in danger may be placed. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Earlier notification may have saved this one. Basically it failed on WP:V, not an insurmountale problem. Mjroots (talk) 05:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Per request, I've userfied this article at User:UB65/Golfo Azzurro. Have asked UB65 to post back here when the article is ready to be re-released to give us a chance to check that the issues raised in the AfD have been addressed. Mjroots (talk) 08:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Location map Mediterranean

The {{Location map Mediterranean}} has been created. It could be used in ship articles to mark the locations of shipwrecks in the Bay of Biscay, Mediterranean and Black seas. Mjroots2 (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Unused parameters in infoboxes

(od) One of my pet peeves about the infoboxes is that far too many editors just slap on the full code and don't bother to trim down the unneeded lines. If adding Ship classification society to the list of parameters is all that important then why don't we look for parameters that aren't or hardly ever used and eliminate one of more of those? Seems like a good trade off. Brad (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Just because an infobox parameter doesn't have an entry against it doesn't necessarily mean that it is not needed. Maybe that info will emerge later as a result of further research. Where is the problem in leaving the parameter in the infobox, it doesn't show in the article. Mjroots (talk) 08:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I make a habit of leaving most parameters even if I have not filled them in. I feel that they can help prompt someone who does have the information. I do delete obviously irrelevant parameters. —Diiscool (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is OT, but as it happens I always use the full code, because I invariably find that none of the abbreviated codes contain all the fields I need, and often I can't remember the precise names of the code fields to add them individually. I tend not to delete fields per Diiscool above, but there probably are some occasions at least where I could probably delete some irrelevant codes, although I think it would only be likely to save a handful of bytes. Gatoclass (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Mjroots I'm taking about placing the full code of the infobox down in articles that simply don't need all of the parameters. An age of sail ship will never use the aircraft and electronic warfare parameters. Nor would a modern ship ever use the age of sail parameters. If you did any amount of clean up on ship articles you would soon realize why this is an issue from the standpoint of easing editing. With that in mind, if editors want to continue adding parameters to the infobox then I say it's time that the current parameters were looked at for how often they're actually used. How many articles have made use of the "Ice class" parameter? or "troops". I can't recall seeing any articles use those. Brad (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Can we split this part of the discussion off to another heading? Haus^Talk 21:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Gatoclass (talk) 05:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)