Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 52

Archive 45

←

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Lists of Commanding Officers

I have noted lately that several Arleigh Burke-class destroyer articles have "Lists of Commanding Officers", in a basic table form, in the body the article. Currently 33* of the first 66 Burkes have this (*possibly more, with some added after the initial count), but spread across random pages, in no particular order (2 pages even have a second table to list Command Master Chiefs, marked †). I'm wondering if there is really a need for this? The CO of these ships is a Commander's billet, and as such, virtually none of these officer's has gained any kind of notability, certainly not enough for their own blps. These tables are basically full of red links or plain text. I had a quick look wp:ships talk archives and found about a half dozen discussions on this very topic. General consensus seems to be against inclusion of these tables. Some people quoted several policies & guidelines that disallowed having such tables. Some people were in favour of having notable officers mentioned in the article prose instead. If any ships were to have a notable CO, it would be an aircraft carrier, but only 2 of the 10 Nimitz-class aircraft carriers has these tables. A check of all 22 active Ticonderoga-class cruisers shows that none of those articles has such a table. So... should these articles have these tables? That is my question. Thanks (I have included below a list of the first 66 Burkes and noted which ones have tables (Y) and which do not (N).)

Burke-class ship pages with CO lists

DDG-51 N DDG-52 N DDG-53 Y DDG-54 N DDG-55 Y * DDG-56 N DDG-57 N DDG-58 N DDG-59 N DDG-60 N DDG-61 N DDG-62 Y DDG-63 Y DDG-64 N DDG-65 Y DDG-66 N DDG-67 N DDG-68 N DDG-69 Y DDG-70 Y DDG-71 Y DDG-72 Y DDG-73 Y DDG-74 Y DDG-75 Y DDG-76 Y DDG-77 Y DDG-78 Y DDG-79 Y DDG-80 Y DDG-81 Y DDG-82 Y DDG-83 Y DDG-84 Y DDG-85 Y DDG-86 Y † DDG-87 Y DDG-88 Y DDG-89 Y DDG-90 Y DDG-91 N DDG-92 N DDG-93 N DDG-94 N DDG-95 N DDG-96 N DDG-97 N DDG-98 N DDG-99 N DDG-100 N DDG-101 Y DDG-102 N DDG-103 N DDG-104 N DDG-105 Y DDG-106 Y DDG-107 N DDG-108 Y † DDG-109 N DDG-110 Y DDG-111 Y DDG-112 N DDG-113 N DDG-114 N DDG-115 N DDG-116 N

Cheers - ^theWOLFchild

I honestly don't know if this is right or wrong but something I've done in articles is add a "Noteworthy commanders" section and only commanders that went on to be Commodores or Admirals or some other noteworthy title/action. See USS Bainbridge (DD-1) or USS Decatur (DD-5) for examples, also note that great commanders can come from very humble beginnings, but this would also mean that commanders today won't be added to this list for 20-30 years from now. Ships that are in service now probably wouldn't need such a list. Pennsy22 (talk) 04:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I hate lists of commanders as many of them aren't notable. The notable ones should be integrated into the main body of the article and the others ignored, IMO. This something we need to come to agreement about as I've got a persistent fellow adding them to the IJN carriers and I can't point to any policy or whatever to support any efforts to delete them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I was actually waiting for you to respond here, @Sturmvogel 66:. I knew how you felt about these lists from when we debated a similar list at Enterprise (CV-6). In that case we disagreed. I supported the list because most of the captains were notable enough to have BLPs and the ship itself has a significant history. But here I agree with you. Virtually none of the Commanders that are captaining the Burkes are notable, and very few of these ships have any kind of significant history. I agree that any Captains worth noting should be added to the body of the article and these list/tables ahould be removed. I'm willing to BOLDly remove them all, but I wanted to solicit some feedback first. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 23:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Concur with Editor Sturmvogel 66. For me, commanders should be included when there is an article about them or when they played some particularly notable role in the life of the ship (simply being CO, doesn't meet that requirement – every ship has a CO). Of the 15 COs listed at USS Enterprise (CV-6), 5 are linked to other articles, but one article is about a house in the middle of a golf course; why is that guy linked? No lists of COs.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Trappist the Monk. While I wasn't looking to debate the list on the Enterprise, I am glad to see you also agree with me about the tables on the all the Burke-class ships. As I mentioned above, I had found other talk page discussions where consensus was generally against inclusion of these lists. This post has now been here for almost 2 weeks and no one has spoken in favor of keeping them. I'll wait a few more days, but unless there is a compelling argument posted to keep, or a sudden myriad of replies all with a consensus to keep, I really don't any reason to not just go a remove them all. - ^theWOLFchild 00:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead and nuke them, I say. Where there are notable individuals, they should be mentioned in the prose. Parsecboy (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Just a comment, but I've sometimes encountered similar "lists" or a passage "The ship's current captain is..." on articles about civilian vessels. In my extremely personal opinion, names of current crew members is not information that belongs to Wikipedia except on those rare occasions when a person meets the general notability requirements (e.g. a crew member is identified by name for something, such as receiving an award for a heroic deed onboard the vessel, or becomes something important later in his/her career). Otherwise, the ship's just a workplace and even the captain is just an employee of the shipping company. Tupsumato (talk) 07:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Definitely agree with you, Tupsumato, current data for civilian ships can change at the drop of a hat, so it would be very difficult to stay current, and that these guys aren't generally notable anyways.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to see that we have what appears to be a consensus. theWolfchild, are you willing to integrate your list of COs of the Enterprise into the main body of the article? 'Cause we need to treat each article equally. And, really, I've found that most of the COs of the big boys, battleships and fleet carriers, become admirals of some sort and thus qualify as notable under WP:Soldier. So anyone want to draft an amendment to WP:SHIPMOS?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Sturmvogel 66: - Any more thoughts on amending WP:SHIPMOS? I think that could be very helpful. Anyway, I see you finally got that CO list off the Enterprise (CV-6) page, but I gotta ask, are you thinking of doing the same with Enterprise (CV-65)? (that's quite a list) In the meantime, I have removed the CO lists from both the Eisenhower and Reagan pages, so the entire Nimitz-class is now free of CO lists. There are some others ships on that additional list I added that I might also deal with, but I'll also be keeping an eye out for that SHIPMOS update. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 06:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey, if the consensus is to get rid of all CO lists on ship articles, then so be it. Remember, I raised this issue here in the first place because I don't think they belong on the Burke-class pages. As for the Enterprise (CV-6), I didn't create that list, I just restored it. At the time, there didn't appear to be a good reason to arbitrarily remove it (and no effort was made to move names into the article body by anyone), there was no consensus to be found and meanwhile I found almost 40 ship articles (and other related pages) with CO lists (afaik, they still exist, maybe there's even more now) I suggested an RfC on the matter, but nothing really happened.

So, if someone here, that is either particularly invested in the CV-6 article or just proficient at writing prose, would like to move the notable CO's from that list into the article body (and remove the list), then go for it. I am willing to go about removing all the CO lists from the Burke-class pages. As for any other CO lists, I suppose they'll have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, depending on how many notable names are listed, but not found in the article, as some re-writing will have to be done. Here is a copy of list that I had put together on the Enterprise talk page back then;

Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 22:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• btw- it occurred to me that some of these ships are Burkes that I removed the CO list from. So I've marked them as N. - ^theWOLFchild 07:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Note - OK, I have removed all the 'List of CO' tables (and 'List of CMCPO' tables as well), from all the Burke-class ship pages that had such tables. Only one ship had any notable CO's, and they were already noted in the article. Not one other list had a notable CO with a linked BLP. I also re-checked the rest of the list, and as of this post, all Burke-class ship articles are 'List of CO' (table) free. - ^theWOLFchild 05:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

other lists

Don't know if you guys had a chance to look at the 2nd list I added above with other ships, (and related articles), that have lists of CO's, and/or if anyone has any intention to do something about them. But that said, I thought I'd just mention, especially for those of you against such lists, that at least 2 items on the list are separate articles, and not just sections of a ship article. List of commanding officers of USS Nevada (BB-36) is just a plain ole' list, while at List of commanding officers of USS Oklahoma (BB-37), someone made a go of it and tried to make it look like a real article. But still, they each only have 5 officers with BLPs, just like the Enterprise (CV-6). I can't just delete these, they'll have to go thru AfD or some another process. I've done my part for now (pro-actively speaking), removing lists from almost 40 Burke-class pages, but if anyone wants any assistance with anything else, let me know. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 04:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I like this idea of just making it a list that a reader can go to, or not go to, and isn't an actual section in the article. I see no problem with these list, except List of commanding officers of USS Nevada (BB-36) could be a little better looking. I really like List of commanding officers of USS Oklahoma (BB-37). But again, this being said, I don't see how a lot of modern naval ships need a list, many of them haven't been around long enough to be noteworthy. I'm not sure where you draw the line, once they make admiral? Wartime situation? Collide with a tanker? Pennsy22 (talk) 05:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd say if they are notable enough to have an article of their own, they can be mentioned in the ship's article as well. Tupsumato (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, but Pennsy22 was asking what makes them notable in the first place. If they meet WP:GNG they're notable and WP:Soldier says that they're notable if they made flag rank. So just about all of the commanders of the US carriers that I've done have become admiral which means that they need to be mentioned in the main body. Now the captains of the US destroyers involved in the recent collisions may or may not be notable, depending on the extent of coverage on them specifically as opposed to passing mentions which is all I've seen thus far, if that's a help.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Tupsumato (talk) 12:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Something seems to have been overlooked here. We have decided that ship articles will no longer have a section with a list of commanding officers, instead, any COs that are notable enough, will be mentioned in the body of the article. We are now setting about removing these lists from any pages they are found on. However, these two pages noted above are lists of COs that have been created as stand-alone articles. While one has a decent amount of content, the other is just a basic list. Also, as I pointed out, the list at Enterprise (CV-6) that was recently removed had 6 notable COs, both of these pages only have 5 or 6 notable COs as well. Are we going to keep these separate articles? If so, will they be some kind of exception? Will this exception be extended to any other lists or ships? And if at some point this issue gets addressed at MOS:SHIPS, will this exception be noted there? Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 03:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'm actually kind of indifferent to separate lists of commanding officers as they're really daughters of the main ship article. Don't really see the point, but I'm a lot more tolerant of an entry in a See also section than I am of a whole section. You could send them up to WP:AfD if they mostly duplicate the info in their parent articles. I'll take a stab at drafting a change to the MOS to forbid lists of COs here in a few minutes and let you guys pick it apart before I make it permanent.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• OK, this would be a paragraph in the Article body section of WP:SHIPMOS:

  Ship captains are not inherently notable and those captains that are notable (meet the criteria laid out in WP:GNG or WP:Soldier) should be worked into the ship's history. Lists of ship's captains are forbidden.

  What do y'all think?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks ok to me, for the most part, but will "Lists of ship's captains are forbidden" apply only to sections, lists or tables of a parent article, or will this apply to stand-alone articles as well? (eg: this vs this?) Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 04:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

It does need clarification, I agree. I'll think some more on the phrasing on the morrow. As I said above, I'm OK with separate articles, as they can always be AfD'ed if redundant, but let's see what others think.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. One other note (sorry to pile on), but what about other lists of COs on other, not ship, but still military unit articles? I'm sure it's probably better to address this at MILHIST, but since we're addressing this here and now, and there is also talk of modifying the MOS, perhaps this wider issue should also be addressed now, while we're all into it? Thoughts? - ^theWOLFchild 05:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with separate articles that are lists of CO's, for example the two linked at the top of this section (and particularly the second one). Not a huge fan of an absolute prohibition of lists of COs within an article. I agree that if they're notable they should be mentioned in the text. Also agree that if they're not notable they don't need mentioning at all. But there are surely occasions where notable COs are mentioned in the text, but might be included in a list as well, as an assistance to the reader? -- Euryalus (talk) 06:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

- I agree that a guideline can't possibly accommodate every possible, unforeseen scenario, but if something unusual comes up, it can be dealt with at the time, by the community on the article talk page. I don't agree with trying to simplify things, this isn't the Simple WP. As long as the notable COs are written into the prose, (and there shouldn't be a problem doing that) there is no need to list them as well. I think these two stand-alone lists are glaring problems, that might lead to more problems. One of them looks awful... just awful, and as pretty as the other one is, it doesn't change the fact that very few of the entries are actually notable. I think we should do the same as we did with the lists we've found so far; move the notables into the main article (if they aren't there already) and delete these pages. - ^theWOLFchild 08:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Late comment

Back in the day, including a list of Captains was frowned upon. Most Captains aren't very notable and if they are, they should be mentioned inline with the ship's history. When I laid out USS Constitution (which has had over 75 CO's), only the CO's that most mattered were mentioned. However, Stephen Decatur was not mentioned despite his notability because he only commanded Constitution for 30 days while she was undergoing repairs. Lists of CO's are typically trivial content. Brad (talk) 07:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

HMS Ocean (L12)

Ocean also had a list of CO's, which has now been removed with it's few notable captains now being mentioned in the article body. However, there is also a "List of Affiliations" on the page. I don't recall coming across something like this before in other ship articles. Is this worthwhile content that at some point the community decided it wanted, or just another superfluous addition to be removed? Have a look and add your thoughts here. Thanks. - ^theWOLFchild 17:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Anyone? Are we keeping this list? (here and anywhere else another one might be found) or removing it? (them). Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 14:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

USS Miami (SSN-755)

Found another list on the page for this boat. Not one notable entry and I'll remove it. The reason I'm posting however, is I'd like to ask the community here; do we have a final stance on this? Are all lists to removed when found? Are new lists to be discouraged? Is the MOS being re-written to address this? This topic has been posted for awhile, so I'd like to get know the final word on this issue, before all this gets archived. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 10:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

USS Enterprise (CVN-65)

Made sure all notable commanding officer's were noted in the article, and removed the CO list. Still wondering if WP:SHIPMOS is going to be modified and if we have a defined guideline regarding these lists. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 19:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC) {pinging those who commented here; @Sturmvogel 66, Trappist the monk, Tupsumato, Parsecboy, Euryalus, and Brad101:)

My latest work

This is my most ambitious project in quite a while. Just wanted to let you guys know about it, give it a read, do some improvements/corrections and such if you please. Torpilorul (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Formatting of ship index pages

It's my understanding that ship index pages are a specific type of disambiguation page and therefore the same formatting guidelines apply - essentially, one blue link per item and only as much information as is necessary to help the reader decide which link is the one they want (as documented at MOS:DAB). Is that correct? If not, are there ship-index-specific guidelines somewhere? Colonies Chris (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

No, they're WP:SETINDEXes, the guidelines for which are different. Parsecboy (talk) 14:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying that, and for the link. However, in the case of most such index pages - including ship indices - I don't see why they are considered to be set indices rather than disambigs. If you look at index pages such as those in Category:Set indices on rivers or Category:Set indices on locomotives or Category:Set indices on lakes (to name only a few), despite being nominally set index pages, they are in fact almost all formatted as disambig pages that happen to deal with a specific subject; exactly what a ship index page is, it seems to me. What purpose is served by departing from the usual disambig format for these pages? Colonies Chris (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

A good question, and one I've never really known the answer to. Ship indices were discussed recently here, and this subsection of the discussion sort of touched on the issue. I think the idea is that some ships might not be notable for their own articles, so including a bit more detail than would be appropriate on a disambiguation page is useful. Parsecboy (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

And in addition, as WP:SETINDEX notes, red links are permitted for ships without their own page but identified as good candidates (with the little bit of detail referred to just above). Davidships (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines#Index_pages Brad (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

The gun of Ghiculescu & sisters

Anyone there who can provide the model of 88 mm gun used by the Romanian gunboat NMS Sublocotenent Ghiculescu and her sisters? Or if this armament is wrong (despite some sources confirming) it, can someone reveal her true armament then? Thanks. Torpilorul (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

This link http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_Main.php to all types of German naval 88 mm guns should help narrow down the search. RobDuch (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Seeking some confimation

You guys see these boats? (http://www.navypedia.org/ships/romania/ro_cf_v7.htm) I seek book confirmation that they existed. These two little vessels are probably my greatest unsolved puzzle, and Google Books ain't helping much. Torpilorul (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Cape Texas Home Port

Hi, everyone. I work as Disaster Recovery Consultant to The Port of Beaumont, TX and can tell you without equivocation that Cape Texas is berthed here with two other RO-RO vessels in a state of readiness. My reference is that I look squarely at her each time I leave or enter the Port Administration building. -Steve Rice- 67.79.64.210 (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)02.06.1867.79.64.210 (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Presumably you mean MV Cape Texas (T-AKR-112). Article states homeport as Houston, is this her port of registry? Mjroots (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Two different things. Port of registry is a USCG matter (in their parlance "hailing port", I think) and is in registration papers and painted on the stern. For Cape Texas it is Richmond VA, see [1]

"Home port" is where the ship is operationally based, though perhaps there is a more specific USN meaning. Looking at the last decade of ship movement data, it seems that Houston was her base port until about 2014 and then she moved to Beaumont. However the DoD continue to show her home port as Houston [2] Davidships (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Corvette move discussion in progress

I move discussion which may be of interest to participants of this WikiProject is currently taking place at Talk:Corvette (disambiguation)#Requested move 9 February 2018 . -- Netoholic @ 04:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Photo on RMS Empress of Ireland

I may be wrong but the current photo looks like the same one we took down three years ago per this discussion. Can anyone confirm this as legit or is it a retouched photo of the RMS Empress of Britain (1905)? I think it's the EoB but would like a 2nd opinion before I pull it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

As there is doubt, I say pull it. There is no doubt over File:Empress-of-Ireland.jpg, is there? That seems a suitable image to use. Mjroots (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

It is the exact same image - go back into the article history, and you'll see it's the same file. It was added here (which I have just reverted). Parsecboy (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, how did that happen? The image I saw in the article wasn't the one I linked to. Mjroots (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't clear - I was talking about File:Empress of Britain.jpg, the same photo Ad Orientem was talking about. Parsecboy (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Phew! Not me then. The file I linked to has hyphens in its name. The impostor doesn't. Mjroots (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I added the misnamed and miscategorized image from Wikimedia Commons [3] to the Empress of Ireland page.Shinerunner (talk)

No big deal, it's an easy mistake to make - certainly there's no expectation to go through 3-year old threads to make sure an image on Commons isn't wrong, eh? Speaking of that, should we get the image re-titled on Commons so this doesn't happen again in the future? Parsecboy (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I, uh, did. ;-) File:Empress of Britain.jpg. Can someone edit the file page to note why the name of the ship in the image doesn't match our description? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Wow. Thanks everybody who chimed in on this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Attention possibly required

I couldn't help but notice that 6 of the 10 largest pages on WP fall under the scope of this project (see Special:LongPages). Has there ever been a sensible proposal to split them into more reasonably sized sub-pages? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

As the editor responsible for these, I can say that it has been discussed and current consensus is that there is no need to split the lists. There is no compelling reason to split, unlike the lists for 1914-18 and 1939-45, which were split. Mjroots (talk) 13:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree entirely. The JJ/Archive discussion last August seems soundly-based. Davidships (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

It looks like a split is going to be needed, the 1842 list is currently the longest article on Wikipedia. I've had to replace many flag templates with the relevant images to keep from exceeding the limit on the number of templates that can be in an article. I can forsee that this issue is going to arise time and time again. Therefore, over time, I'm going to split all lists from 1830 onwards until the situation resolves itself. For ease of editing, I won't be splitting the 1840s lists until such time as I've worked through the sources at +2 years. Mjroots (talk) 09:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Gangut (1888)

Is this a Battleship like other language Wikipedia said ? Or Is this a Coastal defence ship like the English Wikipedia said ?

If this is a Battleship , is it a Pre-dreadnought ?

If this is a Coastal defence ship , is it a ship that came before Admiral Ushakov-class was built ?

Thank you. -- Comrade John (talk) 10:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Comrade John - do you mean Russian coast defense ship Gangut (1888) ? Mjroots (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes , brother. -- Comrade John (talk) 14:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Like many transitional designs from the 1880s, there are variations. Some contemporary sources like the Journal of the Royal United Services Institute or the London Gazette refer to the vessel as a "battleship", while more modern sources like Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships refer to her as a "barbette ship" (which would place her in the general category of an ironclad warship). The Late Victorian Navy categorizes her as a "second-class battleship", though interestingly many of the vessels in that table (on page 249) are coastal defense ships. Sturmvogel has a copy of Russian and Soviet Battleships - perhaps he can shed some light on how McLaughlin describes the ship. Parsecboy (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: , Might need your help again. Also , does any reference refer to this ship as coast defense ship ? -- Comrade John (talk) 09:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

McLaughlin doesn't really characterize her one way or another and just states that she was much smaller than Imperator Aleksandr II.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

move requested

Can an admin move HMIS Godaveri to HMIS Godavari? Thanks in advance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

According to this move, Godaveri is the official name - I haven't looked, but what's the evidence one way or the other? Parsecboy (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that somebody was confused. Lenton's British and Empire Warships of the Second World War and the relevant volume of Conway's both spell it Godavari. As does the modern Indian Navy with the later frigate class of that name Godavari-class frigate.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Works for me - page moved. Parsecboy (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

A-Class review for HMS Erin needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for HMS Erin; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

DAB Pages - Ship Class links

I've got into a discussion about the above. Basically it's been pointed out to me under MOS:DAB only the ship name can be blue linked on a dab page. This is of course at variance with normal usage on ship dab pages and I don't feel in the best interests of the user. I accept that I haven't formulated my arguments well in the discussion. So my questions are, is there an established exception for ship pages? And if there isn't what should I do in future - comply and produce something I think is inferior or ignore and accept someone will undo the class links? The discussion is here User talk:Joeyconnick#HMS Eglinton dab page Lyndaship (talk) 09:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

No, there is no exception for ship pages, but there is confusion on Joey's part - that type of page is a WP:SETINDEX, not a disambiguation page, so MOS:DAB does not apply. Parsecboy (talk) 11:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Russian ship Yantar

I've opened a discussion at WT:MILHIST#Russian ship Yantar. The article on the vessel has been moved, and all reference to her being a spy ship has been stripped from the article. Discussion at MILHIST please as to whether or not the article should be returned to its former state. Mjroots (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement of Notability

I am looking for a one-line statement on notability that I can show to hesitant new users. Can someone add one to the project page please. I am happy with anything- I just want something solid, that I can use to help users test their proposal. At the moment I am using :

Coverage in at least two books means it passes WP:GNG.@Mjroots:

--but is there anything else, or pitfalls to avoid. --ClemRutter (talk) 13:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@ClemRutter: - For the purposes of this WP, all ships over 100 tons (undefined) and/or 100 feet length are presumed to be capable of meeting WP:GNG and sustaining an article. There will be occasional exceptions which prove not to be capable of meeting GNG. For vessels under 100 tons/ft, they may well be capable of meeting GNG, but are taken on a case-by-case basis. Mjroots (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

List of active Thames sailing barges is the target list. All usually below 90ft, and hovering between 40 tons and 140 tons! I am going to have to be a bit creative about how I describe notability. All of them have multiple biographies and in depth references, and most compete in the annual barge races, many did a day trip to Dunkirk in 1940 and have the pennant to prove it. Can you consider putting the two definitions you have given as a notability section on the project page so we have an anchor? --ClemRutter (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

circular redirect

Can an admin remove the circular redirect of HMS Heythrop (L85)) from the Hunt-class destroyer page? Lyndaship (talk) 09:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Is modifying (deleting) the redirect page is a correct solution? Were there only a handful of pages that link to Hunt-class destroyer through HMS Heythrop (L85) that might be one thing, but there are somewhere between 150 and 200 pages that link to the class page through the redirect. I suspect that most of these links are the result of {{Hunt class destroyer}} so perhaps the incoming links issue is of no concern.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not explaining myself well or using the incorrect terminology. Currently if you click on Heythrop on the Hunt class page it returns you to the same page. What I want to achieve is a red link for Heythrop there enabling an individual page to be created for the ship 11:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyndaship (talk • contribs)

You don't need to do that - all you have to do is click the redirect link that appears at the top of the page (which appears as "(Redirected from HMS Heythrop (L85))" just below the article title). That will take you to the redirect, which you can then edit. There's nothing inherently wrong with redirecting individual ships to the class page up until someone has the time to write the articles. Parsecboy (talk) 13:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I can't work out how to do it. I agree that its fine to have any other link to Heythrop redirecting to the Hunt class page but it seems wrong having the Hunt Class page redirecting to itself when Heythorp is clicked on it. Lyndaship (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I tried to edit it myself and I couldn't select any of the items in the actions menu in the popup, only the menu header itself, which does nothing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Huh, it works fine for me. Lynda, if you're planning on starting an article on the ship, I can turn the redirect into a basic stub if you'd like. Parsecboy (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh that's put me on the spot. Guess I could try as I could cut and paste the formating from one of the sister ships and I've got the WSS Hunt book by English for the service history. Lyndaship (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok I've had a go and have something in my sandbox. How do we get it uploaded? Lyndaship (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

moved.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

No rush - you can always ping me later. Parsecboy (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Objective: Stars and Stripes (Battleships of the United States Navy

Last night, I began work on List of battleships of the United States Navy and spent a couple hours on my overhaul of the list, which was reverted. In the notice of that reversion on the talk page, it was suggested that I post notices on pertinent WikiProjects to review my edit. Please follow this link to that talk page to discuss and review my work, its the second-most recent edit as of the writing of this notice. –Vami_IV✠ 19:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Unmanned surface vehicle

There's a problem with this article, it conflates unmanned with autonomous. Remotely operated non-autonomous topics are not distinguished from the self-piloting vehicles. And unmanned should be clarified as "uncrewed", since it could contain passengers. -- 67.70.34.54 (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

You may have a point about autonomous/non-autonomous, but I do not see any distinction related to whether there are passengers or not. "Unmanned" and "uncrewed" are synonymous - see [4].Davidships (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Tower Hill Memorial and Helles Memorial shipwreck lists

Following on from the above, if anyone wants to go to town attempting to construct lists of the ships listed on the Tower Hill Memorial for both WWI and WWII, there is a website with index pages here and here. I will put a note on the talk page as well. Also, if anyone wants to follow up/check what I posted at Talk:Helles Memorial, that is another memorial with ships named. Other memorials, such as the ones at Chatham, Portsmouth and Plymouth, don't (AFAIK) list the casualties by ship. Carcharoth (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Two questions

1. Midget submarines. When talking generally about a Navy's submarines, are midget submarines implicitly included too? I've seen this at Nazi Germany, in which the midgets are included in about the ~1500 submarines they had, but not at Imperial Japan, which had 200+ proper submarines plus ~500 midgets which however do not seem to be implicitly included.

2. In the source here it states "2-37 mm (twin)". So are there two guns in a twin mount or two twin guns? It's not clear to me. Torpilorul (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

SS Britannia

I am trying to see if Wikipedia has an article on the SS Britannia that was lost during WWI on 19 October 1917. The disambiguation page SS Britannia doesn't seem to list it. Can anyone here help? It was the ship that Bobby Atherton was serving on when he died. Carcharoth (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: - it would appear to be SS Britannia (Wood, Skinner, 1902). 1,814 GRT. Sunk by SM U-38 on 8 December 1916. Mjroots (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Information at https://www.wrecksite.eu/wreck.aspx?135785 says it was built in 1889. MilborneOne (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Scrub the above. Try SS Britannia (1889), 739 GRT, sunk by SM UC-75 with loss of all hands. Mjroots (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Aberdeenships webpage. Mjroots (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks. Would I be right in thinking that many of the smaller ships of the merchant marine that were sunk in the World Wars are relatively obscure (more so than the navy ships or large passenger liners)? I see this wreck is listed under 19 October at List of shipwrecks in October 1917. Those lists (and categories) of shipwrecks are scary! Carcharoth (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Many of them did live relatively obscure lives, but that doesn't mean they can't be written about. A few had quite eventful careers, even if they were not glamourous ones. Mjroots (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

USS West Bridge

While it is pleasing to see this interesting and comprehensive article reaching the front page today, it is a pity that advance notice did not appear here, particularly as it is nearly nine years since it passed FAC. There are a number of significant problems, but I believe the convention is not to make other than minor changes while an article is on the front page. The engine described in the third Construction para is completely wrong - she was built with a steam turbine and re-engined in 1929 (as per ref, as well as passing reference to turbine in DANFS) - and the IMO number is an invention and not in the source. It is not true that there are no secondary sources for the involvement of Cunard and it is surprising that there is no mention of her being a Design 1013 ship in the article itself, only in the category and hidden list. The referencing style for the Lloyd's Register entries seems peculiar as it doesn't actually mention the publisher. Also, several of the specific questions raised in the FAC Review seem never to have been addressed. I'll have a go at all these and a number of smaller matters in a day or two, when I have a bit more time.

But the question remains - is there a way of flagging up imminent ship-related front-pagers? Davidships (talk) 11:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The Article Alert page covers this and a whole lot of other things. HMS St Vincent (1908) is scheduled for 3 March. Brad (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that I understand how that page works (except that it is run by a bot). West Bridge was added as an "undated" TFA on 12 Feb, but was then deleted two days later and never reappeared. My assumption, if I had seen that, would have been that the article was stood down for TFA, especially as St Vincent was added on 18 Feb with a firm date, and remains listed until now. Davidships (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Featured articles to appear on the main page next month can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 2018. And you can use the arrows (or alter the title) to update it in the future. Kablammo (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Kablammo. That's a more practical reference point.Davidships (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Irlam (1813 ship)

hi all, the above ship is up for deletion, here is the afd - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irlam (1813 ship), the article does not have a talkpage so the afd has not appeared on your alert list. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Changes proposed for Template:Ship

See this talk. -DePiep (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

This also is about templates like {{HMS}} and {{USS}} ({{Ship}} is the master-, meta-template). - DePiep (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Please help: Zumwalt-class has no ammo

I am attempting to update the Zumwalt-class destroyer and related articles, but I'm having trouble doing this without violating WP:SYNTH

The facts as of 2018 are these:

• Each Zumwalt has only two long-range guns, and these are AGSs (Advanced Gun System).
• There are only 3 Zumwalts and there will be no more.
• The Navy has no plans to deploy the AGS on any other platform.
• AGS requires custom-designed ammo.
• LRLAP was the only ammo designed for AGS.
• LRLAP procurement was cancelled.
• The navy has no plans to develop any other ammo for AGS.

The implication is that the Zumwalts have no ammo for their AGSs and will never have ammo, and will therefore never fire their guns. But I have not found a reference that states this explicitly, other than some opinion pieces.

In addition, the following assertions appear to be valid:

• Naval gunfire support was a primary mission for the Zumwalts, and perhaps was THE primary mission.
• The class design has major features to support this mission in addition to the AGS, turrets, and magazines, and these features probably compromise its other missions.

The implication is that these ships cannot fulfil their primary mission and are not very good at any of their secondary missions. If this is true, then the ships are basically useless, and this is is probably more important to the articles than most of the details. But we cannot put these implications into the articles without references, because this would be WP:OR, specifically WP:SYNTH.

Please note: I am fairly clear on the history of how all of this happened (Battleships, Congress, United States naval gunfire support debate, ...). These have their own articles, and previous intentions, etc, do not change current situation. I'm not "against" the Zumwalts and I'm not trying to assign blame to anyone: among other things, that is not my job as a Wikipedia editor.

I am trying hard to maintain a NPOV, but it's really hard. So far, I'm just adding facts to articles, but the results are so striking that one editor asked if I had made a mistake. Do any of you ship guys have any suggestions? thanks. -Arch dude (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Various sources (eg, [5] [6], [7]) say that while there are no current procurement plans, the Navy is monitoring new options. Other sources describe the ships' recently being re-rolled to focus on anti-ship warfare using missiles. Nick-D (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick. "Monitoring new options" apparently means that the Navy is not funding any development or procurement, and there appears to be none in the FY 2019 budget. A development starting now would be highly unlikely to result in deployed ammo in less than 5 years. One source says that any ammo not custom-designed for the AGS will require modifications to the AGS costing at least $250 million total for those six suns. If by "re-rolled" you mean re-assigned rather than modified, you are looking at a ship with 84 VLS cells, as opposed to an Arleigh Burke with 96 or an SSGN with 154. Furthermore, because the Zumwalt's radar is physically smaller, it is not as capable as the Arleigh Burke's, so it would probably need to let another ship handle its missiles after it launches them (even more true for an SSGN, of course). If they are in fact being re-purposed, this makes it even more clear that the Navy does not think they will perform their original gunfire support mission. Do you have references I could use for this? -Arch dude (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

[8] [9] cover this Nick-D (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

This article [10] (thanks, Nick, I got this from one of yours) states that the Zumwalts are "built around the AGS", which also seems obvious given the history. Is this a sufficient reference for this assertion? If not, does anyone have guidance on finding one? -Arch dude (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Template for TSS

Proposal: Should we have a TSS template? We have a number of articles with the TSS prefix (and they probably are correctly TSS and not SS). I welcome peoples thoughts.Djm-leighpark (talk)

"TSS" has been used for both turbine steam ships and twin screw steamers. I don't know what a template would add (but I don't do templates). Kablammo (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia currently seems to major on twin screw steamers so I'll stick with that. I have seen an independent source additionally referencing turbine steam ships and I've previously myself guessed TSS meant Turbine Steam Ship so I may have said that on e.g. TSS Princess Maud.

I have now created the template TSS template and associated doc.Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Both "TS" and "TSS" have been used for turbine steamers. "TSS" has also been used for twin screw steamers. And most turbine-driven ships did not use either "TS" or "TSS"; they used "SS" which means a steamship; it has nothing to do with the number of screws. Kablammo (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Unless there's anything specific about the TSS template created I suggest further discussion on TSS is concentrated in the section #TSS/SS Canterbury (1929) Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

List of Allied warships that served at Gallipoli

I've been looking at this article. It's source seems primarily to be the reminiscences on the Gallipoli web page. The list appears to be very incomplete and misleading - for instance I suspect Egmont was the Malta base ship and never went anywhere near Gallipoli, one hospital ship is mentioned but not any of the others. I don't have the references to try and clean it up. I did wonder if there is a list of RN ships that received the battle honour Gallipoli which would make a good starting point but I can't find one online. Currently if you put "ships at gallipoli" into google this page comes up top of the list and I do feel we are doing wikipedia a dis-service by offering this. Can anyone sort it out or should it be deleted or is some information better than no information? Lyndaship (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

There's quite a lot there, though the referencing could be much improved (neither book mentioned is properly cited), but the originator helpfully put detailed sourcing in a Talkpage post. On Egmont it seems that the ship itself had been taken back to Chatham in 1914; but possibly, as a concrete "base ship", some staff may have qualified for the Gallipoli Medal if they went there with their based ships. Undoubtely it is the non-RN warships that are more lacking. Davidships (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Is United States naval gunfire support debate salvageable?

I'm trying to update this article, as it has a lot of useful information and I have linked to it from the Zumwalt-class destroyers and related articles that I updated. I now think the article, as it stands is merely one huge WP:SYNTH, and technically must be deleted unless we can restructure it. Please comment on its talk page. Thanks. -Arch dude (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

British Iron and Steel Corporation

Help please. I created this page from a link which gave me this title. However I have since discovered that the correct title is British Iron & Steel Corporation ie an ampersand rather than and. Many pages already linked into this incorrect title and I've linked more since. What's best to do? Rename the page and I will go in and change the linked pages to point to the new title or simply to create a redirect? We come across this company often as BISCO Lyndaship (talk) 09:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I've moved the page for you. Mjroots (talk) 11:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Naeraberg

There seems to be a dispute going on about this article - from what I can tell it's possibly two ships with similar or identical names that are being confused with each other. Could someone here take a look? Thanks, ansh666 20:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Indeed two Naerebergs - a bizarre version of vandalism - along comes an IP who sees that the ship in the infobox is a different one and instead of going to the Talk page, deletes all the well-sourced and notable article content, removing everything that the article is supposed to be about - then reverts three more times, refusing to use Talk page - and tops that by adding a deletion template as not notable! Davidships (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for a month. Should be enough time for editors to sort the issues out in peace. Mjroots (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Infobox ship/sub

Class overview
Name	Gerald R. Ford–class aircraft carrier
Builders	Newport News Shipbuilding
Operators	United States Navy
Preceded by	Nimitz class
Cost	Program cost: $36.30 billion (FY15) Unit cost: $10.44B (FY15)
In service	2017–present
Planned	10
On order	2
Building	2
Completed	1
Active	1

I would like to suggest adding the parameter "ordered=" to the template for infobox/ ships and subs. I've already added it manually, awhile ago, to these ship class pages; CVN-78, DDG-51, LCS-1 & LCS-2, and so far it appears to be a worthwhile addition to those articles. This would be minor addition, but that said, I'd like to see if there are any objections first. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 02:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

That would be |ordered= in {{Infobox ship}} (talk) then. Any infobox section header suggestion? -DePiep (talk) 02:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, obviously that pipe would be there. I'm not sure what you mean by "any infobox section header suggestion?" There would be no new section or header needed, the parameter "ordered" would go below "building" and above "planned" in the "Class overview" section. That's where it is now on the pages I noted above. - ^theWOLFchild 06:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, "under which header" (or "where") is what I tried to ask. -DePiep (talk) 09:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

If adopted, the parameter would be |Total ships ordered= in keeping with similar parameter names: |Total ships building=, |Total ships planned=, |Total ships completed=, etc. It seems to me that this collection of parameters might want to be re-ordered. At present, the rendering order is: building, planned, completed. Even if not adopted, shouldn't the order for those three be planned, building, completed? And if adopted, planned, ordered, building, completed?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

That order works for me, with or without the proposed addition. If it were to be added as "Total ships/subs ordered", that's fine too. I'm not too hung up on these details, I'd just like to see the parameter added, to save the trouble of adding it manually to any further articles that would benefit from having it. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 13:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The tense of "ordered" doesn't quite match the use to which Thewolfchild appears to have used this value in the above referenced ship-class articles. It appears the value is currently being used to represent the number of ships in the class in the process of being ordered, i.e. "on order" or "ordering" (kind of awkward), and the value can both increase as new ship are ordered or decrease as ships begin construction (i.e. "building"). At least to me, the name "ordered" reads like a value that represents the total number that have been ordered, a value that would never decrease (like "planned"). Thewolfchild, which value do you actually want -- the total number that have been ordered to date (i.e. ordered <= (planned - cancelled)) or the number currently on order (i.e. completed + building + on order = planned - cancelled)? My preference would be for a value that represents the number currently on order, not the total number that have been ordered. —RP88 ^(talk) 14:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@RP88: Ya know, I don't understand how it is that you suddenly seem to be struggling with this concept. We use this status on numerous ship articles, lists, tables, etc., and have for some time. I've seen you edit many of these pages, but I don't ever recall you having any difficulty when a ship, or a class of ships, is listed, or otherwise somehow denoted, as "ordered" (or "on order"). A ship that has been "ordered" is "on order", and a ship that is "on order", is a ship that has been "ordered". The two words are basically synonymous, so I fail to see the "awkwardness" here.

OK, so let's take the Ford-class for example. The Navy wants a new ship, they find one they like, they figure out how many they need and come up with a number. They "planned" for 10, we've got sources that confirm that, so "10" goes into the planned parameter. At some point, budgets are approved, RFPs are completed, contracts are awarded, and then we have sources that confirm a ship, or ships, have been "ordered". We then list that status in numerous places, (except infoboxes for some reason), for example, at List of current ships of the United States Navy on the "On order" table, where there is currently two (2) Ford-class carriers listed. That, of course, matches up with the List of aircraft carriers of the United States Navy, a table that shows two (2) Ford-class carriers as "Ordered". Same goes for List of aircraft carriers in service, the Main or "Summary" table has headings on it's columns such as: "Commissioned", "In reserve", "Undergoing trials", "Under construction", "Ordered" & "Planned". And as it turns out, the US Navy row shows "2" (two) in the "Ordered" column. That page also has a separate "Carriers ordered" table, which also lists the same two Ford-class carriers as everywhere else. Then, of course, there is the page for the class itself; Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier, which has a "Ships in class" table, currently showing two (2) as being "ordered", which matches up with the infobox('s manually added parameter), also showing two (2) as being "Ordered" (in all cases, these 2 are the unnamed CVN-81 & CVN-82).

Typically, when the keel is laid, and it's sourced, we then show these ships as "under construction" in all these various lists and tables, with the same number being noted as "building" in the infobox. Then of course there is the rest of the cycle of the ship's life; "completed", "commissioned", "inactive", "decommissioned" and "scrapped" (or preserved, among others). All of these stages are sourced and documented by us on various lists and tables here, and no less than any of those stages is the "ordered" phase. The practice of listing a ship's status as "ordered" (or "on order") is a well-established one, and quite frankly, I'm surprised that this parameter wasn't added to the infobox long ago. - ^theWOLFchild 17:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, wow, I think there is a huge misunderstanding here, as you're going on about stuff that I agree is completely uncontroversial. I called the phrase "ordering" kind of awkward (presumably why that phrasing is never used), not "on order" or "ordered". So, let me try again. Trappist the monk proposed adding a |Total ships ordered= parameter. That phrasing of the parameter name |Total ships ordered= is not consistent with the use of field "Ordered:" as currently used in the above referenced ship-class articles since those articles currently use the field "Ordered" to reflect the number currently on order, not the total number that have been ordered. As an example, take the existing field |Total ships building=. If the tense of that field were changed to past tense, i.e. |Total ships built=, I would expect a different value to appear in the infobox than the value used for the current name of |Total ships building= which uses present tense. So, for the same reason, I think the parameter name of |Total ships ordered= (which uses past tense) doesn't match the current use this field (even if we continue to use "Ordered:" as the infobox field display name). Just like the |Total ships building= field, I think the parameter name for the ordering field should be something using present tense like |Total ships on order= or |Total ships ordering= (this is the phrase I called awkward). I am not actually at all particular about the actual infobox field display name — it could remain "Ordered:", or change to "On order:" or "Ordering:", I think any of those are fine. —RP88 ^(talk) 18:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, maybe some examples would be helpful. Here are some statements that I think are true for the purposes of demonstrating my points about the the name of the infobox parameter (but for which I don't claim exact numerical accuracy):

• The Navy's 30-year shipbuilding plan suggests that 108 Burkes are planned, to date the total number of Burkes that have been ordered is 77, of which 64 are active.
• 5 Burkes have been ordered for which construction has not yet begun.
• The number of Burkes whose current status might best be referred to as "On order" or "Ordered" is 5.
• The total number of Burkes on order is 5.
• 5 Burkes are currently on order.

—RP88 ^(talk) 19:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, ok... I got you now. And I can see where you might find, or think others might find, the wording problematic. It hadn't occurred to me before because it's been used in several articles and tables and it never seemed to cause an issue (even after I added it to those infoboxes, no one seemed to have a problem with it). The majority of places I listed use "Ordered", but some also use "On order" (maybe we should agree on one for all usage?) As for the parameter, when Trappist the monk made the comment about the parameter being entered as "Total ships ordered", I didn't think much of it, other than a technicality than really makes no difference. All the infobox parameters for "planned", "building", etc., have "Total ships" as part of the parameter, but that doesn't show up in the infobox. So to me, 'out of sight, out of mind', not really an issue.

I think that if we add "Total ships ordered", which will only show as "ordered", and realign the parameters to the life cycle of a ship, eg: 1) planned, 2) ordered 3) Building 4) completed 5) active, etc., etc., then the math will speak for itself, as it seems to have been doing for all these other lists and tables (or we could add an "overall total" somehow? and another thought, perhaps we could add "stage"... somewhere eg: "Planning stage", "building stage", it would help to differentiate just what ships are where. it's just an idea though, I'm not married to it). Really, I hoping that, first, we can agree that "ordered" (in some form) should be added as a parameter to the infoboxes for ships and subs, then second, the parameter order should be changed as noted above, and third... well, if we get that far, the other details should be an easy sort. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 05:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Added sandbox version of {{Infobox ship class overview}} using |Total ships on order= and data from Gerald R. Ford class.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The code in the sandbox and your example use at the head of this topic section look fine to me. —RP88 ^(talk) 10:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

TheWolfChild, I think we both agree that indicating the number of ships currently on order/ordered is a fine addition to infobox ship class overview. I think most of the confusion comes from the fact that editors of Wikipedia use at least two different schemes for naming the status of ships that are not yet active. Editors sometimes use a status derived from the name of the most recent milestone reached: Ordered, Keel laid, Launched, etc. These will be in past tense, since the milestones on which a status is based are necessarily in the past. Editors also sometimes use a status derived from the current phase of construction: On order, Under construction, Fitting out, etc. These will, obviously, be in present tense. There is typically a correspondence between milestones and the phase of construction (e.g. fitting out begins when a ship is launched, a ship is on order after it is ordered, etc.). I think it is OK for articles to use either scheme, but some articles use a mix, which I find mildly annoying and will sometimes fix if it is obvious that other editors have largely favored a particular scheme for that class of ship. Up to now the infobox has avoided the issue since it has just had "Building:" for ships under construction in any phase. TTM's sandbox version now uses "On order:" which I prefer since it matches the tense of "Building:". Is that OK with you? —RP88 ^(talk) 13:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: That looks fine to me, thanks for doing that up. - ^theWOLFchild 14:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@RP88: - Agreed on all counts. The tense doesn't really matter to me. You've given sound reasoning for your preference so I have no problem going with that. If we find that some users down the line start changing it back and forth, or bring it up on the talk page, it can be re-visited then. Ultimately, I'd just like to see it added, whichever way. Thanks for your comments, both of you. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 14:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

done.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

G and H-class destroyer Total Number

There some question I need to ask about this class of destroyer.

In there , the info box said:

Subclasses: G, H, Havant

Built: 1934–40

In commission: 1936–64

Completed: 24

Lost: 17

Scrapped: 7

That total number only include Royal navy's and their subclasses . But include other operators and their subclasses as well , the info box should be like this:

Subclasses: G, H, Havant , Buenos Aires , Acre , Vasilefs Georgios

Built: 1934–51

In commission: 1936–74

Completed: 39

Canceled: 2

Lost: 20

Scrapped: 19

So , should I follow the old one , or follow the new one and make a edit ? If follow the old one , the operator in info box , template and article should make a change since what shown in article , info box and template , is more than 24 destroyers. -- Comrade John (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Category for unfinished ships

I am surprised there is no category for unfinished ships. See Category:Cancelled projects and events - we have categories for unfinished books, nuclear reactors... but not ships. Sometimes those are notable (ex. ORP Huragan). Any objections to creating one, and how it should be called? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Is this covered by Category:Cancelled ships? Lyndaship (talk) 12:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

There's also Category:Proposed ships. I wonder how much overlap those two categories have, and whether one might be merged into the other. Parsecboy (talk) 12:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm against merging the "cancelled" and "proposed" categories. The former is for projects where something significant had already been done (e.g. firm shipbuilding contract, extensive design work, equipment purchases, partial construction) and generally the project was clearly heading for ship construction at the time when it was abandoned. The latter is a more abstract category, including both past design studies (think WW2-era) as well as future ships which meet GNG. Regarding the latter, once the ship is under construction with a "citable" launch date, should it be moved to "(year) ships" category? What if the launch date is set to 2019? Tupsumato (talk) 06:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

TSS/SS Canterbury (1929)

I am developing an article in a sandbox for the Ship Canterbury built in 1929 registry 161199. I understand her proper prefix to be TSS ... however Template:SR ships has her redlinked as SS. Which would people suggest for the article name. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

1. Can you robustly source that the correct prefix is TSS? (Just who is the canonical authority for such things??) Is this TSS or TS?

2. It doesn't matter. We can move pages. Just do it, anything can be changed later.

Name it as TSS, edit the navbox to suit or just put a redirect in from SS to TSS. There's no {{TSS}}, but you can make this easily yourself by copying from {{SS}}, it's just a simple wrapper around {{ship}}. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no "canonical authority", as we go by the usage of reliable sources, which often point no prefix being appropriate or necessary. In practice they are also used to assist disambiguation (even if that is frowned on by some editors). The sources may well vary - as this Canterbury was a twin-screw steam turbine vessel, it's basically a choice between the number of screws (TSS) or the type of machinery (TS) - technically SS would be wrong (implying only one screw), but you might find that it is the commonly used. The Ships Project guidance for naming articles is at WP:SHIPNAME - and see also Ship prefix. Davidships (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

"SS" does not imply only one screw. It simply means steam ship. Kablammo (talk) 03:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for input. I've chosen to create the TSS template and documentation friends and to name the article TSS Canterbury (1929) when I get it to main article space ... its still WIP at the moment. Thankyou all again for support and input.Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The following source may be of interest: Turbine Excursion Steamers by Deayton and Quinn. Some of it is available online in preview form. TSS Canterbury is mentioned, but its data page is omitted from the preview. The book deals with a number of ships prefixed TSS, as well as TrSS, but I didn't notice exactly what these meant. RobDuch (talk) 06:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all for comments. I observe that Ship prefix and Twin-screw steamer specifically define 'TSS' as 'twin-screw steamer'. Ship prefix also defines 'SS' as 'single-screw steamship', however it actually links to Screw steamer which is defines simply as one or more screws. I wonder if TSS was specified by the builder or customer as a sort of 'GTi' or 'DeLuxe' badge or to distinguished from an older 'SS' prefix ship .. though I postulate in the early days my understanding is the twin screw could have been more unexpectedly maneurverable than a single screw and this could be significant for nearby vessels. The 1934 train ferries Twickenham, Shepperton and Hampton and also interesting. They seem generally use the 'SS' prefix if anything although Southern railway produced a postcard for the Shepperton Ferry prefixing it 'TSS'. ( there is no article for the Hampton and I would use 'SS' for that for consistency). Possibly there is a case for indicating on the Ship Prefix artcile that SS may stand for any Screw Steamship, not just a single ... though a reliable source for this might be best.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kablammo: : Can you (or anyone) quote specific examples of ships commonly prefixed TSS that are not twin screw?Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark: Thanks for updating the ref at ship prefix - I was doing the same thing and got an "edit conflict" (should get up earlier), but have extended the refs to the RINA document. Difficult to know when the abbreviations SS etc actually came into use rather than spelling out "screw steamer" (originally to differentiate PS) - and until the 1860s virtually all steamships were single-screw, and they remained the dominant type thereafter.

@Kablammo: Yes, in modern general usage it has come to denote any kind of steam powered ship, including paddle steamers (that's why I qualified my comment with "technically"). Davidships (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Davidships. I was confused by the comment; thanks for clarifying.

Djm-leighpark: King Edward was known both as "TS", and "TSS". [11] The vessel had three screws. (I suppose the "T" could refer to three, but I've not seen that anywhere. [Add: I see that RobDuch has unearthed a source using "TrSS"; I have not yet checked that. Kablammo (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)]

We may be trying to impose order where there is none; companies apparently could use any prefix they wanted. Kablammo (talk) 13:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Paging dave souza, our resident expert on the railway steamers of western Scotland. Kablammo (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Wish you hadn't asked me that! I'm not an expert, but have some books in the house: books refer to "turbine steamer" in the text but don't use the initials. It struck me that modern common usage has come into prominence with "Friends of TS Queen Mary - Bringing the only remaining Clydebuilt turbine steamer home to the Clyde" promoting preservation of "The Last Clydebuilt Turbine Steamer". TS Queen Mary. Retrieved 5 March 2018., as reported by the BBC twice, and EveningTimes.
Looking at reference books in my house, oops, not in the series, see Paterson series below.. by Peter Milne including Clyde Steamers and Loch Lomond Fleets in and After 1936. I. Allan. 1957. refers to Tr.S.S. Queen Mary, while Fred M. Walker (1984). Song of the Clyde: A History of Clyde Shipbuilding. Patrick Stephens Limited. ISBN 978-0-85059-603-8. has "TrSS Queen Mary" on p. 124, "Tr. SS Queen Mary" in the index.
Google books finds support for all these options, including "t.s. 'King Edward' " in the The Scots Law Times. W. Green & Son. 1923., and T.S. Queen Mary in Geoffrey Grimshaw (1945). British Pleasure Steamers, 1920-1939. R. Tilling.; Marine News. 1968.; and The Scots Magazine. D.C. Thomson. 1974..
In one instance, Alistair Deayton; Iain Quinn (15 September 2013). Turbine Excursion Steamers: A History. Amberley Publishing Limited. p. 5. ISBN 978-1-4456-1955-2. lists "TrSS Queen Mary" and "TrSS Glen Sannox", but also "TSS King George V" for the steamer we've got as TS King George V; don't know why. Conclusion: to follow common usage going back over many years, TS works. . . dave souza, talk 09:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks like one for a etymology PhD thesis. In general I think I am beginning to observe TSS is being used for Turbine twin screw (or sometimes three), and TS for single screw or screwcount not specified. In general ships built by Denny or for particularly the LNWR seem to more prevalently referred to as 'T*' rather than 'SS' ... In fact I am now more interested in ships that are Non turbine twin screw being prefixed TSS as that may be a small subset. In writing this I havent had enough time to explore this for more than the odd glance the past couple of days ... and I'm a ship newbie. But I'm comfortable enough for any articles I may write which was my original concern.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Oops, looking at google books searches I mistakenly thought Clyde Steamers and Loch Lomond Fleets in and After 1936 was a follow on to the couple I've got which include, reprinted in paperback, Alan J. S. Paterson (13 November 2001). The Golden Years of the Clyde Steamers (1889-1914). Birlinn. ISBN 978-0-85976-551-0. – I'm looking at the 1967 original hardback, which conveniently has definitions on p. 276 for abbreviations used in the appendix of Fleet Lists – "Tr.S.S. Triple Screw Steamer", "S.S. (Single) Srew Steamer" and "P.S. Paddle Steamer". So, simpler to use TS for turbine steamers, as in TS Queen Mary – it would be very confusing if we moved that to TrSS, assuming a propellor for each turbine, or TSS if she's a twin screw steamer, when most sources refer to TS. . . . dave souza, talk 11:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

p.s. nice to see Canterbury was another Denny steamer, described here as a "twin screw turbine steamer" so TSTS might work, but that's a forum source! . . dave souza, talk 11:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Dave, thanks for your research, help, and insight. You have thereby disproved your disclaimer of expertise. Kablammo (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Nope. Canterbury's a TSS for sure. The Ships bell is in the national railway museum and its got T.S.S. etched on it so thats probably a little definitive. If you check my contributions there's the article WIP on my Sandbox7 but has a few issues currently. Shepperton's from Swan Hunters is more interesting as there is one SR postcard having her a TSS. For a real spanner see TSS Empire Byng.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC) The articles in draft as I may not be continuing work on it. Draft:TSS Canterbury (1929).Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I added two 1943 wartime photos of her to Commons. The plane in your photo is a Handley Page Hampden. Canterbury took part in Operation Starkey in the English Channel within 10 miles of the French coast in Sept 1943. There are peacetime photos associated with her IMO = IMO 5060299, You may be able to get permission to use one of them See Shipspotting.

References

USS Template

Somebody just broke Template:USS. For example, see USS Enterprise (CVN-65). Is there a template editor here that can take a look? This is big - All articles are affected right now. - ^theWOLFchild 19:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

• Y Fixed Thanks R'n'B - ^theWOLFchild 19:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

It was me. Things happen when you do something. Thx to y'all who acted. I'm working on {{Ship}}, the meta of {{USS}}. - DePiep (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

HMS Lynx (F27) and BNS Abu Bakar (1982)

I've combined all the info from these two pages onto the HMS Lynx one as they are the same ship and should only have one article. If someone could check I've done it ok and if so delete or merge or whatever should happen to the Abu Bakar one. I would appreciate it if it could all be explained as there's at least one more BNS ship the same Lyndaship (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

New ship template: {{M/S}} next to {{MS}}

I have created new templates to provide an existing option more easily:

• use {{MS}}: MS Antenor (1957)
• use {{M/S}}: MS Antenor (1957) (Target page unslashed: [[MS Antenor (1957)]])

{{M/V}}, {{M/S}} {{M/Y}} {{R/V}} {{S/V}} {{S/Y}}

They and their "parent" templates like {{MS}} used individual code, now they use {{Ship}} as all the others do ({{USS}} etc.). -DePiep (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why do we need to allow both MS and M/S in Wikipedia where we, elsewhere, aim for consistency between articles? Tupsumato (talk) 08:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Templates in section headings break the links from watch lists so I have removed the templates (and fixed the typo)

It used to be that WP:NCSHIPS proscribed punctuation in ship prefixes. With this edit I removed that proscription. I think that the removal was inadvertent and that none of us caught my error. I think that I would advocate for its restoration.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

re Tupsumato: I only recoded existing template options [12], to make all prefix shortcuts use the same code, options and documentation. That is, I replaced obscure format options |3=8, 14 with a separate template (BTW, they do have this extra twist: change prefix spelling between target article and label shown). Less then half a dozen of articles had to be edited to remove those odd options (all re M/S only; Olau Line [13]). All this, by intention, does not interfere with any guideline.

I understood it to be the article editor's choice of style to use a slashed prefix. We can easily state (or re-state) the guideline that ship articles ship names in articles should never use the slashed form. In that case, the slashed templates can be replaced in articles, and deleted.

That same guideline should be clear about article titles: they should not have the slash either (S/Y Manitou), when having content (that is: redirects with a slash are OK).

I suggest someone familiar with WP:NCSHIPS to write that guideline proposal (in a separate section below). - DePiep (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)