Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 50

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52→Archive 55

UK Border Force coastal patrol vessels

Good day.

I have created articles for the 20-metre UK Border Force coastal patrol vessels and I have a few questions. The articles are as follows:

Firstly, I hope these articles are acceptable with respect to quality and accuracy. Whilst I've been a Wikipedia member for a while, I'm not that experienced with creating new articles like this and am trying to become more involved. I have updated the main UK Border Force page and also the page template to incorporate the new boats and improve the way it is laid out.

Secondly, would it be more appropriate to have one article covering the class of boat, or multiple articles as above for each vessel, or both? The scarcity of data and news reporting makes the boat articles all virtually identical. Should I merge them all into an article titled "UKBF 20m coastal patrol vessel" (similar to the article UKBF 42m Customs Cutter) for example? Your thoughts on this would be gratefully received.

Thank you. Xtrememachineuk (talk) 05:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Considering the points above and the fact that these are quite small vessels, I'd say a singla class article would be better than individual articles. Tupsumato (talk) 10:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
A class article is needed, but the three linked vessels appear to meet WP:GNG. For vessels that don't have enough info to create an article, a redirect to the class article will suffice.
Thanks for the feedback; I have actually submitted a Freedom of Information Request to the Home Office for further information regarding the class. Once it has been answered, I will create the article for the class of boats in their entirety. Xtrememachineuk (talk) 02:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Update: I was actually thinking, these ships were previously built as the Autonomous Rescue and Recovery Craft (ARRC) for BP and registered in the Cayman Islands. Out of a total of eight ships built in 2004, only four were transferred to the Border Force and reflagged to the blue ensign. Given that these ships were originally built for BP, should the ship class article be titled "BP Autonomous Rescue and Recovery Craft", or such like, and have a section noting their transfer to the UK Border Force? Xtrememachineuk (talk) 05:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
They appear to be a 19m RIB from Delta (http://www.deltapower.co.uk/). "Autonomous Rescue and Recovery Craft" is more a descriptive term for all its capitalization. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Stripping pennant numbers?

Lots of edits recently like this, renaming Error: {{USS}} invalid control parameter: 0 (help) to USS Bullhead, on the grounds that "only ship of this name". @Illegitimate Barrister:

Is this now policy? Can anyone point to the decision?

I don't see this as a good change. It loses useful information, particularly for non-capital ships where the class is itself informative. Also the presentation in categories now makes it impossible to find a ship by pennant, which for smaller ships like destroyers can often be the most obvious aspect. There's also a loss of consistency, and whilst we all too often impose a pointless consistency when it isn't needed (MediaWiki doesn't care), this seems to be a consistency with more in favour of it than against.

Thoughts? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Would not this information be in the body of the article? Surely the title is just an aid to searching, and thus the pennant number is not that important if only one ship has that name? I suspect more people would know the name of a ship then it's pennant number.Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
That would depend on the ship. If you're sorting piles of destroyer photos, often the pennant is visible on the hull but you've no idea of the name.
There are all sorts of justifications possible for why the world won't end if we delete this. But I haven't seen a single argument as to why it's an improvement. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
WP:NCSHIPS specifically note 1.
No doubt that if you want to discover the why of that, WT:NCSHIPS and WT:SHIPS archives are good places to start.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Good lord, how many times do we need to discuss this? WP:PRECISE, which is policy, states that disambiguation should only be used when there are multiple, competing articles for the same title. Moreover, it's been part of our naming conventions since forever. Moving right along... Parsecboy (talk) 11:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
USS Olive (oyler) and USS Olive (liberty boat) would be disambiguation.
But USS Olive (PE-1) is part of the formal naming, as much (if not more so) than the given name. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, and I would like to see this policy changed, but I suspect it would be a major struggle. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Andy, pennant numbers are not part of a ship's name. They are frequently changed, and in many navies, reused from ship to ship. Parsecboy (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Making almost the exact same opening post almost an exact year later when the answer has been provided to you could be seen as tendentious. --Izno (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I oppose stripping pennant numbers from ship names, as they are effectively part of the name of the ship, and not merely a disambiguator. bd2412 T 14:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
    Start an RFC to change the guidelines then. --Izno (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
    How many times do I (and others) need to say this: pennant/hull numbers are not part of a ship's name. Their use is entirely to disambiguate vessels with the same name. Why people feel the need to recycle this discussion perennially is beyond me. Oh, and why we're !voting on this here is equally inexplicable. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS here does not trump WP:AT, which is long-standing policy. Parsecboy (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
While I totally agree that the hull numbers need to stay you're beating a dead horse. But there needs to be a Redirect with the hull number so that people can still find a ship if all they have is a hull number. Pennsy22 (talk) 04:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll repeat what I said when this was raised last year (... by the same OP). "I'm personally in favor of going farther and renaming everything as <country demonym> <ship type> <name> <(launch year if needed)> so we have one nice consistent style that anyone can understand, but at minimum we don't need unnecessary disambiguators in article titles." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The drama continues

Here are three more moved in the last 24 hours:

Soon enough we will spend all our time reverting and moving. Brad (talk) 05:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I've fixed those three and left a message for the mover. Thanks Brad. Parsecboy (talk) 09:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Notability GNG question?

Where do we draw the line? I am looking at Thames barges. The inclusionist in me says that if she is still sailing or if we have a photo of her in Commons, then she passes GNG and is entitled to an article- however they may be other POVs. Do we have guidance? --ClemRutter (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Did you read the WP:GNG? What further guidance do you believe necessary? --Izno (talk) 12:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
That comment really is not helpful. I take it you are saying no.
  • Lets look at GPG- think from the point of view of a newbie who I cajoled to write something for WP, as I hope to fo 16th September. GPG says: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
Trading boats- have significant paper trails (customs dues etc) and shipping reports in reputable local papers which in London's case became national papers- extant pretty ones are easy pickings for cub reporters doing a heritage column.[see All boats pass that test- but where do we draw the WP limits- do you have any further guidance on that. It seems very wide. Have we further guidance a newbie can understand when I explain it to him.
it is presumed - is the sticking point, GNG just isn't clear- it is not telling my newbie- yes, if you write the article on SB Whatever it will be accepted. For schools, it is simple: Secondary Schools will be accepted- primary schools are rarely accepted, they need to have another event to make them notable. They need guidance on presumption. Are all Thames barges notable from the moment they were launched or do they need to have done something else.
  • If you look at the navbox {{Thames barges}} I have prepared this class of ship, you will see we have 6 articles. I presume that they pass GNG. Most of the Image sections, contains images of boats that are on the National Historic Ships register, or take part in races- I presume they are notable. What about the Tollesbury that has no image but is often mentioned as having been present- I presume that material exists. The section on textual is more problematical- as I have obtained these names from references in notable texts- I presume if I can find 2 facts on each name they are notable enough to be retained- but this is where some advice is needed. The 1794 Admiralty purchase was for 11 barges we have article on two- but not the other 9. Looking at the articles it seems they were incidental to the trivial fact that one captain murdered the other. If I find the names of the other 9, I presume that they are notable as stubs- but advice sought.ClemRutter (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
The realist in me says that any extant Thames barge should be capable of sustaining a stand-alone article, but it is not guaranteed. What about a series of lists of Thames barges, split alphabetically, like the Empire ships? Mjroots (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I have already got the article, List of active Thames sailing barges and I dream of List of textile mills in Cheshire, and happily one of the reference I use has done something similar. Not, a problem, I am just trying to clarify the groups interpretation of WP:GNG. ClemRutter (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Project Scope states "Civilian ships that are under 100 ft (30 m) in length or under 100 tons in weight" so they meet the weight limit but not the length. Not sure this helps you make a decision though. Pennsy22 (talk) 08:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
My gut says "probably not". But the advice I'd give is to develop that list with the sources you have available (you could build it up to the level of these lists, for example), and if you get to the point where you have enough material that it doesn't easily fit in the list, then it's probably time for a spin-out article on the individual barge. That would save you the headache of creating the individual articles and then have someone come along and try to delete them. Parsecboy (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
+1 to Parsecboy. If it were me, I'd consider a separate article only when you have an uncommon amount of info on an individual barge. Otherwise, put it into a List of Thames sailing barges or the extant List of active Thames sailing barges. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
"civilian ships...under 100 tons in weight". Hmmm! That's not much help as I doubt anyone here knows what the weight of a Thames sailing barge might be - or indeed of the vast majority of all merchant ships. How that got into the central document of WikiProject Ships defeats me. Davidships (talk) 00:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Thames sailing barge says they averaged 120 tons.Pennsy22 (talk) 07:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
That refers to "size" not weight, so probably referring to tonnage, which is nothing whatsoever to do with weight.Davidships (talk) 08:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I changed "weight" to tonnage. Kablammo (talk) 10:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I was surprised at the 120- This list of barges with showing 45 tones to 150 shows the variation. The issue to me is not one of scope but whether each Thames Barge is presumed notable, and an article by a newbie will not get zapped, or tied up in an AFD debate. ClemRutter (talk) 09:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Plimsoll ship data (Lloyd's Registers) will have much useful info on any Thames Barge active in the period 1930-45. Mjroots (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
LR not usually including those under 100grt (ie most of them). The Mercantile Navy List up to 1940 will provide some limited data on all British vessels via the CLIP project
I would endorse the suggestions by Parsecboy and Ed17 to develop your project as an expanded and illustrated list, using your existing lists as starters (the simple table layout used at Great Western Railway ships is quite attractive and is suitable to add the images you have identified) - it will probably need dividing alphabetically before long, and it would be easy to see when any individual vessel gets substantial enough for its own article. But I have a sneaking suspicion that you want your intended project to consist of a number of separate new pages, one for each participant - and I share the fear that they could well attract proposals for deletion. Davidships (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Other lists you could look at include List of destroyers of India or List of Ohio-class submarines (both of which I realize should have been added to the FL section of WP:SHIPS ages ago. I don't think that's been maintained in quite some time. Parsecboy (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. @Davidships, Parsecboy, and Ed17: The advice is clear and sensible and it codifies the approach that I was about to use. (Please though don't personlise this project- as my project- this will be a possible offshoot of two days photography in September. I don't do WP:OWN! hence I asked the question first to gather some collective wisdom.) I foresee one of the owners or participants asking the question 'should I try to write an article of my boat'. I always say that, newbies should edit at least 10 other articles before they attempt one of their own- but we need to nurture enthusiasm not kill it. All the ships concerned in September.will have been taking part for years in the Thames and Medway barges races (after the America Cup- the world oldest sailing matches) so will, as participants have some claim to individual notability, that and the discussion we have had here will make it less likely they will be challenged at an AFD. Any further thoughts- advice- etc most welcome. ClemRutter (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@ClemRutter: - would it help if there was a generic skeleton article slanted towards Thames Barges that could be used as a template to work from. I could knock one up if needed. Mjroots (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots:. Excellent idea.--ClemRutter (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
@ClemRutter: - See User:Mjroots/Thames barge. I've added in lots of hidden notes for the benefit of new editors. As always, feel free to improve. The idea is that it is copied and pasted and then adapted into the new article. Mjroots (talk) 08:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Need help with editor who reverts and won't discuss

Articles involved are USS Constitution, USS Constellation. Editor is bound and determined to prove that the current USS Constellation (1854) is actually the 1797 ship. His comments are extremely biased. There is a post I made on the Constitution talk page which outlines my current restoration on the article. Currently I'm in no mood for diplomacy. Brad (talk) 10:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted him (twice) on USS Constellation and (once) on USS Constellation (1854) - the idea that the two ships are one in the same is completely nonsensical and based on a poor understanding of contemporary documents (that themselves don't reflect what actually happened). At this point, the likely next step is blocks/page protection. Parsecboy (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for running interference but he has already reverted you 6 minutes later. Brad (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw. At this point I'm too involved to hand out sanctions myself - any other admins want to take a look? Parsecboy (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Dispute resolution started. Brad (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Brad. Parsecboy (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
That got closed quickly, as I expected it would. Parsecboy (talk) 12:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm considering rolling back USS Constellation (1797) to approx April of this year. The damage caused since April far outweighs any good edits that were made. What do others think? Brad (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes. (I thought of doing that myself.) Kablammo (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Go for it. Parsecboy (talk) 09:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 Done Rolled back to February 2017. Brad (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

A little more history about this dispute. Over a month ago, I posted here in an attempt to bring Hans to discussion but he never responded. Hindsight shows me that I should have put a stop on his editing much earlier than I did but I despise editing drama. Brad (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Have found this - one wonders if it ought to be MfD'd on the basis of WP:FAKEARTICLE. Parsecboy (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I watched the article while he was building it. If you read it whole, you can see how strongly biased it is. No one was 'shamed' into accepting the different ship; they did so because Wegner was correct. As biased as the article is, I doubt anyone would approve it for mainspace. Brad (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I'll probably send it to MfD at some point, then.
On an unrelated note, I removed a spam link to his own site that Hans placed at German submarine U-35 (1936) - he has reverted me once and I expect another to be not long off. Additional eyes there would be helpful. Parsecboy (talk) 00:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Protected after the next insertion/removal. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
The article is in his user space; as long as it stays there, it's fine. No vendettas please. Brad (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Righting Great Wrongs

It looks to be a combination of original research and righting great wrongs. (Can a ship be defamed?) Here's the explanation from one book:

" . . .working under the subterfuge of 'repairs,' the Navy actually began building a new ship about 900 yards from where the original Constellation was being dismantled. Thus, unwittingly, the Navy itself would originate the arguments about the authenticity of the Constellation. To further compound the argument, some salvageable timbers from the original ship, particularly the ship’s knees, were used in constructing the new vessel.

Stephen R. Bockmiller, Lawrence J. Bopp, USS Constellation: An Illustrated History, p. 10. Charleston, S.C: Tempus Pub., ©2000. ISBN 0 7385 0582 X. It goes on to describe the differences in designs and dimensions. Other sources acknowledge that the second USS Constellation, built in 1854, contains portions of the original vessel, and and the old frigate was "dismantled in 1853 and her timbers auctioned off. At about the same time, the second Constellation was built in Gosport about 600 feet away. The second Constellation was designed by U.S. naval constructor John Lenthall as a completely new ship".

Kablammo (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I've been observing HansMair (talk · contribs) edits for quite some time now. He's citing to original documents, some of which he has scanned and uploaded to commons. OD's are frowned on here but even worse, the investigation done by Wegner in the late 1980s found that some of the documents used to support the 'original' ship claim were forgeries. The matter is very complicated; enough so that I think an article alone about the controversy could be written. Also, HM authored the article on Geoffrey M. Footner, author of USS Constellation: From Frigate to Sloop of War, the most recent book claiming the ship is the original. This is a healthy COI. He has also destroyed the USS Constellation (1797) article with bias but since that article isn't FA, I didn't get involved. Brad (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Footner is an amateur historian, I wouldn't put much weight behind anything he writes. Howard Chappelle, in The American Sailing Navy, states very clearly that,
"Unfortunately, some of the semi-official lists of American naval ships have listed [the original Constellation] as though she had, in fact, been preserved and altered. This has led to many believing the corvette, which is still in existence, to be the oldest ship in the Navy and to have had a continuous identity since 1797, This is as untrue as it would be to accept the "rebuilt" frigate Macedonian as the original prize, or the "rebuilt" sloop Cyane as another British-built ship...Therefore, accepting this completely altered ship as the original is as unreal as it would be to accept a cap-and-ball revolver as one of Washington's dueling pistols on the grounds that the gun contained a couple of screws salvaged from the original flintlock...the only reason her register was maintained, by means of an administrative fiction, was to enable the work to be done without the need of applying to Congress for authority and funds to build an entirely new ship."
Parsecboy (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

perhaps a relevant source

I'm not going to get in the middle of this. As I was tweaking the Fouled Anchors citation template, I stumbled upon this:

{{cite book |last=Lynaugh |first=K.M. |editor-last=Latorre |editor-first=Robert G. |article=Discussion of the Origins of the Frigate and the Sloop Constellation |title=Proceedings of the Twenty-Third American Towing Tank Conference |location=Washington DC |publisher=National Academy Press |date=1993 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hIsrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA355}}
Lynaugh, K.M. (1993). "Discussion of the Origins of the Frigate and the Sloop Constellation". In Latorre, Robert G. (ed.). Proceedings of the Twenty-Third American Towing Tank Conference. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

Perhaps it is of use.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that, as you might have noticed, I've started rewriting the section to undo Hans' POV-pushing and incorporate more authoritative sourcing. I'll incorporate that article as well (of course if anyone else wants to work on it too, you're more than welcome - it'd be a really nice side-effect if we could beat the article into FA status as a result of Hans' nonsense). Parsecboy (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Excellent source. Kablammo (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Naming Royal Navy ships

Some expert opinion would be very welcome. Can a sloop of war be called HMS, or should it be HM sloop? Specifically, the Bounty, of mutiny fame. I have seen it referred to as HMS and HM sloop. There are several articles on WP that all use HMS. The maritime museum in Greenwich uses HM Sloop, or just 'the Bounty'. see: http://www.rmg.co.uk/discover/explore/william-bligh. Thanks for any insight. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Bounty is the name; your question is about ship prefixes. (Another variation is HMAV Bounty). I am pinging Rif Winfield here. Kablammo (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Are these pages salvageable?

List of largest shipyards in history and Real Arsenal... I not only see no effort put into these, but I don't see them being able to be expanded. Should they be nominated for deletion? DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 19:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The Real Arsenal has at least one book on it (and that's just from the most cursory of google searches) so seems obviously notable. The list I'm less convinced about, since it seems unlikely that anything reliable has been written on it. Parsecboy (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
There is little doubt that the Real Arsenal (if that is the right title) is notable - although there is no ESP/WP article, the brief mention in an article on naval dockyards indicates a production 18 Ships of the Line, as well as the galleon Santísima Trinidad. In addition to the source already noted, there is likely further sourcing within the literature on the 18th century Spanish navy. But the existing two-sentences consist only of a vague claim of the shipyard's size (sourced, without specifics, to a book about a Cuban-born society hostess, the author's only book), and the unsourced claim that it built ships "like the Santísima Trinidad" (which may well not be true). It does not provide a useful starting-point if an article were to be written.
The List seems pointless - just a random collection of unconnected claims, with no expression of what "large" means and without any satisfactory sourcing. Apart from the Real Arsenal, the 1800s Kockums claim is unsourced (there is nothing at all on the 19th century yard in Kockums Shipyard and nothing to support the claim in the Swedish WP article), Harland & Wolff has a vague source for a vague claim, Hog Island, Philadelphia has a credible claim to have had the largest number of slipways in 1917, and Hyundai Heavy Industries's claim refers to the size of the company, not its various shipyards. Davidships (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Real Arsenal is Spanish. It translates to English as "Royal Arsenal". Mjroots (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Would somebody like to nominate the list for deletion? DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 19:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
@DarthBotto - not sure how to do that
@Mjroots - I knew that, but the point was rather whether the one at Havana was known as just that (Real Arsenal), bearing in mind there were Spanish naval arsenals also at Cartagena, Cadiz, el Ferrol, Mahón which were also referred to in the same way - so more likely would be something like "Real Arsenal de La Habana". Davidships (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move notification: "Brazilian coastal defense ship Deodoro" -> "Deodoro"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi. There's an ongoing requested move at Talk:Brazilian coastal defense ship Deodoro. Thank you. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

USS Brutus (disambiguation)

The existing article https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/USS_Brutus_(AC-15) refers to USS Brutus (AC-15), 1898-1922, a collier. There was another USS Brutus, a small storeship that carried some of the Army troops from New York to California in July 1846 as part of the California Campaign and the Pacific Coast Campaign. Some details at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Pacific_Squadron

Portuguese Navy ships

What is the correct form of article title for ships of the Portuguese Navy? Is it "NRP Foo" or "Portuguese (ship type) Foo"? Mjroots (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Navio da República Portuguesa might suggest the correct answer. Does it not depend on the 'when' of the ship>
—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
We appear to have some articles at NRP titles, and some at Portuguese (ship type) titles. I came across this problem via today's OTD section, which has NRP Afonso de Albuquerque and Portuguese destroyer Dão featured. Manxruler moved the latter from NRP Dão, but he's away from Wikipedia at the moment, so I can't discuss the matter directly with him. Mjroots (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Article that needs severe attention

Hi there. I'm not 100% certain if it's within the realms of this Wikiproject but I came across the Corvette Motoryacht article and it needs a lot of attention. A lot of attention. It's been written as a magazine article and is full of OR and encyclopaedic content with references like "from private communication with an owner" etc. I've taken a broad stab at it, and tagged it with a ridiculous amount of article maintenance templates due to the really poor nature of it, but it needs eyes of experienced editors in this area. If someone can take a look it would be appreciated. Canterbury Tail talk 21:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

That article is a horror show. Seems like DavidPaygate (talk · contribs) doesn't understand what WP is for. The majority of the article is unsourced, so it could be cut down to a paragraph or two. Brad (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I started working on the many typos and formatting problems but soon realized you're right, no sense fixing typos in material that shouldn't even be there. I cut some of the worst of it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the assist. I came across it on a random page jumping. Canterbury Tail talk 19:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
At this point he has exceeded the number of acceptable reverts and he's not discussing anything. I'd think it's time for the incident board or the 3RR board. I'm watching the article too. Brad (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

sclass and sclass2 templates and redirect categories

It has been my intent for quite a while to eventually deprecate {{sclass-}} and {{sclass2-}} because once all of the ship class articles that are not hyphenated get their hyphens (Example class scow → Example-class scow) we won't need four templates to do the work of two.

Now that it has been nearly five years since the introduction of these templates, I've tweaked {{sclass/core}} (the engine that renders the four templates) so that it categorizes articles when it finds {{sclass}} and {{sclass2}} templates that link to a redirect and where the redirect links to a properly hyphenated article title. For example, the article British Armed Forces uses {{sclass2|Bay|landing ship dock}} which links to Bay class landing ship dock, a redirect to Bay-class landing ship dock. The template detects this and adds British Armed Forces to Category:WPSHIPS: sclass2 redirect. Similarly, RMS Titanic uses {{sclass|Olympic|ocean liner}} → Olympic class ocean liner, a redirect → Olympic-class ocean liner and so adds RMS Titanic to Category:WPSHIPS: sclass redirect.

The template tweak and the categories are new so it will take a bit of time for them to populate.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Parlez-vous Français?

Is there an editor who is proficient in French and has access to an online archive of French newspapers from 1841? Have come across a Tuscan steamship sunk in that year with an interesting connection to a plunder case in the 2000s. Needs an article writing but I'll need help. Mjroots (talk) 07:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Scope discussion at FAC

Just to let anyone who's interested know, there's a discussion about the scope of ship articles at FAC going on now. Parsecboy (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment made there. WP:SHIPMOS for merchant vessels --ClemRutter (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Mass moves of Royal Navy articles

An editor is carrying out mass page moves of Royal Navy ship articles from using dates as disambiguation to pennant numbers as disambiguation - see [1]. Have I missed the consensus for these moves?Nigel Ish (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

My understanding was that year of launch should be used when there is no pennant/hull number, so I'd think moving from year to pennant would be in accordance with WP:NC-SHIPS. The editor has moved a couple of articles with no dab to include the hull numbers, which is in contravention of the naming conventions, but Llammakey has reverted those two I saw. Parsecboy (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Royal Navy Type 12 frigate numbering confusion

We currently have both the Rothesay-class frigate and the Leander-class frigate articles claiming the designation "Type 12M" and they can't both be right. There's further obscurity at the Type 12 frigate article. Any insights at Talk:Rothesay-class frigate#Admiralty Type numbering confusion will be gratefully received. Alansplodge (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Article under Prod

Star Osakana

There is an expired Prod on MV Star Osakana. Can someone check to see if this is worth saving before it gets the axe? -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem:, pity this wasn't notified earlier, before Fastily deleted it. The concern raised by the prodder Rhadow was "MV Star Osakana not found in marinetraffic.com. Osakana does, but it's a different size. Without references, there is no evidence of notability." However, an IMO Number of 9253870 was quoted in the infobox, which is plenty enough info to start searching for details about the vessel. Fastily, can we undelete this and work on it? Mjroots (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
See [2]. No real article, just a databox. (Prodder was wrong, by the way, as the Osakana found on MarineTraffic is the same ship - maybe doesn't understand ship tonnages and why there may be small variations over time).Davidships (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
There is a pretty strong community consensus that named large deep-water ocean going ships are notable. We would need reliable source evidence that the ship exists though. If that can be found then I'd support a WP:REFUND. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: is the evidence I posted at the top of this thread enough for you? Mjroots (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
The IMO appears to be attached to two ships with similar names. Are they the same vessel? What is the current name of the ship? Do we have enough for a stub? -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Ship names get changed all the time. The IMO stays the same, whatever the name. We could probably knock up a start class article without too much effort. Mjroots (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 Restored per REFUND. Courtesy ping Fastily. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Great, I'll work on it in the morning. Mjroots (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I've made a start, will do more after the Grand Prix, but other editors are free to improve the article in the meantime. Mjroots (talk) 06:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to the US Court's PACER system? The was a court case involving Star Osakana in 2010. Mjroots (talk) 10:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Could you ask an actual specific question? Anyone with a credit card can sign up and you get up to $15 worth of stuff for free. You may find https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4348183/coutinho-ferrostaal-inc-v-mv-star-osakana/ to be helpful. In any event, no answer was ever filed and it appears the case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff. jhawkinson (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
@Jhawkinson: Thanks for your reply. That one looks like a dead-end alley then. Mjroots (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Manual of Style for ship list articles

Any such guidelines exist similar to WP:AVILIST? Or just commonsense such as MOS:FLAG and implementing other style guidelines etc?

A lot of these ship list articles are a mess, with tables cluttered with images and trivial commentary (in "notes" sections). Particularly counter-intuitive to readers on hand-held devices, which these days is quite a large percentage of readers. Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge, no. Most of the lists are based on the experience I had developing List of battlecruisers of Germany back in 2010 or so - once the format of that list was hammered out over the MILHIST A-class review and the FLC, it was more or less repeated with many of the other lists Sturmvogel or I have done since, albeit with incremental improvements over the years. There are a few that were done by other editors that don't follow the format we developed (e.g., List of Ohio-class submarines or List of destroyers of India) or the topics didn't lend themselves to the same structure (List of sunken battlecruisers). Parsecboy (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Could it be be codified, and documentedRisk Engineer (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC). This comes at just the right time for me. I am trying to engage the Thames sailing barge research community to expand on Category:Thames sailing barges and if we get open access to their ships db, we will have a lot of material that will generate many lists. (see here for sample source material and here for our images) ClemRutter (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Great suggestion ... Risk Engineer (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi all, I've had List of protected cruisers of Italy up for Featured List for a little over a month so far, and it's only garnered one review in that time. If you have some time to take a look, I'd be very grateful. The review page is here. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm qualified to review it yet, but I was able to fix two red links.Pennsy22 (talk) 05:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessary stubs?

Shouldn't stub articles like HTMS Phutthaloetla Naphalai be a redirect to a section in the main article on the ship, in this case USS Ouellet#Thai service, until there is sufficient significant content in both, per NCS? Davidships (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

One solution would be to merge HTMS Phutthayotfa Chulalok and HTMS Phutthaloetla Naphalai into the class article: Phutthayotfa Chulalok-class frigate. Brad (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I made an attempt at merging the two articles into the Phutthayotfa Chulalok-class frigate article. Please look it over, make any necessary changes or let me know what to adjust. If everything is acceptable then we can delete the two ship articles. I couldn't find much of their service history in Thai service, short blurb about one of them exercising with the Australian Navy. I believe it has to be better than the original class article at least.Pennsy22 (talk) 10:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
One wonders if there's even a point to the separate class article. It doesn't seem like there's much to be said that wouldn't duplicate the content of the Knox class page. Parsecboy (talk) 11:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

AfD notice

This AfD may be of some interest to members of the project. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

SS Helsingfors at AfD

This may be something that the project can assist with. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Naming convention

Should HMS Tyger (1647) be moved to HMS Tyger or should the latter be a redirect to the former? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it should be moved, which I have done. Thanks for bringing it up. Parsecboy (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

USS Sable (IX-81)

I've been working on the USS Sable (IX-81) page. I'd just like a fresh set of eyes to get some suggestions on what needs to be improved or expanded. Thanks! Shinerunner (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

The article looks pretty good. You should be commended for your efforts. Will you also be doing any work on the page for her sister ship Wolverine? And, are you looking to eventually try and bring either of them to GA status? Cheers - theWOLFchild 15:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
I haven't added to the Wolverine page in a long time but I see that it could use some work so I'll probably turn my attention there. Although I haven't put an article up for GA review in a long time if I get some free time I'll consider it. Thank you for the help. Shinerunner (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
A good read indeed. Could do with a photo as Greater Buffalo - this one, perhaps, [3]? Davidships (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

The article needs a careful read and copyedit. Kablammo (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I've added a bit more, but there's a discrepancy re the engine. Lloyd's Register states 2 HP cylinders and 1 LP cylinder, which makes sense to me. Infobox states 1 HP cylinder and 2 LP cylinders. Mjroots (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm no expert in steam engines but the 1 HP cylinder and 2 LP cylinders configuration seems to be in agreement with the article Compound steam engine. Shinerunner (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
You are right Shinerunner. The LR entry from 1930-1942 is 66"&(2)96"-108", ie one hp/two lp. But a typo seems to have crept into the record for sister Greater Detroit (66"(2),96"-108"). Davidships (talk) 02:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
What is meant by 96"-108"? If it was one 66", one 96", and one 108", that would be a typical HP-IP-LP setup as triple expansion. Or is it some kind of conical piston? Sorry if I'm adding to the confusion. RobDuch (talk) 02:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
108" is the length of stroke (common to all the cylinders). I would use a perhaps clearer way of presenting it Compound 3-cylinder 66",96",96"x108". Davidships (talk) 02:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I've corrected the article. Mjroots (talk) 06:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Ships

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 18:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Archive_50&oldid=1137365442"