Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 43

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Ship type parameter not showing in articles

I just noticed that |ship type= parameter is not showing in the infoboxes, for example here, here, here, and here. Why is that? IMHO it is an extremely relevant field. Tupsumato (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It was removed for some reason with this edit. I've asked Laddo to fix this. Please report any other parameters not working correctly. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Pages may require a null edit to restore proper display.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Trappist. However, now that I'm looking at it and how it's used in the wild, I'm wondering if "type" is actually necessary. Looking at several random articles, neither "class" nor "type" are actually used very often, and "class" seems to often be used with the {{sclass}} template family, which may explain why Laddo (ping) merged the two fields? See USS Simon Bolivar (SSBN-641) and Russian submarine Kursk (K-141) as examples. I wonder if it would be useful to set up a tracking category for usage of both fields for the purpose of eventually re-merging the two fields (again, see the above examples for how this successfully works), after finding consensus of course. It's a bit tricky, since some articles only use class, and some only use type, so some solution does need to be found. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Class should be used only for sister ships. Type covers a multitude of other characterisics, which likely are too variable for an infobox as consistency in its usage will never be attained. Kablammo (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

|Ship class= and |Ship type= have been separate parameters for a long time and they serve different but vaguely similar purposes; see the Usage guide. I don't foresee one subsuming the other.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Class is precise and has a recognized meaning. Type covers a variety of uses. If we want to include it (as now), it should be separate from class. Kablammo (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not at all sure I understand what you just wrote. Can you expand on that and perhaps show examples?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth 2 was an ocean liner and a cruise ship; a steamship and then a motor vessel. Great Republic was a sailing vessel, a clipper, and a full-rigged (or ship-rigged) vessel; it carried both freight and passengers. Some ships were wooden, some of iron or steel, and some of composite construction. Some steamships had reciprocating engines and some had turbines. There were ships which simultaneously Liberty ships and tankers; other Liberty ships were bulk carriers. Most whalebacks were bulk freighters but one was a passenger vessel. Ships can be typed by function, construction, propulsion, and likely other characteristics as well. Kablammo (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so what would need to be done to improve the template? What are the rules that dictate how we should specify type for ships such as you have described? List all known 'types' that defined the particular ship? Choose the one 'type' that is most often associated with the particular ship? Something else?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Kablammo and Trappist, I guess I failed to explain my position well enough. As it stands now, |Ship class= displays "Class & type: Whatever" while |Ship type= displays "Type: Whatever". If both are used, this obviously creates an issue, but as I said before, the Sclass family is used quite a bit to display both class and type information in the class field. That's the immediate issue. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

If |ship class= is used, |ship type= should not be used. The latter is intended for vessels which do not belong to any particular class, which is the case for most ships (including sister ships which do not have an established class). There's nothing more to it. Tupsumato (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm perfectly aware of that. Obviously I'm not getting across, so never mind. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The Usage guide discourages simultaneous use of |Ship class= and |Ship type=. Use of the {{sclass}} family of templates in |Ship class= seems a sensible thing to do since it accords with the instructions in the Usage guide. In your earlier post you wondered if "type" is actually necessary. I think it is because the Usage guide provides for its use when |Ship class= is not used. This use is well demonstrated in the examples that Editor Tupsumato provided in the intial post of this discussion.

There is a certain amount of benefit gained from using {{sclass}} with |Ship class=. {{Infobox ship characteristics}} doesn't have to figure out how to format the class name. To get the same functionality from {{Infobox ship characteristics}}, we'd need to build in named parameters for the five {{sclass}} positional parameters, plus something to indicate if the link should be hyphenated ({{sclass-}}) and whether the class name should be rendered in italics or upright font ({{sclass2}}). This allows editors a great deal of flexibility.

I think we will need to spend some time thinking on how to make improvements to this pair of parameters. For example, if Wikidata is ever going to be useful, it must give us a ship's class name and its type as separate items so that we can combine them as we see fit and apply correct formatting. I could imagine modifications to the {{sclass}} family that would act much like |Ship class= acts now. The {{sclass}} templates if written like this: {{sclass|||1}} would automatically accept class name and ship type from the appropriate properties at wikidata. We can't do this now because the wikidata property P289 (ship class) contains the class name and the ship type and extraneous text and apparently there isn't a wikidata ship type property.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Move request

Can an admin move HMS St. Vincent (1908) to HMS St Vincent (1908) over the redirect for me? Apparently the Brits don't use a full stop when abbreviating "Saint". Thanks in advance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Done and done. Parsecboy (talk) 17:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

My thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Second try with Wikidata Ship class fallback

Editor Laddo has updated {{Infobox ship characteristics}} so that as they become available, wikidata items will be used when not supplied in the article's infobox or when the parameter value is not specifically set to none. A list of ship articles that are using wikidata is at Category:Ship infoboxes importing Wikidata (currently only |Ship class=).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

This needs to be reverted - the few entries that I have checked are either incorrect (HMS A1 -which points to a DAB page) or either unreferenced or referenced to a wikipedia page - which is unacceptable. Article content should not be removed from the control of editors Nigel Ish (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Nigel Ish: You're right, I still need to improve the link to the target ship class. However, note that this allowed you to add ship class information that was missing in HMS A1 ;) Let me know if any other improvement comes to your mind. Laddo (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I found that Soviet submarine K-222 draws its class from wikidata as a Papa class submarine, which is itself a redirect to... Soviet submarine K-222. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@GraemeLeggett: Click on the small Wikidata icon (

) beside each imported value to see the Wikidata item page that supplies it. Laddo (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Trappist the monk, Wikipedia contributors still have full control on values that may be fulfilled from Wikidata:

Every infobox that imports a ship class from Wikidata is listed under Category:Ship infoboxes importing Wikidata - every imported value is clearly identified with a small Wikidata logo;
If the import is inappropriate, it can be prevented by stating ship class=none in {{Infobox ship characteristics}}, like in this case;
It does highlight issues to be resolved, such as Croatian patrol boat Šolta (OB-02);
If Wikidata values are missing references, why not add them?

This change is meant to support Wikipedia developers, in particular those from non-English languages. Please attempt to see how useful it can be, rather than see it as an annoyance.

Laddo (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

When someone tries to correct faulty information that has been imported from Wikidata by trying to edit the Wikipedia article, they will find that the Ship class field isn't there - we cannot expect editors who are not experts to know to either add a non-existant field in the infobox or to go outside en:wiki and struggle with the dreadful user interface in wikidata to try and fix the problem. If data is to be added to articles it must be added directly (in conformance with local rules for doing so) so that local editors can see what's changed and fix it. Otherwise this is a recipe for changes being made to articles without any warning in the article history, no attribution, and no way to know whether an article is being vandalised remotely.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I share your concerns with "remote" vandalism; some joint WD-WP teams do work on preventing such situations. However for now the upgrade that I finally pushed onto the template will only display values that are not supplied "locally" -- any "local" value overrides the WD import. Of course it does not help editors to figure how to not display that infobox line at all. There is a nice description of this while scheme at Template:Infobox_ship_characteristics#Parameter_value_import_from_Wikidata. What about adding something - like a question mark - beside the small Wikidata icon, pointing to that piece of documentation? Laddo (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Incidently, where is the documentation for this change? We should not be making fundamental changes to functionality without documenting it or obtaining more consensus than the small discussion above - automatically importing article content for external sites needs to be much more widely discussed than this small discussion here as has site wide implications, not just affecting WikiProject Ships.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Done @Nigel Ish: I added this: ^(?) beside Wikidata icons of imported fallback values. Laddo (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Ships project consensus was reached... in discussion just above this one. Wikidata is already widely used throughout Wikipedias, and not only the English one, see Category:Templates using data from Wikidata and Category:Wikidata. Laddo (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

So a discussion between three editors, where only one editor (yourself) actually fully backed the change represents consensus to fundamentally change thousands of articles? This is a site weide issue and requires more discussion before such fundamental changes to verification requirements are imposed on en:wiki.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

For now this change affects only 82 articles. I would indeed have appreciated if more users would have participated in the discussion, but this forum was the best I could find. Laddo (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Is it contemplated that editors will have to go Wikidata to edit infoboxes? Kablammo (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

In the other conversation, Editor Laddo wrote: A WD team is actively working at supporting edits to Wikidata properties directly from a change in a WP infobox. Is that safe? I don't know.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Nor do I. But that question does not answer mine. Will I be able to edit infoboxes from Wikipedia? There are hundreds of infoboxes with erroneous data. Kablammo (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, what an editor adds to a local Wikipedia template is what gets displayed. As the template is written now, Wikidata will provide a value to |Chip class= only if that parameter is empty or omitted. If an editor sets the value of |Ship class=<anything> then the template will display <anything>. To display nothing, in essence prevent autofilling by Wikidata, set |Ship class=none. So, local always takes precedence over Wikidata. Right now, |Ship class= in {{Infobox ship characteristics}} is the only parameter that accepts (improperly formed) data from Wikidata.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 04:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Kablammo (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Can we make the category:Ship infoboxes importing Wikidata into a hidden category please? Mjroots (talk) 08:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. Also Category:Ship infoboxes blocking Wikidata import

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Ship class in Infobox ship career

off topic – split from #Second try with Wikidata Ship class fallback

(ec) Another question - why is there a Ship class field in both Infobox: ship career and Infobox: ship characteristics? Surely the field should only be in one? This leads to confusion like in HMS Melton Nigel Ish (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Fine question, that. |Ship class= is in both {{Infobox ship career}} and {{Infobox ship characteristics}}. It is not in both templates because of anything related to the Wikidata change. Is there any reason why we shouldn't remove |Ship class= from {{Infobox ship career}}.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that most of the uses are accidental. However one possible reason is where a ship with multiple users who classify the ship differently - for example Colony-class frigates were also Tacoma-class frigates, or the Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates that were sold to the Turkish navy becoming the G-class frigate.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

|Ship class= is not documented in Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide#Infobox ship career. The ship info box allows for multiple instances of {{Infobox ship characteristics}} so it would seem appropriate to use one {{Infobox ship characteristics}} template to describe a ship's characteristics first as a Tacoma-class frigate and then with a second {{Infobox ship characteristics}} template as a Colony-class frigate including those details that distinguish one class from the other even if the only distinction is the class name.

Because this facility is available, it seems to me that |Ship class= in {{Infobox ship career}} is inappropriate and should be removed.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is articles like HSwMS Remus (28) where there are two infobox:careers but only one infobox:characteristics - adding an additional infobox for only one line of information does seem rather wasteful.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Better I think than blurring the line between what is 'career' and what is 'characteristic'. Ok, so Instead of adding another {{Infobox ship characteristics}}, an alternative for HSwMS Remus (28) and similar ships might be:

|Ship class={{Sclass|Spica|torpedo boat|1}} 1934–1940<br />{{Sclass|Romulus|destroyer|1}} 1940–1958

Of course {{plainlist}} is more appropriate but <br /> is easier to do as an example. This particular ship is also odd in that Romulus-class destroyer is a redirect to Spica-class torpedo boat but nowhere in that class article is Romulus class mentioned.

I still think that |Ship class= should be removed from {{Infobox ship career}}.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Help Wanted: RMS Lusitania 100th Anniversary

On May 7th of this year we will observe the 100th anniversary of one of the most consequential events in maritime history. May I suggest a full court press to get this article up to FA status in time for the anniversary? -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Samson V (and I, II, III and IV)

bit surprised there's not an article on this series of sternwheelers yet, but then lots of the roster of BC ships still needs an article; Samson V' is the Samson V Museum in New Westminster. I'm not sure what dab to use for a Samson (sternwheelers) dab...or should each one be listed without a coordinating dab page. Lots of technical resources to create articles are here and here and here. I'm very busy right now in real life as well as in wikipedia, and I know there's people who specialize in "ship-bios" so dropping this here, and will try to remember to put them on List of historical ships in British Columbia.Skookum1 (talk) 06:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles need creating

Per discussion at talk:MS Norman Atlantic#Total number of persons aboard and recent events in the Adriatic Sea, articles need creating on MV Blue Sky M (IMO 7510690) and MV Ezadeen (IMO 6614279). Mjroots (talk) 13:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox question

If a ship was derelict for a very long time, would you create a infobox ship career entry for this? For example, MV Kalakala was beached and used as a canning factory for nearly 30 years, and then was repeatedly moved around as various owners tried to find money to restore it. Would you create a ship career of 1967-1998 as shrimp processing building, and as 1998-2015 as attempting restoration? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

While I'd probably try to fit everything in a single career box, having multiple boxes for different stages of the career is just as acceptable. However, you shouldn't try to cram too much information into the infobox — use the article body for elaborate descriptions. Tupsumato (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Dates as unnecessary disambiguators, and necessary article navigation

While stub-sorting I came across TSS Rathmore (1908). As usual when finding a stub with a disambiguation, I checked to see whether it was linked from the undisambiguated version: there's a redlink at TSS Rathmore. Normally I would move the article to the undisambiguated form, but I know ships are special ...

One question: Looking at WP:SHIPNAME I can't see anything which suggests adding a disambiguator to an unambiguous ship name. Is there a rule somewhere which this and many similar article titles are following, which mandates or allows the addition of an unnecessary date disambiguator? Or am I mis-reading WP:SHIPNAME?

Another question: Rummaging around in this sort of area, I found TSS Duke of Argyll (1909) and TSS Duke of Argyll (1956), linked nicely from a ship set index page at TSS Duke of Argyll, which is linked from a hatnote at Duke of Argyll. This all looked very sensible, disambiguation needed, used, and linked. But I then also found RMS Duke of Argyll (1928) (which wasn't included in that set index page, though I've now added it, and which doesn't have a redirect from RMS Duke of Argyll). Is it appropriate that the set index is still at "TSS", when one of its entries isn't TSS but RMS? Should it be renamed to something like Duke of Argyll (ship), or perhaps there be a redirect at that title for use in the Duke of Argyll page hatnote?

There was no mention of TSS Rathmore (1908) on the Rathmore disambiguation page, to which I've now added it. I thought this was an oversight in the creation of a new stub ... but then found it was created 4 years ago.

I can see there is a careful structure of ship names used by the cognoscenti, but I wonder whether there are enough helpful redirects, dab page entries, set indexes, etc to help the naive reader who just wants to find out about some ship which they find mentioned in a family history or other document?

Or have I just found a rare bad example? I see that TSS North Wall (1883) is linked by a redirect from TSS North Wall and a dab page entry at North Wall, just as it should be - though there's still the unexplained (or, I can't find the explanation) apparently unnecessary disambiguation.

I would hope that the policies on ship naming and ship name navigation would be such that for every ship "XXX Shipname (date)" there would be a link, or a dab page entry, from both "XXX Shipname" and "Shipname". And that there would be a clear note somewhere stating that date is/may be added to unambiguous ship names, if this is the case.

I'm not a ships expert, just a Wikignome who stub-sorts and mends dab pages etc and wants our readers to have as easy a time as reasonably possible in finding the stuff they are looking for. And to minimise the chance of some good faith editor creating a duplicate article (eg at "XXX Shipname" without a date) because there weren't enough links to help them find the existing one. Thanks for reading. PamD 12:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of articles that have unnecessary disambiguation - I regularly remove them when I come across them (for instance here). I think part of the issue is that some editors are in the habit of adding year of launch and hull/pennant numbers without checking first if there is another ship by that name, or perhaps more importantly, if there is another ship with that name that has an article.

I'd say that as for the Duke of Argyles, the usual format for a set index that does not occupy the primary location is "List of ships named XXX", as in List of ships named HMS Victory. In this case, it should probably be located at List of ships named Duke of Argyle, so the prefix would not matter. I'd probably then redirect the TSS Northwall to the index page, unless one of the two ships could be demonstrated to be the primary topic (which is unlikely). Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I lean the other way and favour the disambiguation of all merchant ships by year of launch. Having the year of launch in the title of a redlinked article gives an additional starting point for researching said ship. Occasionally it is necessary to disambiguate by builder and year of launch. Mjroots (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Mjroots on this. Whether there is something already here or not there is fairly good reason to pin down the specific ship from the first byte. Even date, as noted above, is sometimes not enough. I can point to a case or two in which a name and a year can apply to two ships existing at the same time. Even in "authoritative" references ships get sometime confused. More than once in dealing with in print references I find that some author has confused a ship with another. Without tonnage and dates just the name of SS Japara (1930) (3,323 tons) and the much larger MS Japara (1938) (9,312 tons) have been confused more than once. Both were Dutch ships, both operated under U.S. Army control during WW II and on occasion the 1938 big ship appeared in the operating area of the smaller. Newm30 (talk) and I were having some fun with confusion there and vetting sources to make sure subsequent names attached to the original ships and not drift across the line. For a long time here and in some external references SS Monterey, the big Matson liner, got confused with a completely different ship even to a sometimes identical date when one took the launch date of one and completion date of the other. The big Matson liner was shown here as USAT Monterey for a long time even though the actual Army transport, never leaving the western Atlantic, was actually SS Haiti (1932) (the liner was completed 1932 to add to the confusion) renamed Monterey. Short of an exhaustive search through files that are not always the top Google hits and sometimes only in hard copy you cannot be certain there isn't another ship by the same name with somewhat similar characteristics that will appear in an article here. Personally I would like to see those official numbers, now IHO numbers, attached to every mention of a ship. Just for fun Matson was just one of the lines that recycled ship names with near abandon. It would make thins so much easier! As for articles here it would save some of the untangling and page moves when someone begins dealing with one of those easily confused ships if the original article "title" clearly dealt with one particular ship. As a further thought, I am leaning strongly toward titling things here with the original ship name. Take those Matson liners (and no few other lines) that tended to recycle names; the best known names that would aid in advertising more often than not. It is a whole lot easier to start from the original name/date foundation and list subsequent names than disentangle three, four or more articles using one of those names the companies chose to apply to different ships in quick succession because they were very well known and prominent. Palmeira (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Mjroots and Palmeira. Sometimes naming conventions just dont fit particular ship naming issues. That is why I always consult with respected editors or on this talk page for consensus. Regards Newm30 (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

BTW, sometimes a year disambiguator isn't enough - q.v.SS Espagne (Anversois, 1909) and SS Espagne (Provence, 1909), where the builder has been used to differentiate the two ships. Mjroots (talk)

PamD's contribution is a timely wake-up call; she found, and I concur, that at present navigation and dabs are a mess. "XXX Shipname (date)" there would be a link, or a dab page entry, from both "XXX Shipname" and "Shipname" ought to be a clear requirement, though occasionally the last has to be "Shipname (ship)", I think - and this last is where I would put all ship set lists - that's the most helpful place for visitor to begin and, hopefully, never be more than two clicks away from the target (I am speaking of merchant ships here - I don't want to start a flame war). "Duke of Argyll" is a good example, where the list should obviously be at Duke of Argyll (ship). Japara (ship) would be much better also - or a Japara dab to cover also the present redirect; and due to our fixation with prefixes I suppose that MV Japara is needed as well as MS Japara. Davidships (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

If I am reading your suggestion correctly you propose a dab under NAME (SHIP) under which all the variants in prefix and launch dates and perhaps even hull numbers for government vessels would be listed. Essentially an index to ships of a given name. It would be a job, but I agree that would be the best consolidated start point for all those searching with only a ship name with nothing else to go on. There are many such people, finding old letters or records showing something that leads to "Granddad was on the Flying Dutchman aometime in the war. What do you have on this ship?" Here the consolidated dab would be the start point and, if done well with good descriptions serve as a very useful index. I have on occasion done a bit of that as with USS Monterey and would highly recommend that page get off the USS fixation here and be moved to just "Monterey (ship)" where every ship with that name is listed. It would have the additional advantage of being a single click from a higher level dab page such as Monterey (disambiguation) for those looking for ships. That said, I stand by my points above on pinning down a particular hull from the start to minimize confusion. Palmeira (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

There's a problem with using (ship) as a disambiguator. That is a sailing vessel disambiguator for a full-rigged ship. Taking the above, we'd have Monterey (ship), Monterey (brig), Monterey (barque) etc. Mjroots (talk) 07:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, a good point. Well, the objective is clarity and ease of use; when "Monterey" is put in the search box, the drop down menu should take one direct to the ship list page. As there will always be more than one entry in a list, perhaps Shipname (ships) or Shipname (list of ships)? Davidships (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but then I wonder how many average searchers know that level of detail. While people in this discussion might well do the initial entry as NAME (BRIG) I would guess most non "ship people" might not. Thus all those very specific types of sailing vessels should also be listed in the disambigulation page reached by "Monterey (ship)" here. Thus, any article about this craft might be included on that page as "Monterey (yacht)" with brief description. Let's look at it from the viewpoint of someone not having a clue about brigs, barques, full rigged ships or motor vessels/ships. They just try the name and get Monterey (disambiguation) with, instead of the list that I believe I added there, a one click link to a list of every floating craft named Monterey with our (sometimes) more knowledgeable title description and those brief descriptions giving an idea of type, size, dates and nationality and so on. I doubt we can cover every search term someone might try, but even I would find such an index to all we know about vessels that existed with links to those covered here occasionally useful. For one thing it could be a repository for brief information we have about red link ships for which many of us may have information but no interest in developing an "article" about.

I think it is worth doing some thinking, even "engineering" analysis, on how best serve uninformed and informed searchers—avoid the dreaded endless "press x" for menu options of business phones so to speak—whit a combination of disambiguation ship list pages that are themselves better categorized. Palmeira (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

So "(ship)" cannot be used at present to distinguish a vessel from another entity of the same name, or as the name of a set index, because in 18 cases (I've just counted in Category:Full-rigged ships and its subcat) it's used as a disambiguator, as a short-hand for "(full-rigged ship)"? Might it be that these 18, if they have to be distinguished from other vessels, should be moved to "(full-rigged ship)", leaving "(ship)" free to be used in other situations? Just another thought from an outsider! Glad to see that my comments have sparked off some discussion. PamD 16:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It is inadequate to distinguish between vessels or vessel types. It, or something even more generic is, in my proposed solution, only enough to get one to a page listing vessels with the same name with enough specifics to actually make the distinction—and as noted above with two ships built the same year named Anversois a (year) is not even enough in some cases. As with personal names, certain ship names are somewhat popular, so putting "John Smith" on a wanted poster is pretty worthless without more—lots of "false positives" there. That is why we even get articles conflating ships, I even did it myself a month ago and I've had decades of ship experience with an extensive reference library. That is why I am proposing ship lists by name that are the default "hit" for a naive ship search, i.e., type in the name and a word indicating it is a ship, boat, vessel, craft (those possible alternatives are the hitch!) and that page comes up with detail enough to see there is an article or that, if not, "your" ship isn't covered but a hint at what it really is for further search. Palmeira (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

An illustration of a problem with the approach I suggest can be seen at Corsair where an editor insists ships have to be included in transportation, no red links and no pipelines. Palmeira (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Update: Clarityfiend (talk) has clarified things about dab pages not being ship lists—and I now tend to agree—so that may help with an approach. A general dab page, say "Monterey" or "Mariposa" covering a wide variety, would have a single link to the NAME (ship) list page that would be a more complete ship index. That would be a two click move from a bare "Mariposa" entry to a page with enough information to distinguish which Mariposa is the likely subject and, if covered here, a third click to the correct page. For the reasons I mention above, such a list would help editors here as a quick reference of a list for sanity checks they indeed have the right ship and even potential new articles. Palmeira (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

As a related request, can someone move HMS Bat (1896) to HMS Bat as this appears to be the only ship of this name to serve in the Royal Navy.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Done Mjroots (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

City of Adelaide (1864)

Participants in WikiProject Ships may wish to comment on the Style Proposal in Talk:City of Adelaide (1864)
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion now closed due to (1) unanimity of responses and (2) breach of WP:SHIPPRONOUNS validating the proposal. (WP:SNOW seems to apply in this instance.)
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems odd that this discussion was closed in less than two days, and that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history#Pronouns, which applies to naval vessels, is being applied to merchant ships. Kablammo (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I did not participate in the discussion, but I don't see anything wrong with applying WP:SNOW, and as far as naval vs. merchant ships, I don't know that anyone has specifically made that point that WP:SHE4SHIPS applies specifically warships, and warships only. As far as I am aware, the underlying principle applies to all vessels, regardless of the specific location in the MoS. And this particular vessel did spend a couple of decades in RN service, so it's not entirely inappropriate to apply the principle either way. Parsecboy (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I too was under that misimpression, but the guide is clear: The Military history WikiProject's style guide is intended to provide recommendations regarding the content and structure of articles within the scope of the project. True, this vessel spent some time as a naval vessel, but it was built and operated as a merchant ship, and it is known here by its civilian name. Kablammo (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, but nearly all other subsection shortcuts are prefixed "WP:MILMOS", WP:SHIPPRONOUNS/WP:SHE4SHIPS isn't. I will add a clarification to the section. Mjroots (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Mj, I have restored the prior language, as the Mil Hist project should not dictate conventions for articles outside its scope. That is not a precedent we should want. I don't doubt that the substance of the change would have broad support here, but we should not have another project be able to dictate this project's preferences. Kablammo (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC

@Kablammo:. Obviously I disagree with the reversion. SHE4SHIPS is not the exclusive preserve of WP:MILHIST. I will raise the issue at WT:MILHIST, hopefully there'll be support for the change. Mjroots (talk) 08:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

More important than this discussion, please see the request for information on apparent financial difficulties of those in charge of City of Adelaide (1864). This appears on Talk:City of Adelaide (1864).ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

As a note, Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ships) (which I assume from the talk page is a WP:SHIPS guideline and consequently can be applied to all ships) provides the exact same advice on pronouns in its Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Pronouns section as the abovementioned MILHIST guideline. The SHIPS guideline has done so since September 2012, when it was moved over from Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines to consolidate naming information ~~(I'm too lazy to look for when the advice was originally added to Guidelines)~~. It was originally added to Guidelines from MILHIST in April 2008, following the consensus of project members at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Archive_9#Using_feminine_pronouns_when_referring_to_ships. The shortcuts were created at the start of 2009... maybe those shortcuts should be redirected to the SHIPS naming convention page as a more valid target? -- ~~saberwyn 02:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)~~ -- saberwyn 02:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Chain boat navigation

Hi ship lovers. I've just finished an initial translation of the above article and hope to run it for a DYK. I'd also like to try and get it to B class status if possible. Hope you enjoy it anyway! --Bermicourt (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Lists of shipwrecks

There is a discussion at WT:SHIPWRECK re the various lists of shipwrecks and overlinking. Please make your views known. Mjroots (talk) 09:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

All-green flag on early 17th century Spanish warship?

I asked[1] about this at the Reference Desk earlier, but got not reply. I thought I'd try it here as well:

I'm passing on a question by Christopher Braun regarding a painting by Cornelis Verbeeck. What is the green flag flown from the mizzen mast of the Spanish ship (to the left) in this painting?

I've searched around a bit, but can't find references to all-green flag relating to any specific Habsburg territory. My guess is a command flag squadron commander (rear admiral?), but I don't know if these were flown from the mizzen in the early 1600s. The red flag on the stern of the Dutch ship is apparently a signal flag showing intention to engage in combat. The red and yellow flag appears to be the flag of Enkhuizen in North Holland.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Is it the flag of Cubillas de Rueda? Mjroots (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

At full image size the flag appears to have vertical low contrast stripes separate from the "waveing effect" and perhaps even a low contrast symbol or arms. The closest thing I found in an image search on that almost invisible image pattern was a symbol for the inquisition but the resemblance was so vague as to be worthless. Palmeira (talk) 13:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Help needed to sort out cut and paste moves

An ip editor has made cut and paste moves from Douro-class destroyer (the correct name for the class according to Whitley and Conways to Vouga-class destroyer, and dropped an article covering a different class of Portuguese destroyer (known as the Guadiano class in Conways and Whitley), referenced to a blog in its place, with no discussion on article talk pages. Can someone fix this and either move it back or fix the edit history?Nigel Ish (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I've split the article histories and moved the other article to Guadiano-class destroyer. Parsecboy (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Not "Guadiana-class". Or is that a male/female word gender thing? GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Arghh - yes its Guadiana class. Typo on my part.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Fixed now :) Parsecboy (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Autonomous spaceport drone ship

If someone here might be willing to review the new article Autonomous spaceport drone ship, especially with respect to its marine, ocean, and ship-type information, that would be greatly appreciated. In addition to a good set of marine-knowledgeable editor eyes on it, perhaps a ship infobox would be helpful, but I get confused on all the varieties of information that can go into those. You might also want to add your WikiProject tag to the Talk page; but since I am not a member, I'll leave that also to someone here who knows what s/he is doing. Thanks. N2e (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

— It appears that one of your folks (User:Arb) kindly dropped by, added the ship infobox, made a number of other edits, and added the page to your project's list of page's monitored. Thanks to Arb! N2e (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Additional question: ship or barge? (December 2014)

I wonder if some ship knowledgeable folks might take a look over at the Autonomous spaceport drone ship article once again, just to see if we non-ship editors have correctly classed this maritime vessel. Specifically, would like help on ensuirng the classification is correct. It was clearly a barge when initially launched in the late 1990s. It was refit in 2014, has a bunch of azithrusters, and may even be capable of self-propulsion over some distance, albeit at slow speeds. Furthermore, SpaceX, the new owner/leasor/(or whatever the correct term is) has explicitly named it the Autonomous spaceport drone ship; but hey, they're obviously an aerospace company. (see the CEO, Elon Musk's, original Twitter post announcing the ship and publicizing a photograph for the first time.)

So, to you nautical types, is it unambiguously a ship? Or still a barge? -- no matter what propulsion and refitting was done? I don't know. And it seems pointless to have the spaceflight geeks like me and others try to figure it out. Would very much appreciate some help. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a self-propelled barge? Tupsumato (talk) 12:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Either or both, IMHO, if it is indeed self-propelled. Davidships (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Tupsumato and Davidships for your views. I think the article is in pretty good shape now, although YMMV.

The first attempt (of a rocket test flight, so we should give them some room to operate...) was on 10 Jan and, although the rocket hit the barge, it was definitely a "hard landing" and what SpaceX later called a "RUD" (Rapid Unscheduled Dissassembly) of the test vehicle, which damaged maybe 20% of the deck equipment on the ship. 10 days later (just a couple of days ago) SpaceX released video of the "hard landing": on Vine.

For what it's worth, the second landing attempt on the ship is planned now for no-earlier-than Sunday, 8 Feb, and the ship is undergoing some deck repairs in Jacksonville at present. Enjoy. N2e (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

What do the sources call it? bobrayner (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

DANFS links are probably all dead now

Looks like the NHC changed all the DANFS links recently. Lots of dead links out there. Can someone program a bot to crawl through and fix them? It looks like it might be too much for a bot to handle though, http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/l33/lynde_mccormick.htm is now http://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/l/lynde-mccormick.html --Dual Freq (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Give it some time. The internal NHHC links are themselves broken. A real, and very irritating problem even within agencies and military commands is the wandering hyperlink due to reorganizations or some new policy. Imagine if Amazon or Sears or Macy's got a new manager or server and all their on line shopping and business links got scrambled. Unfortunately this is an area government is way behind business. I suspect it will take a day or few days to resolve that internal Navy chaos and it is far to early to develop a bot when we've no idea of what that resolution might be. Palmeira (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Presumably, NHHC knows that there are many thousands of incoming links to DANFS so one might hope that they will map old-style links to the new style links so that we don't need to do anything. If they don't, ...

Could be tough. There are two changes that I've seen. The first is the path name between the tld and the filename and the second is the filename:

http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/e4/enterprise-vii.htm

http://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/e/enterprise-cv-6-vii.html

The path name change is a simple replacement. So too, file names are simple replacements (underscore separator replaced with a hyphen) except when there are multiple ships having the same name.

Where there are multiple ships of the same name, it appears that DANFS now includes a disambiguator in addition to the lowercase roman numeral disambiguators of the past. Commonly, the disambiguator is the ship's hull number. That hull number will have to come from somewhere. For most ships of this kind, the article name will likely have the correct hull number so a script to do this might be able to disassemble {{PAGENAME}} to get the hull number. Of course there is no guarantee that hull numbers used in Wikipedia article page titles will match the hull number used in DANFS article titles. It is may be possible that the Wikipedia article title won't have a hull number though I think this unlikely since it will serve as a useful disambiguator.

DANFS disambiguation can also use ship-type:

http://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/e/enterprise-sloop-i.html

I don't have an automated solution for that because we disambiguate by year.

An insource search shows that there are 8920 uses of http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs. There are 9150 transclusions of {{DANFS}}, and 454 transclusions of {{cite DANFS}}.

Are there other changes that I haven't seen?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It is worse than just DANFS. Every link I have checked from FAQ, items such as Glossary of U.S. Naval Code Words (NAVEXOS P-474) (now here), and photo collections is obsolete. This happened to a lesser extent when old NHC lost control of its web pages to some new "computer command" and was never sorted. Even worse, some articles and items were permanently "lost" in the general reorganization of that old site. I suspect we will just have to search the site to relocate such references even if they do map DANFS—something I expect is a long shot hope. From experience I can say there is no requirement in agencies to maintain orderly public links or even a high priority to even have those public links. They are largely driven by PR and no "revenue stream" is involved so . . . Palmeira (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not optimistic. The last time the Royal Australian Navy overhauled their website and broke all the incoming links, they basically said "stuff it, too hard" to remapping or redirecting old links (although to their credit, this is the most well-explained 404 error page I have ever seen). Remapping for the NHHC would be orders of magnitude more labour-intensive than for the RAN. -- saberwyn 19:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

They seem to be present on the [archive.org Wayback Machine] (eg https://web.archive.org/web/20120205180050/http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/l33/lynde_mccormick.htm) . Would a bot be able to auto-add archive-url links?GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I was probing earlier today, looking for specific documents that had been on the site in both .pdf and .html form, facsimile pages of actual directives, historical documents and so on. Many, if not most, of my bookmarked documents fail to show up in site searches or the "hits" are irrelevant to the document itself. At least three major WW II era reports that were on the site in full seem to have vanished. Those were source documents, not modern fluff pieces summarizing an event. Unless corrected NHHC has blown off its foot. They look poor indeed when compared to the Army's Center of Military History with its "Bookshelves" with very professional, not "pop," resource pages! Then Army had historians write public domain official histories instead of the single author and long copyrighted series for Navy. It is the reproduced, contemporary source documents that seem to have vanished or been lost in the clutter of the "New Coke" of the USN. I hope sanity prevails, but expect not. Palmeira (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Examples: The Java Sea Campaign once at http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/javasea_campaign.htm and The Aleutians Campaign June 1942 - August 1943 at http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/aleutians_campaign.htm and neither showing up in searches of any sort. The "NHHC Library Online Reading Room" is sort of there, but like the Library of Alexandria after the great fire. Palmeira (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The Aleutians Campaign June 1942 - August 1943 is available here. Can't find The Java Sea Campaign. —Diiscool (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The Java Sea Campaign at HyperWar. Palmeira (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all. I kind of figured we were in trouble on this since the urls are too different to change with a bot. I'll try not to be jumpy on the rollback button when I see people start spamming deadlink templates all over the place. --Dual Freq (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I have created an AWB script that I thought would do the right thing for those cases where multiple ships share a name. The script works except when it doesn't. I had thought that the new format was <name>-<hull number>-<roman numeral>. I chose USS Missouri (BB-63) for my initial testing. The script converted this:

http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/m12/missouri-iii.htm

to this:

http://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/m/missouri-bb-63-iii.html

but, that doesn't work because the real url for that DANFS page is:

http://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/m/missouri-iii.html

For whatever reason, ships named Missouri don't use the hull number disambiguation convention. I presume that this isn't an isolated case so I'm not sure that a bot can do what needs to be done. And to do it manually will be a massive headache.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed - this is probably going to have to be done manually, and it's going to be a huge pain. I have two thoughts that might make it a little easier:

Can we get a bot to assemble a work list of the affected articles?

Since these will all be warships, we might want to reach out to WP:MILHIST - maybe we can put together some kind of contest to fix the links - shinies usually attract volunteers ;) Parsecboy (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice NHHC cannot even distinguish between the ships on its index page? Go look for a particular Wasp (can't link, so far no url for the specific page, start on page 14 of the "wa-wd" grouping) Searches appear to be a matter of picking a range, then flicking through pages to find the name! There is no concise list I've found so far. Searching is a pain! I suspect this is a contractor developed "new site" that is a pretty miserable replacement for what was a fairly professional and easily browsed site for Navy history. Palmeira (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

These links will find most instances of the broken urls:

Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:DANFS – {{DANFS}} templates don't require a url so there will be instances where there is nothing to fix

Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:cite DANFS

insource: search results – should find all of the above plus generic external wikilinks

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that should work just fine then. I've posted at the MILHIST coordinators page here - hopefully we can get something going shortly. It occurs to me that perhaps the place we should start first is the current TFA, which I know has several DANFS links that will need to be fixed. I don't have the time to do them right now - perhaps someone else can take care of them? Parsecboy (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, searching the new site is a pain, and worse, at least some of the DANFS entries appear to be missing.

However, the new site is not all bad news. Though there are only a handful of photos made available so far, many of them are HUGE - I am talking 20 Mb tiffs! The photos page says they are in the process of digitizing 150,000 images, which they hope to have completed by summer. If they are all digitized to the new size, they are going to be a fantastic resource for Wikipedia. It sounds as if the new website is going to take them quite a while to get fully functional though, so I guess we will just have to exercise patience and see how things turn out. Gatoclass (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Help needed with broken infobox

I can't fix the broken infobox at HMS Phoenix (1832). It's not the usual culprits, and I suspect it may be to do with changes to the templates. Clearly the double use of {{infobox ship characteristics}} used to work, and now it doesn't. I tried Firefox and Chrome - doesn't seem browser related. Any ideas? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Happens with IE as well. I tried doubling the Ship characteristics section with HMS Erebus (1826) and it worked ok - so it's not double doesn't work in general. I tried REM-ing out (< ! - - etc) every line in the second characteristics box, and it still displayed wrong. I removed the second characteristics from Phoenix and doubled the first one (which does display correctly, and that displayed wrong so it's probably some quirk of that particular infobox - an interaction with something else in it? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

It has something to do with the unordered lists. Changing them to {{plainlist}} seems to have fixed the problem. I'm on wikibreak right now so don't have time to noodle-out why unordered lists, which used to work, don't.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I wonder which other ship articles are affected? Is there any way of finding out? Shem (talk) 08:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Broken template

I've been expanding the {{Surviving ocean going ships}} to include vessels built before 1965 (was 1960). All was going well until I added the 1964 ships. Can't work out what is wrong, and am in need of a kip (medication). I'll revert back to the last good version, but would appreciate someone fixing whatever is wrong. Mjroots (talk) 14:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to Nigel Ish for the fix. Mjroots (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes: US changes

This seems to be badly broken with the lead statement at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Articles US "This page contains a list of all articles in Category:Ships of the United States and its subcategories" meaningless. The concentration on USS articles apparently is the result of originating only in the listed articles on that page. Any fix? It would be handy as a quick check to see if any articles associated with one under development or major editing are also being actively worked. It is so limited now as to be not particularly useful for that. Palmeira (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment of Texan schooner Invincible

Texan schooner Invincible, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Our Favorite Ships Vandal is Back

Extra eyes would be appreciated on the latest IP address of our favorite prolific vandal. I am pretty sure their previous IPs are all blocked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked and reverted. Parsecboy (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Lots of Ship Photos & More

Of possible interest to other editors on this project, especially those with an interest in ocean liners, is The Scientific American Handbook of Travel from 1910. The link is to the PDF of a book which contains tons of photographs of ships, both interior and exterior that I have never seen before. Unfortunately I have no idea how to copy images from a PDF. But if anyone does, I believe the images are in the public domain. Beyond which the book is an absolute treasure trove of material about pre-war (the first one) travel with a heavy emphasis on ships of the period. Honestly, I would even recommend taking a look purely for the entertainment value. In any event I thought I would pass it along for those looking for period source material or photos. Regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Rio Damuhi

Hey I created this article on the Rio Damuji-class Frigate of Cuba a while back and am unsure of how to add it to ships project (or the Cuba project, really). I don't really know what to do so please help ^-^ Lollipoplollipoplollipop (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I've added the templates to the talk page, along with some minor tweaks for the article itself. Parsecboy (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Lollipoplollipoplollipop (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Help with some ship articles

Hello;

I've recently gotten involved with Wikipedia:WikiProject Haiti, working on articles about Haitian history. I started with Hammerton Killick, who was the admiral of the Haitian Navy in the late 1800s up to 1902. Needless to say when writing an article about an Admiral, there are a lot of ships that could use articles as well. Unfortunately I know virtually nothing about ships or how to find technical information about them (to fill in info boxes). I've written one article on the Crête-à-Pierrot, and would like to write more (see red-links in Hammerton Killick), but I was wondering if I could get some help from this project on finding sources. Thank you. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

For technical information on warships, the best place to start is Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships - Crête-à-Pierrot will be in the 1860-1905 edition (which is, unfortunately, not viewable in Google books - but if you like, I can send you a scan of the relevant pages). You can also sometimes have luck trawling through Google Books for old naval journals - sometimes they'll have details on speed trials that Conway's won't have, and so forth. Parsecboy (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I've added Crête-à-Pierrot to the List of shipwrecks in 1902, where I've described her as a gunboat. Not 100% sure if that is correct, so feel free to amend. Mjroots (talk) 09:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The it:wiki article states she was built by Earle's, Hull. I've found a RS for her being built in Hull, but no builder is mentioned. Mjroots (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Added cite for Earle's, designer and other bits and pieces. Davidships (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

HMS Douglas

Can someone move HMS Douglas (D90) to HMS Douglas (the latter is currently a redirect to Admiralty type flotilla leader) as there appears to only ever have been one HMS Douglas?Nigel Ish (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. Parsecboy (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

New article on a class of Algerian corvettes

Someone has created Djebel Chenoua Class corvette; I have interwiki'd it to the corresponding articles in French and Arabic. The lead is in English, the rest needs translation; the French article has an infobox and a list of the three vessels in the class that should be added here. Probably a quick job for a member of this project, but I would get all knotted up in the infobox. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I've done a bit of cleanup on the article, but it looks like the French text has been removed. Parsecboy (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It's completely unreferenced.

Mjroots (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Jane's Fighting Ships 2002–2003 and Combat Fleets 1998–1999 refers to what appears to be the same class as the Djebel Chinoise class. Is there any reliable sources for the different name?Nigel Ish (talk) 10:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The 1998 edition The Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets of the World seems to confirm the name Djebel Chenoua (or at least as far as I can tell from the snippet available), as does the 2010 Janes - I'd wager the 2002-3 version was confused. And this Moroccan news site mentions the name Djebel Chenoua. Parsecboy (talk) 10:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The 1998 Combat Fleets has Djebel Chinoise as the lead ship of the C-58 design (Pennant number 351) and Djebel Chenoua as the second ship (Pennant 352), while 2002-2003 Jane's has 351 as Djebel Chinoise, 352 as El Chihab and 353 not yet named. There certainly seems to be a large number of google search results for "Djebel Chinoise" [2] so Djebel Chinoise should probably at least be mentioned in the article. What isn't clear is whether these are two different transcriptions of the same Arabic name.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Melbourne–Evans collision

Is there anything in the MOS about abridging ship names within articles? For example, USS Frank E. Evans (DD-754) is abridged to Evans in the Melbourne–Evans collision article, even the title. It seems like it would be necessary to use the ship's full name (at least in the title) to be proper / respectful. Additionally, there were several USS Evans including USS Evans (DE-1023) which was apparently in service in the late 1960s era. Truncating the ship name in that article seems wrong (borderline offensive) to me, but perhaps I'm overreacting. --Dual Freq (talk) 03:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Using ship names in articles?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

All of the sources in my possession I've checked (plus a few of the online ones cited in the article) use the shortened form when referring specifically to the event itself ("Melbourne-Evans collision" or "Evans collision"), and use the shortened form after the first occurrence when referring to the ship ("USS Frank E. Evans" at first occurrence, "Evans" thereafter). See for example the title of the book In The Wake: The true story of the Melbourne-Evans Collision, Conspiracy and Cover-up by Jo Stevenson, and the Vietnam Veterans of America Veteran Magazine article A Forgotten Tragedy: Death on the Evans. However, all of my dead-tree sources are Australian. -- saberwyn 08:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

That is also common in U.S.N. sources. Often, after a full name introduction, only the last name of ships named for persons is used. One I happen to have on my desktop now is the ONI Combat Narrative The Java Sea Campaign (one of the NHHC "Disappeared"). After an introduction, "The John D. Ford, with Comdr. Talbot aboard, was in the lead, followed by Pope, Parrott, and Paul Jones, in that order" we have mention after mention of "Someone on the Ford counted nine ships 5,000-6,000 yards distant," "A minute or two after sighting these vessels, the Ford, still leading the column northward," "The Ford fired a torpedo" and "Ford sighted a large ship to starboard and fired three torpedoes, apparently without success" with no further mention in the document of the full name. As an aside I have to mention that Wikipedia often appears to violates the standards within the professional and official document world. Notice the Navy there would get some here into a snit with two. First using just Ford and then "The Ford" would draw "corrections." Palmeira (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

My preference is to consistently refer to the ships as USS Frank E. Evans and HMAS Melbourne. This is a practice that is widespread on Wikipedia, but not universal. Mjroots (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC) Comment amended from USS Evans to USS Frank E. Evans. Mjroots (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Now I have to explain "Mine as well" below no longer applies. I go with the short version of long personal names after the introduction of the full name and again again if and where necessary to avoid confusion. Note "personal names" and not some idiocy such as Sea for Coral Sea where it is definitely a compound name. Palmeira (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Mine as well, provided there is no chance of confusion within the framework of what is being covered and the full name is used in key places where that initial identification is needed. In the short, single ship articles here I do not think that is a problem. In some of the military history and naval engagement articles one might occasionally run into a case where ship identification could become confused, but I think even that generally unlikely—except perhaps in the Star Trek universe, that bane of USS ship web searches for real ships, where there may be a USS Ford (FFG-54), USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) and the old four stacker USS John D. Ford (DD-228) pseudo namesakes plying the universe. Back in my seagoing life nobody ever spelled out the full names for the ten or so ships I dealt with that had full personal names each time they appeared in a report or any other document. Even my orders just had that "last" name. Palmeira (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I recall there being a note in the USS Richmond K. Turner (CG-20) article about the confusion between that ship and USS Turner (DD-834), parts going to the wrong ships, messages being incorrectly routed to the wrong ship, etc. Compounding the problem was that both were in the Atlantic Fleet. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Messages? Official shipments? Possible, but unlikely as routing headers were more complex than just ship names in my experience and pros know when to be precisely specific, even to using hull number. Mail and packages? Quite possible, particularly from civilian writers just addressing their loved one or friend "Joe Seaman, USS Turner though FPO sure managed to find me on occasion with some wildly misspelled ship names! Think on the line of "Tluker" scale—I still have that envelope as an amazing head shaker. Palmeira (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Apparently not all that unlikely since it says it right in a book by VADM George Dyer, Page 1177 of The Amphibians Came to Conquer shows two of the complaints from CO USS Turner and CO USS Richmond K. Turner complaining of "19 messages" misrouted in just 2 weeks and "Incorrect addressing of mail by supply activities forwarding critical spares". --Dual Freq (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

There was one hell of a lot of confusion then. That is how arctic gear ended up in some South Pacific areas and the reverse. It was lessons then that led to better routing specifics in messages and in marking of shipments. Palmeira (talk) 23:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I recognize the annoyance of having to spell out or read Frank E. Evans each instance in that article where it currently says Evans so I can see the value in just saying Evans in the article body. However, based on the naming convention listed above, and the fact that there was a USS Evans in commission, but not involved with the collision, I would think at a minimum the article name should be changed from Melbourne–Evans collision to Melbourne–Frank E. Evans collision. Before I post to the article talk page over there, are there any WP:Ships folks that feel strongly that the title should remain Melbourne–Evans collision? --Dual Freq (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

For readability and flow, after an initial full naming, I much prefer (as I think do naval writers) just the last name. The article in question does that. As for the title I think there is a stronger argument as it might help in searches and pins things down solidly at the start and would show in a list of hits fully defined. I might do in the title as seen here (if you are editing the article you might find something in that report) with both ships fully designated as searches should then pick up all or pieces. Supporting the internal usage, you might note the actual document uses just Evans in the body after naming the ships at the start. That is standard as I knew it. Palmeira (talk) 22:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Concur with Palmeira. Cuprum17 (talk) 23:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I can see the rationale on usage of just Evans within the article after the first correct usage in the article lead. I do think it's necessary and appropriate to use the full name in the article title. Are we saying the current title Melbourne–Evans collision is fine? Would the title listed on the jag-man site (Collision of USS Frank E. Evans and HMAS Melbourne or ship names swapped) would be better than my earlier suggestion of Melbourne–Frank E. Evans collision? --Dual Freq (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The article is named correctly; this is how the collision is referred to widely. Furthermore, you suggestion is like renaming the article David Cameron as Prime Minister David William Donald Cameron on the ground that it's his full title and name. If you want to make Melbourne–Frank E. Evans collision and Collision of USS Frank E. Evans and HMAS Melbourne redirects to Melbourne–Evans collision, rock on. Stop trying to fix something that isn't broken. Shem (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, I believe it is broken as the title doesn't properly disambiguate to the correct ship and appears to conflict with the WP:ships naming MOS linked above. I really see no reason to exclude 6 letters from a title, especially when the ship's name was not USS Evans and there was a different USS Evans destroyer in commission in that era. As to the David Cameron comparison, I think it would be valid if his article name was simply Cameron. I only added the longer name because it sounded like that was suggested above by the jag.navy.mil link. I really think Melbourne–Frank E. Evans collision would be the best option here to properly disambiguate it right from the start. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The arguments against using the full names of vessels are a red herring. It's a simple matter to use C&P when writing articles. Mjroots (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Readily at hand in a desk drawer is a Chief of Naval Operations advisory on writing, an attempt to reduce gobbdlygook, that starts with "the longer you take to say things, the the more you blur your ideas." Following is advice to imagine you are speaking. Repeated usage of Frank E. Evans every time the ship is mentioned within the same context is not something I think we'd do in a conversation about that ship. I think it clutters a written piece for the reader. It becomes like another CNO "avoid"—the "hut, 2, 3, 4" style. I fail more often than not, but try to think of the reader. If the ship is mentioned by name ten times on a page, seeing Frank E. Evans each time is to me reader unfriendly—even if it is very easy for me to C&P. Palmeira (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me to be an American (and apparently Australian) tradition - German cruiser Prinz Eugen and German cruiser Admiral Hipper are never simply "Eugen" or "Hipper" in German works, at least as far as I've seen. You also never see HMS Iron Duke or HMS Emperor of India referred to with shortened names.

As for the David Cameron comparison above, it would be like renaming Premiership of David Cameron as Premiership of Cameron because it's common to refer to the man by his last name. Parsecboy (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

In my experience this American/Australian "tradition" (and I think I've seen others do it in official correspondence as well) applies only to long personal names, never compound names, in written usage so they'd have no more used Eugen for Prinz Eugen than Sea for Coral Sea. Palmeira (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary - American works on the German Navy frequently refer to the ships as Eugen and especially Hipper (or Graf Spee and Scheer). It's not confined to long personal names. Parsecboy (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Our own article on the Battle of the Barents Sea refers to Admiral Hipper if you don't believe me. In the realm of full personal names, I've never seen any of the German destroyers that received them shortened to just the last name, except in English sources. Parsecboy (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

How many collisions involving ships named Evans and Melbourne have there been? Only one. There is therefore no confusion about which Evans is referred to in the article title. The body of the article quite correctly gives the full name of each ship at the first mention. Beyond that the shorter versions of the names are quite adequate in accordance with the customary style for maritime writing and to make the article more readable. - Nick Thorne ^talk 05:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It may not be confusing to us, but it has been confusing to others, even people who were in the Navy that should have known better. For example, the USS Evans (DE-1023) article was created in 2005 by someone who mistakenly thought it was USS Frank E. Evans. He even claimed to have been a witness after the fact to the damage. So yes, there has been confusion between two destroyers one named Evans and the other named Frank E. Evans. --22:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, given that the editor in question claimed also that he served on the USS Ticonderoga in an ASW squadron flying the S-3 (Lockheed Viking) during 1969-1970 and also given that the Viking did not enter service until 1974, after Ticonderoga decommissioned, I would suggest that this person was basically completely confused. It does not make sense to base any argument on the confusuion of an editor who clearly does not know what he's writing about at any level. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

That editor might well have been confused - but do you honestly expect the vast majority of Wikipedia readers to have much knowledge of nautical naming traditions? The average reader won't know a destroyer escort from a dreadnought, let alone Evans from Frank E. Evans. Parsecboy (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Not at all, however, there has only ever been one collision between ships named Melbourne and Evans, thus the title of the article is entirely appropriate and unambiguous. As for the contents of the article, the ships' full names are given at the first mention, so there should be no confusion there, especially since at no time within the article does any other ship named either Melbourne or Evans get a guernsey. Repeating the full names at every mention of either ship would make the article clunky and harder to read. In no way would it be an improvement. - Nick Thorne ^talk 06:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if it is not clear, but I'm not basing my argument on one confused editor. It is based on the linked WP:Ships naming MOS and the fact that the ship was not actually named USS Evans and that there was a destroyer named Evans in commission and uninvolved except with a similar name. I was merely providing you one real example that resulted in the creation of the wrong article. I'm fairly certain it is not the only instance where it was misunderstood. We're not a newspaper or a book that has a limited amount of space in the title forcing us to trim it to X number of characters so it fits right or so that it does not match the title of some other book. It hurts no one to add 6 letters to that title and removes the ambiguity in the name. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

But we're not calling the ship USS Evans, we're calling it Evans. Not the same thing at all. Furthermore, that is after first establishing that we are actually talking about USS Frank E Evans when we first mention that ship in the article. Also, as mentioned above, at no point does this article mention any other Evans, and the context is entirely and only about the collision with Melbourne so there is no ambiguity. I don't care about the number of characters, that is a straw man argument. What I am talking about is readability and the flow of the prose. Using the full ship name after the first occasion (for both Melbourne and Evans) interrupts the flow of the text and becomes intrusive. We should strive for excellent prose in all our articles and sacrificing readability on the altar of "official" names, so long as the meaning is clear as is the case here, is stupid and does our readers a disservice. - Nick Thorne ^talk 07:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I already conceded that point (as to readability within the text of the article) several days ago. I'm talking about the article title, which should list the full ship name. That is why I mentioned the number of letters involved. No prose readability would be sacrificed in this change. In retrospect I should have just moved it to Melbourne–Frank E. Evans collision and been done with it. My final point is that I found a USS Frank E. Evans Association Q3 2012 newsletter while researching the USS Evans (DE-1023) article. It basically requests people call USS Frank E. Evans by the ship's commissioned name. That's the opinion of their association's historian anyway. (I have no affiliation with them or the ship.) --Dual Freq (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Navsource template fix

Yesterday's cleanup of Wauwatosa (YTB-775) brought to light a bug in {{navsource}}. The template was changed from this:

{{navsource|14/09775|USS Wauwatosa (YTB-775)}}

→Photo gallery of USS Wauwatosa (YTB-775) at NavSource Naval History

to this:

{{navsource|14/09775|''Wauwatosa'' (YTB-775)}}

→Photo gallery of 'Wauwatosa' (YTB-775) at NavSource Naval History

I think that I have fixed the template in its sandbox so that now all of the various forms of ship names are supported:

Photo gallery of USS Wauwatosa (YTB-775) at NavSource Naval History – prefix, name, hull number

Photo gallery of USS Wauwatosa at NavSource Naval History – prefix, name

Photo gallery of Wauwatosa (YTB-775) at NavSource Naval History – name, hull number

Photo gallery of Wauwatosa at NavSource Naval History no nationality or prefix; – name

Photo gallery of WikiProject Ships/Archive 43 at NavSource Naval History no nationality or prefix; – name taken from page title

Have I missed anything?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, while you're here, would you please have a look at the section directly above? (titled "question"). Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 13:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

There being no comment, I have updated the live template

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Ship templates

Split from WT:SHIPS#Navsource template fix because different subject

A template works for the non commissioned ships too, but contains more keystrokes than just doing [[[]] as far as I can tell. Any ideas? Perhaps {{nc|NAME|hull#| could be an always invisible "prefix"? Palmeira (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

What? I think I don't understand what you're saying. ~~This:~~

~~{{navsource/sandbox|14/09775|USS Wauwatosa (YTB-775)}}~~

~~uses less keystrokes than this:~~

~~[http://www.navsource.org/archives/14/09775.htm Photo gallery] of USS ''Wauwatosa'' (YTB-775) at NavSource Naval History~~

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

struck out because confused.—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The ship templates. For example, the template {{ship||Norma|AK-86|3}} for Norma (AK-86) requires extra typing and is a bit more complex than the double bracket link [[Norma (AK-86)|''Norma'' (AK-86)]] using a cut and paste. My question is whether the prefix of USS, USAT, SS, etc., could be "nc" for not commissioned that would default to an invisible prefix? Thus the template {{nc|NAME|HULL#|#}} could be used for shortcut formatting. Such a construct, {{nc|Norma|AK-86|6}} now gives

No comment Norma. I have not tried other "non commissioned" place holder possibilities. And let us not forget, "NC" there could put us into Star Trek stuff! Palmeira (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried "ex" instead? (it's kinda fitting...) - ^theWOLFchild 23:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

We could create a template {{SNNP}} (ship name no prefix) or even {{NP}} (no prefix). If, before we do that, we count keystrokes:

{{ship||Norma|AK-86|3}} – 23

{{SNNP|Norma|AK-86|3}} – 22

{{NP|Norma|AK-86|3}} – 20

[[Norma (AK-86)|''Norma'' (AK-86)]] – 35

Doesn't seem like much of a win to me. Even more so because, for this example, the display control parameter isn't required:

{{ship||Norma|AK-86}} – 21

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree, not much saving. I'll admit it took a bit of template instruction reading to get to {{ship||Norma|AK-86|3}} with that ship|| usage after becoming very used to {{prefix| use. Palmeira (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The format of the template is {{ship|prefix|name|disambiguator|display code}} If there's no prefix, leave blank, just the same as if there's no disambiguator. Mjroots (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Ship template fix

I noticed that when {{ship}} is used in a sentence and when article to be linked does not begin with a prefix of some sort then the template inserts an extra space:

Harbor tugs {{ship||Piqua|YTB-793}}, at left, and ''Natick'' ...

Harbor tugs Piqua (YTB-793), at left, and Natick ...

Looking at the output of the template shows why:

[[Piqua (YTB-793)|''Piqua'' (YTB-793)]]

I have fixed this is the template's sandbox:

Harbor tugs Piqua (YTB-793), at left, and Natick ...

[[Piqua (YTB-793)|''Piqua'' (YTB-793)]]

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

There being no comment, I have updated the live template

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Carter Safari 28

Please could someone replace the bespoke infobox on Carter Safari 28 with something more standard? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

{{infobox ship begin}} - Commercial vessel classes is the one you want. Mjroots (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that infobox suits a small boat very well... Tupsumato (talk) 09:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)