Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 57

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

Archive 50

←

Archive 55

Non-notable crew & lists of COs

It's a shame this proposal was archived before we could agree on definitive version to form a consensus on. It's not the first time that has happened either. These intertwined issues certainly come up often enough, and definitely garnered significant attention here on this talk page, that they seemed worthy of having seen guidance for them added to mosships. Should we try for another proposal and consensus? Or leave it for now... wait until a dispute regarding these issues erupts on an article somewhere and then start all over again? Or is there another option? - wolf 20:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd unarchive it and keep trying to work towards a consensus. We might need to be less prescriptive to achieve a useful consensus. It would better to have some good general guidance than none at all. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: - We could re-post it all back from the archives, perhaps have the discussion drag-on well into next year, or there seemed to be a general consensus in favour of the final draft worded by Lyndaship, we could just add that to mosship and be done with it. - wolf 07:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, we could. Personally, I don't think it would be as useful in comparison to a clear consensus that was adopted by a majority. My other concern is that such an addition might be misused as a "stick" by those who don't support the inclusion of non-notable crew members under virtually any circumstances. I can see a spree of deletions causing untold disruption. Take a look at HMS Mallow (K81). I think naming the skippers is ok (obviously, as I did it), but many would want to deprecate them as they aren't notable, and might use a mosship addition to justify it. There is a lot of grey in this issue IMHO. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree there is grey but its also clear that there is a broad consensus for trying to make things a little less grey with some guidance. The initial proposal was objected to by a number of editors as too prescriptive and giving examples of where they felt it would cause problems. The final proposal was poorly opinionated on but only objected to by one editor who felt it was not prescriptive enough. However given the lack of umph to finally resolve this and Peacemakers continuing concern perhaps if we added another sentence to the end to reinforce there are exceptions to this broad brush.

While a ship may have many notable individuals (including Commanding officers) serving on her during her active lifespan, as a general principle only individuals who are independently notable or were significant (including command) in a major event involving the ship and are named in reliable sources should be considered for inclusion in a ship article. It is strongly recommended that any mentions should be done as part of the chronological narrative of the ship's career rather than in a separate section. Notable persons should be linked to their biographical article, or redlinked if none yet exists. If inclusion of any individual name is challenged a consensus to add on the individual article talk page overrides this guidance.

The need to obtain consensus to add any content (as opposed to delete) is already established in WP:ONUS so this does not materially change the proposal Lyndaship (talk) 10:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: To be fair, you did support that version. You had supported the previous version, but this one was changed to address your concerns. But, anyway... to be blunt, I think it's time to shit or get off the pot. If we re-submit that proposal, you think it'll somehow get a flood of more support? Even if there were somehow a stronger consensus, how does that make any difference to the concerns you've now raised about people suddenly "misusing it as a stick"? If anything, that was already a possibility, and is a possibility with every guideline. I say we add it and trust in the system. If there is an issue with some editing, and it involves this new suggestion at mosship, let's trust that it gets worked out on the article talk page. If not, then by RfC, on that tp or here. If that happens a couple or so times, then we look at rewording it, or even scrapping it altogether if need be. We've put a lot of kilobytes and time into this already, across two project pages. I say just go for it already. (jmho) - wolf 10:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

It was reluctant support at best, frankly. I still don't like the "ship articles should be about ships". It is unnecessarily tunnel-visioned. This is a wiki, and encyclopaedic coverage includes mentioning people who aren't independently notable. But I'm just one editor, you do what you think is best. But I can tell you that any attempt to use this as a "stick" in my area of interest will be vehemently opposed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Whoa, easy big fella. We're all on the same side here. I'm just looking to get this wrapped up so we can all move on to other things. The last version of the proposal, that basically everyone supported, had that line removed. As you can see, Lyndaship has just reposted it. I don't see any twigs coming out of that, never mind any "sticks". So if there's no objections, how about adding to mosship, and calling it a day? Cheers - wolf 11:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

AFAIAC, go ahead, but my proviso stands. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to change my stance on the ship articles need to be about ships and go with Peacemaker. I had not thought about when ships become museums and how that changes the nature of the article, from just a ship article to more than that or if a ship was involved in significant affairs, like the Tiger talks. So I am willing to support Peacemaker's suggestion. It is unnecessarily tunnel-visioned that the article focus on just the ship. I just didn't want articles to have entire biographies about the ship's namesake. Llammakey (talk) 14:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

About Eilean (yacht) - notable? If and only if, assistance with infobox and so on

Hi all,
First of all, does this yacht pass the various notability tests? See the deletion discussion here. I think there is a reasonable argument made there that but for the association with Duran Duran, this would simply be a run of the mill charter yacht business.
If and only if the article passes notability tests, could you possibly help with an infobox and categorisation?
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

At least in yachting there is more recent "notability" associated with the Panerai period and the yacht's use in advertising and regattas than the Duran Duran period. A quick Google reveals video, yachting magazine articles (including details of restoration) and quite a few personalities in multiple nations and languages. ClassicSailboats.Org (CSO) ("a not-for-profit maritime publication and the world’s largest alliance of custodians, stewards, classic yacht owners, initiatives, foundations, organizations, scientists, environmentalist and preservationist") has some of the infobox type info. 72.196.202.60 (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposed article renaming

I've proposed moving LK-60Ya-class icebreaker (back) to Project 22220 nuclear-powered icebreaker; please give your input on this talk page. Tupsumato (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

SS Beme

FYI, the SS Beme page has been nominated for speedy deletion. I have challenged the nomination. Mjroots (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

FYI the 1904 ship came up in an interesting court case. The case was in the late 1950s. See section 19 at the link. The defendant was a "citizen of Iran" and in 1942 the actual, but not recorded, owner of the tanker Beme. Cited in the case was the U.S. Vice Consul, Istanbul, report "How a Panamanian Tanker was Kept from Falling Into the Hands of the Germans" — probably an interesting story. Beme was apparently owned by that person of "unscrupulous reputation" through dummy corporations when sunk. Someone might be interested in creating an article about the ship in that context. The ship was Tyne built. 72.196.202.60 (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

PS: Perhaps "notorious" instead of "notable"? 72.196.202.60 (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

A ghost ship

According to List of shipwrecks in October 1864 and List of shipwrecks in December 1864 (and the citations), USS Mercury was fighting among the Union forces at those dates. It's missing from USS Mercury. Narky Blert (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

No USS Mercury for the Civil War period is in DANFS or in "Register of Ships of the U.S. Navy, 1775-1990, Major Combatants" by Bauer & Roberts. Might've been a privateer-type vessel or some other civilian vessel that had Navy-related service but was never commissioned. Or fell through the cracks in some other manner. RobDuch (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

New Ship Article

Hi Folks. I created this ship article, MV Esso Hamburg my first ship article. I wonder if somebody can check the infobox, or probably the whole article. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 18:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that Folks!!. That is now an excellent wee ship article. scope_creep^Talk 19:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

M/V Jean de La Valette

I just wrote the article M/V Jean de La Valette about a high-speed catamaran which operates Malta-Sicily routes. Is the ship prefix "M/V" correct? I used it because that's how it's called in sources by the vessel's owner. Is there some consensus which states that "MV" should be used and not "M/V"? Also, why does the vessel have the prefix "M/V" rather than "HSC" like other fast catamarans (eg. HSC Tarifa Jet, HSC WorldChampion Jet etc)? I didn't find any sources using "HSC" - all sources use either "M/V", "MV" or no prefix at all. --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

We do not normally use punctuation marks in ship prefixes ie, "MV" and not "M.V.", in this context "/" is a form of punctuation, but not one which is normally used in English. The point is made in WP:NCSHIP though, strangely only in relation to military vessels. I thought that I had read somewhere that for motor vessels MS and MV are both acceptable, but that M/S isn't - but I cannot locate it now. Whether to use a prefix at all and, if so, which one, should primarily follow the sources. As the creator of the article it consequently falls to you, I think, to make a judgement where sources vary. The choice, however, should be applied consistly within an article.

Consistency is also required in the choice of female or neuter pronouns in relation to a ship (see WP:SHE4SHIPS); at present both are used in the article - as article creator, you get to choose! Davidships (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Davidships: Thanks for your reply. I moved the article to MV Jean de La Valette, since that prefix seems to make more sense. I also changed all the pronouns to "it" or "its" for consistency's sake. Best regards, Xwejnusgozo (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

catharpin references

The Project Gutenberg Etext of Two Years Before the Mast by Richard Henry Dana (1840)

is publicly available here [1] Searching catharpin returns no hits, and searching cat-harping has one hit and does not reference the purpose of catharpins.

Lever, D. (1998). The Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor, Dover Maritime Books, p.25.

is publicly available in preview here [2]searching catharpins returns "These are called CROSS CATHARPINS ; and are of great use in keeping the lee-rigging well in, when the Ship rolls."

"William Brady in *The Kedge-Anchor* (1852)"

is not among the references listed, but is quoted in this blog [3] as stating that the purpose of catharpins is to ensure tension in the lee shrouds to prevent the topmast whipping in high seas.

searching google for catharpins returns pages of sites that have all passed around the same quote regarding yard clearance (possibly penned by a reviewer of the R.H.Dana volume), but without primary reference for this idea.

what makes little sense about the yard clearance assertion, is that catharpins are not a trivial customisation to a tall ship, requiring hanging under the top to perform prolonged rope work on each individual shroud (seizing) and the only use of improved yard clearance would be to make the ship operate marginally better under the one use-case that it was not designed for, and for that reason avoided notwithstanding exceptional circumstances.

the gradual replacement of catharpins with a futtock band or mast spider could indicate that the original intent of catharpins was that of the futtock band: to prevent the topmast collapsing like a push-doll when the mast shrouds slacken in strong winds.

a more effective customisation to improve sailing close by the wind has historically been to progressively replace square sails with gaff sails until the desired performance to windward is attained. Longpinkytoes (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Attacker-class and Ruler-class escort carrier

Most of you know this fact: US had built 45 Bogue-class escort carriers during World War 2, 34 of them were sent to UK for Temporary service as Attacker-class and Ruler-class escort carrier.

But their classes total number really confuse me when I look at their article , List of escort carriers of the Royal Navy and template.

Even their total numbers are not correct in two articles combined , 25+8=33 , 1 missing. Of course I can put one back easily but I don’t know which class need to put one more.

In fact , it is not as easy as I thought , after I checked three articles and Bogue-class template , some of the vessels might be put in the wrong class. Which means that the original total numbers of two classes might be wrong as well.

Here the total numbers of Attacker-class and Ruler-class escort carrier in serval pages:

Bogue-class escort carriers: Attacker 11 , Ruler 23 = 34
Attacker-class escort carrier: 9 , the infobox saids 8
Ruler-class escort carrier: 25 , infobox saids 25 also.
List of escort carriers of the Royal Navy: Attacker 11 , Ruler 23 = 34
Template: Bogue-class escort carrier: Attack 8 , Ruler 26 =34

As the vessels that is not in right class order:

HMS Searcher:

Put in Attacker class in Bogue-class escort carriers and List of escort carriers of the Royal Navy ; Put in Ruler-class in Ruler-class escort carrier and template

HMS Ravager

Put in Attacker class in Bogue-class escort carriers and List of escort carriers of the Royal Navy ; Put in Ruler-class in Ruler-class escort carrier and template

HMS Tracker

Put in Attacker class in Attacker-class escort carrier , Bogue-class escort carriers and List of escort carriers of the Royal Navy ; Put in ruler-class in template.

Since I don’t have information so need you folks to clarify two things:

1. Which one is the correct total number of Attacker-class escort carrier and Ruler-class escort carrier ?

Attacker-class 8 , Ruler-class 26
Attacker-class 9 , Ruler-class 25
Attacker-class 11 , Ruler-class 23

2. Clarify the following ships. Which one is Attacker-class escort carriers , which one is Ruler-class escort carrier:

HMS Searcher
HMS Ravager
HMS Tracker

Thank you.--Comrade John (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Conway's 1922-1946 pp. 25-26 lists 11 Attacker-class and 23 Ameer-class (same as Ruler-class), total 34. HMS Searcher, HMS Ravager, and HMS Tracker are all listed with the Attacker-class. The "Register" by Bauer & Roberts pp. 126-129 lists the 34 British loans, but does not break out the classes. It does note that eight of these CVEs had an extra name change (total 2 British names) before commissioning in the RN, with one of these (HMS Trailer/HMS Hunter) during RN service. Four of the loaned vessels did not have a US name; just to mix things up, one of these (Tracker) has the same name listed with USN and RN; a note says it was the sole Lend-Lease vessel. To further confuse things, Tracker's hull number was BAVG-6, conflicting with CVE-6, HMS Battler ex-USS Altamaha. RobDuch (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Do we need the Category "American Civil War shipwrecks in the Mississippi River"?

Categories with one item aren't a good idea. We should either just delete this one and move its sole item to "Shipwrecks of the Mississippi River" or populate it with other shipwrecks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R k nelson (talk • contribs) 15:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Ship type for Jinggang Shan and Kunlun Shan

Hello all,

Since the PLAN does not use ship prefix, Jinggang Shan (999) and Kunlun Shan (998) should be renamed per the convention laid down in WP:NCS. Module:WPSHIPS utilities currently does not have "amphibious landing dock" or "amphibious warfare ship" in its list of ship types.

To what degree does the ship type become too specific? (e.g. Chinese amphibious warfare ship Jinggang Shan vs. Chinese amphibious landing dock Jinggang Shan)-Mys_721tx (talk) 09:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Precedent would suggest Chinese ship Jinggang Shan and Chinese ship Kunlun Shan - see for instance French ship Dixmude (L9015) or Russian ship Caesar Kunikov. Parsecboy (talk) 12:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

"ship" does not give too much information about the ship. For the two examples, I think French amphibious assault ship Dixmude (L9015) and Russian landing ship Caesar Kunikov would have more information without being too specific. -Mys_721tx (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

No, but the purpose of the title isn't to give much information about the topic - the first sentence should do that. The title should just make clear we're talking about, for instance, Caesar Kunikov the ship, not Caesar Kunikov the person. I'd think if the naming conventions advise against "light aircraft carrier" instead of just "aircraft carrier", it would follow that "amphibious assault ship" is too specific. Parsecboy (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I've moved them accordingly. If I understand correctly, unless there are multiple ships of the same name but different types, "ship" should suffice? -Mys_721tx (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, you'd only need to add the hull numbers if there was another ship of the same name. Parsecboy (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

El Gamo

The English world has invariably classified the Spanish ship El Gamo as a Xebec-Frigate. I have just received official correspondence from a source in Spain, a letter dated 15/1/2019, from:

ARMADA ÓRGANO DE HISTORIA Y CULTURA NAVAL SUBSISTEMA ARCHIVÍSTICO MINISTERIO DE DEFENSA ARCHIVO MUSEO NAVAL Código DIR3: E00117101

that there was no Xebec-Frigate El Gamo, she was a Xebec. Spain had a substantial number of military-style Xebecs in use with draughts in existence from 14 to 34 cannon. There is no dispute as to Gamo's size or guns.

It is likely that the English classified her as a Xebec-Frigate because of her size but also so as to magnify the achievement when the Brig-Sloop HMS Speedy captured her. The difference between a common Spanish military-style xebec design and a Spanish frigate design is tremendous with respect to hull shape, stern and decking. Calling Gamo a frigate, in any part, suggests a hull configuration that may conform to a standard frigate (e.g., stern shape, hull shape, raised walkways over the center of the gun deck), which is a huge assumption. It is very unlikely the stern or hull was like that of a standard ship. It is unclear if she had walkway bridges; that would require a deck view and I have yet to see anything beyond models and paintings and drawings.

Therefore, I recommend that the articles on El Gamo and HMS Speedy be modified to call her a "large Xebec" and omit all reference to frigate or Xebec-Frigate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffrey Modell (talk • contribs) 15:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jeffrey Modell: Unfortunately, we can't make changes based on any correspondence you have personally received. Any changes would need to be supported by reliable sources. Indeed, this is what all content on Wikipedia is (or should be) based on. - wolf 17:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Expand entry for James Hackett (Shipbuilder)

Hello, I represent the Brookfield NH Historical Commision and we would like to greatly expand the entry for "James Hackett - Shipbuilder". He was a resident of Brookfield and he built a ship for John Paul Jones as well as the ship that is the center of the NH state flag. We have several paragraphs of material from several sources that we would like to edit/expand this entry. I have helped edit a short addition to another Wikipedia entry so I know the basic rules. The entry for Hackett appears to be authored by Bot and I did not see any specific editor to ask if it is ok to expand it. This appears to be the right group to ask? Thanks in advance for any help/advice on this project. Ffrazier4 (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm willing to help. I haven't done much biography on Wiki, but I worked on Isaac Rice and Charles Tillinghast James. WP:RS is the policy on what constitutes reliable sources. Published books and newspapers are best and websites are often used (except blogs, Facebook, other self-authored sites). Looking forward to seeing what you have. RobDuch (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

LR 1930-1945: Plimsoll Shipdata

The Plimsoll portal to searchable Lloyd's Registers covering 1930-1945 disappeared without announcement several weeks ago. The content has been rediscovered here, now on the main Southampton City Council website. Functionality is fundamentally the same but less user-friendly search process. I've amended the link on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Sources. Davidships (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Does that mean all links in references will need to be amended? If so, it would be an easy bot task. Mjroots (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the LR page references will need to be changed. For example, from HMS Suva

old: http://www.plimsollshipdata.org/pdffile.php?name=45a0160.pdf

new: https://plimsoll.southampton.gov.uk/shipdata/pdfs/45/45a0160.pdf

but we also have some references like this: http://www.plimsollshipdata.org/ship.php?ship_id=39974&name=Bohol - I don't know what they pointed at. Davidships (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Those latter links would have been to the page produced by entering "Bohol" into the search box on Plimsollshipdata. It would have contained links to the relevant LR entries as in the first link. Mjroots (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

New equivalent in search process doesn't give anything useful for references: [4]. And in this example the old one's use was misleading anyway - listing the LR volumes that the names appear in (so falling one short on Bohol). Davidships (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The links in section 3 of your example are broadly equivalent. Mjroots (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Just when we've sussed out where the Plimsoll stuff is (with its really dreadful initial search results pages), Lloyd's Register Foundation themselves have recast their portal for online LRs and with no prior warning. The former entry point (https://www.lrfoundation.org.uk/public_education/reference-library/register-of-ships-online/) is now just a dead unsignposted page. The start-point is now at https://hec.lrfoundation.org.uk/archive-library/lloyds-register-of-ships-online/lloyds-register-of-ships-online. Although nowhere near as dreadful as City of Southampton's effort with Plimsoll, it has a new annoying feature. Because the index is spread over what looks like four web-pages, but is in reality only one, returning to the index in a browser always seems to take one to 1764-1804. However, this shouldn't affect referencing as I think that the individual LR images still have the same pdf locations on the various linked hosts (but that is only based on a cursory sampling).

Also, Lloyd's Casualty Returns 1890-2000 are now at https://hec.lrfoundation.org.uk/archive-library/casualty-returns. Davidships (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Link removal dispute

A few days ago an editor and I had a dispute over her removal of a bunch of links from the Russian battleship Potemkin article. I reverted her once, we discussed it on the talk page without coming any resolution, and she continued to remove links. Here's a diff to the changes that she made: [5] and I invite your comments on Talk:Russian battleship Potemkin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sturmvogel 66 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Cattle ship Britannia

Can anyone help with this disambiguation request? The article says Britannia was built 1827 in Yarmouth, but Yarmouth is ambiguous. I'm guessing Great Yarmouth is meant, but I could be wrong. SpinningSpark 13:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately from 1828 through to 1857, Lloyd's Register has only "Yarmouth", and nothing found in newspapers on this. Some OR would probably find the answer in ship registration docs, but that's another thing. Perhaps better than a tag would be a footnote? Davidships (talk) 03:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

So what's in Lloyd's after 1857? If there are registrations for Great Yarmouth and none for Yarmouth, Isle of Wight I would say it was case closed, it's a simple name change. SpinningSpark 13:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Nothing. What has it got to do with "registrations", the question is about place of build? In early/mid-19th century maritime documentation GY was normally referred to as just Yarmouth. This was a sizeable ship, so building in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, Yarmouth, Maine or even Yarmouth, Massachusetts would also have been quite possible. Davidships (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

In Lloyd's register for 1827, the list of abbreviations states Ya for "Yarmouth". This is Great Yarmouth, Norfolk. Mjroots (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Davidships, it was you who first mentioned Lloyd's register, I was just following up on that. Given the context, I would be reasonably confident my source (Haigh) would have said so if the ship had been built outside the UK, so that only leaves GY and IoW to choose between. SpinningSpark 21:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mjroots: please note the heading for those surveying port abbreviations - "In the eighth column" and "The Abbreviated port is always the the surveying port". This is nothing directly to do with the place of build, which is in Column 4, for this ship as "Yrmth", but that is abbreviated variably for different ships. Nevertheless as the ship in question was also first surveyed in "Ya" I would grant that there is a high probability that it is the same place (but note most ships were not first surveyed at their building port). But.....

@Spinningspark: I'm sorry, but I don't share your confidence in Haigh on this - he is/was an electrical engineer with Royal Navy/oceanographic experience, not a maritime historian, and my well-worn copy is somewhat annotated with corrections, particularly in relation to earlier or more minor ships. Unfortunately the book has no references or even a bibliography, though 50 years on it is still the best there is. And after a couple of days looking for corroborative sources it is clear that his necessarily-brief mention of Britannia in relation to the Holyhead-Howth cable misidentifies the ship completely. I hope to be able to edit the article in a day or so, and will put something appropriate on the talk page. Davidships (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Spinningspark:@Mjroots:: As promised, I've had a go with revising this to identify the right Britannia, as per all the contemporary sources - I found none which hint at any other vessel than the City of Dublin SPCo's paddle steamer - where Haigh got his Yarmouth-built barque from remains a mystery (though the vessel most certainly existed, but without the oddity of an added steam engine). Actually Haigh is probably right with "Ireland-Liverpool cattle trade" as Britannia was by then no longer the crack packet steamer in the City of Dublin's fleet, and quite likely focussed on that important livestock trade. This is a minor subject in the context of the article so I have not gone into this aspect except in a brief footnote. I've also tried to give the section a bit of structure to make clearer who did what. If bullet points are deprecated, no doubt there are alternatives. Also, I have left the rest of the text in those paras largely untouched as I do not have the references cited, apart from Haigh. Hope this is helpful. Davidships (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Fishing vessel with many names: which to use, latest?

I'm thinking of writing up this fishing vessel. As the article states, it went by many names but is perhaps best known as Andrey Dolgov. Am I right that the latest name, FV STS-50, should be used for the article (with a hatnote at STS-50)? There is a registry entry under that latest name. (I see from an archive search that the Miramar registry is still generally used here despite now being subscription-only; I was just in a conversation with a regular ships editor concerning that, and if I go ahead with the article will have to ask someone with access to check it for this ship.) Yngvadottir (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

If best-known as Andrey Dolgov, that's the best article name I think - with redirects from other names mentioned in the article. No doubt there are several here who can help with Miramar etc - just let us know when your article is up. Davidships (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: I went with Andrey Dolgov as that was the name I saw the ship called in this BBC article this fishing vessel, which inspired my creation. Also, the title STS-50 was taken by a space shuttle mission.--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah ok, thanks :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

SIA class

I noticed on a ship article that it had been rated as "SIA-class". Wondering what that meant, I clicked on the link, which took me to the category where the only explanation is "For more information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships". First of all, the link should be Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Assessment which is where the rating information actually is. Secondly, the page does not mention an "SIA class", so I am still non the wiser. Something needs updating here. SpinningSpark 17:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Does SIA = "ship index article"? I usually class these as dab pages, although others would argue that they are lists. Mjroots (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, they are list pages. At this point, marking them as dab pages verges into disruptive behaviour for experienced editors. Llammakey (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

No use shouting at people about it when there isn't even an explanation on your project page (which was my original point). How do you expect people to know? SpinningSpark 18:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

That wasn't directed at you SpinningSpark. Sorry, I meant no disrespect towards you. My tirade was about those who didn't like how the last discussion went. Llammakey (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, since the assessment pages uses templates to explain the different assessment levels, I've asked the template editors to add a section for Set Index articles. For more information about SIA class articles, Wikipedia:Set index articles, this would be of help. That is where it states that Set Index articles are list pages, not disambiguation pages. Llammakey (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Sinking of SS Princess Alice

This article is at WP:FAC.[6] There has been some conflation of tonnage with displacement, and it would be helpful for someone with access to Miramar could check the metrics against the cited sources. This BBC article may have made the same error where it states that the passenger vessel "weighed less than a third of the 890-ton collier", but that assertion has now been removed from the article. Kablammo (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm told by SchroCat that Lyndaship has checked Miramar, so it should be OK. Kablammo (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I did. Its on my talk page Lyndaship (talk) 13:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

A different point: Can lovers of ship prefixes please explain what this means, that starts the article: "SS Princess Alice, formerly PS Bute"? Davidships (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Per ship prefix, SS means steamship (generally taken to mean a screw propelled ship, but applying the term to a paddle steamer (PS) is technically not wrong). The ship should be correctly described as PS Princess Alice. Mjroots (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Ship prefix is at best ambiguous. Para 1: "“SS” - steam-ship" (unreferenced); table: "SS - Single-screw Steamship (also used as generic term for any steam-powered ship)" and is specifically referenced to [7] which has "SS - Steamship (single screw)". Few, if any, of the books cited in the article use any prefixes. Davidships (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Stubs vs no article

Hello all, new user to the Wikiproject here. Many potential pages, such as specific ships on a list such as list of hospitals and hospital ships of the Royal Navy have no article whatsoever. Is it better to make a page for these, with the little information that is available, such as on HMHS Liberty, or to leave the ship without a page? I'm interested to hear your input, as I've been going through a few of these pages and making them, just as stub entries with usually only one or two sources (all I can find online). SomeRandomUserGuy (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that stubs are fine; I've built many myself with the goal of coming back to them at some point and expanding them whenever I've got the time and energy to do so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

As you say they are catered for on the list, and on disambiguation pages. Better for someone to create an article and follow through to its completion. Creating the article gives a sense of ownership, sufficient to invest time. Stubs don't do that. If you've found two references, then why not go the extra yard and complete the article. We have plenty of half researched articles, lying around already. Lists provide enough presence for non notable ships anyway. Broichmore (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Your example HMHS Liberty has already been written up as SY Liberty. So a stub should not have been created, just a redirect at the most. Broichmore (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I should add. If the ship turns out to be significant in some way, then making a DYK out of it gets considerably more difficult, if already hanging around as a stub. Broichmore (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Question about ship tables in class articles

I'm working on some destroyer class articles and have been updating their ship tables. I always add laid down, launched and completed/commissioned info if I have it, but my question is about whether it's worth adding a "fate" column as well. One example with: Type 1934A destroyers and one without: Tátra-class destroyer. I can see how it would serve as a quick reference for the ultimate disposition of the ship, but I dislike it because I usually cover than in the main body and it seems a bit redundant to have it in both places. Plus, it feels really weird not to cover that in the main body. A related question would be how much information to cover in the table. I tend to be a minimalist in these sorts of things since the details should be in the main body, but you can see how much information that other editors have included which I would regard as unnecessary, but I know my bias in this matter. I'd prefer to have the reason for loss, date and if it happened in a battle, I'd add that, but that would be it. I really don't see the need to list the ship that sank her or whatever. Comments, thoughts?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I am strongly in favor of including fates in ship tables in class articles and related lists. I think it's all right if the fate is abbreviated in some way, but it needs to be there. The cause needs to be included, although I agree that over-identification of the enemy is not needed. An example was List of Royal Navy losses in World War II#Cruisers; before I edited it several ships were listed as "scuttled", with no information on enemy action that caused the scuttling. Many ship classes have too many ships to include an outline history for each one, and outline histories are difficult to glance over for information. Including fates in a table allows the reader to tell at a glance which vessels had tragic or unusual fates. RobDuch (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't include fates in the tables, since I use them just as construction info (see for instance here) - fates should be handled in the prose, where more details can be given, in my opinion. In general, I just do the yard and the dates of keel laying, launching, and commissioning (and then don't repeat that in the prose).

On the other hand, it would be impossible to give individual summaries of the 175 Fletchers in an article of any reasonable length, so a table would be a more appropriate solution, I think. I would agree that such tables should be kept to a minimum - something along the lines of "Sunk [date] in the Battle of X". Parsecboy (talk) 12:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I use the class pages mainly for checking information to be entered in ship index pages. I find having the fate mentioned in a table of immense value as it saves having to scan through a lot of prose. It should also be borne in mind that many minor warships do not have an individual article so the class article is the only place where the information can be found. Lyndaship (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

SS Mary Luckenbach (1918)

I have recently been in discussion with another editor as to the correct year dab for this ship. She was launched in 1918 under another name and did not become SS Mary Luckenbach until 1941 therefore as stated in WP:SHIPDAB In instances where a ship was captured or otherwise acquired by a navy or shipping company, or simply renamed, and the article is placed at that title, use the date that is in agreement with the name and prefix (such as the date of capture or entry to the navy or fleet, or the date of the renaming) rather than the date of launch I feel that 1941 is correct. Conversely the section on WP:NCS for merchant ships says When the name is ambiguous, append disambiguation information in parentheses. The date of launching can be used if there are several ships with the same name. I feel the DO NOT in the former trumps the CAN in the latter but I thought it best to check here before restoring my change Lyndaship (talk) 09:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm the other editor in question. The accepted practice for disambuguation is that military ships that don't have pennant numbers are disambiguated by the year of commission, which is not always the same as the year of launch. Merchant ship disambiguation is generally by year of launch, not by year that the name was acquired. This particular Mary Luckenbach was launched in 1918. Mjroots (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Not that I doubt you, but can you provide any links to, or quotes from, any guidelines to support your comments, like Lyndaship has above? It would be helpful. Thanks - wolf 13:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

No, warships are disambiguated by year of launch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: - that does not apply to ships captured and put into service with the capturing navy. In these cases, the year of commission is used to dab. That is what I was getting at above. Mjroots (talk) 09:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Cannot fault Lyndaship's reading of the Guidelines, nor Mjroots' summary of normal and hitherto accepted practice. We are already just about the only modern reference source that defines merchant ships by launch year rather than completion (and Lloyd's Register gave up on that well over a century ago, I think), and dabs where necessary accordingly. It is likely that the vast majority of readers, knowledgable about ships or not, faced by a year as a dab, would assume that it is when the ship was built, regardless of whether it is on its first, second or umpteenth name or owner (I am not arguing to make any change now from launch to completion - there's far far too much water under the bridge on that). But the point now raised is another reason to revisit the Guidelines - I wonder whether there are any merchant ship articles that actually follow the letter of the guidelines in this regard? Davidships (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Good and interesting points well made by all editors and indeed there might well be grounds for reviewing the guidelines but my question is under the existing guidelines should this article be titled SS Mary Luckenbach (1918) or SS Mary Luckenbach (1941)? Lyndaship (talk) 09:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Whatever is decided here, it would be of great advantage if we were to use the same rules as does Commons... Can we not appoint a co-ordinator for such a task, consensus with Commons? Broichmore (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Commons uses completion date, which is far more subject to interpretation than launch date as French and Russian 19th century ships might be well be "finished, but not yet in service" for a variety of reasons, including performing sea trials, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I am sure that there are good arguments to support any of the possible preferences, which is why a review of our Guidelines on this would be welcome. Where is the Commons dab guidance for ships set out? I could only find in [8] the suggestion that there isn't a dab policy! Meanwhile no burning need to change anything on the article in question. Davidships (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

In all honesty the ship articles should in general bear the ship name at the time of launching otherwise we end up with what we have today - completely arbitrary, subjective and contradictory policies. To answer your question - the ship really should be SS Sac City as it spent the majority of her career under that name, but if you want to retain the original title, then it's SS Mary Luckenbach (1918). Just my $0.02. Crook1 (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't find that very attractive, for two reasons. (1) the principle of titling the ship with the name under which it was most notable is a good one - holding an article under some other name that nobody would be looking for seems odd to me. Of course that may not matter too much with redirects, but it plays havoc with Categories - the absence of MS Estonia or MS Achille Lauro from might seem odd (though it is accepted that this can happen with over-eventful ships) - not many editors seem to add categories to redirects. (2) Leaving notability aside, there is a significant minority of ships that never enter service with the name given at launch, or there is simply no launch name. Davidships (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that that's overthinking things a bit. I don't care what temporary name a ship had while under construction, although that might be worth a mention in the text, I'll use the name for the article that she was used when completed/commissioned and the date serves only a dab, nothing else.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

One of the reasons for the naming system in Commons was, that Wikipedia's per country differ in approach. The Germans, Dutch end many others use the year of completion for ships or first commissioning for naval ships. Have a look at the Wikipedia Nederlands. It works, as for many old ships it is inpossible to find the year of launching on the internet. Using the the year of completion, in most cases it is the year of the first trip with load or passengers. We use there the same system as in commons. The naming is standardised there, see here, compared with Category:Ship_names. --Stunteltje (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Although the Dutch wiki has that policy a quick look through the list of ships shows that many ships are dabbed by launch date and during a similar look at the German wiki all the ships I checked were dabbed by launch date Lyndaship (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

That seems closer to my thinking, Sturmvogel66, except I would put it at a later name where that is the one that is the most notable, eg with MS Estonia. The year isn't used just for dabs, every ship goes into a 'Ships of 1956'-type Category. Davidships (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

USS Ranger (1777)

There is a post on the Milhist talk page regarding this ship; see here. FYI - wolf 19:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Equasis template

Trying to follow Template:Cite ship register but maybe I am doing it wrong. It displays as it should in the Reflist, like this:"St Helena (8716306)". Equasis. Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy. Retrieved 2019-03-06.. However the link then leads to a "404 not found" page, regardless of whether I am logged in to Equasis, or not. Shouldn't it at least go to the registration/log-in page? Davidships (talk) 12:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm guessing that Equasis have changed the layout of their website so our url for their search page no longer works. If this is true, do you know the url for their new search page? If you navigate to the Equasis page for St Helena, what is the url? In the olden days, {{csr}} had a url that included the value from |id=. In the best of all possible worlds, we should try to get back to that url form so that logged in users (at Equasis) can link directly to the appropriate Equasis page without having to go through search ...

Of course it may just be that Equasis have not changed their website and are just experiencing some sort of technical problem?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Equasis does not allow direct linking to database entries; the direct link should be removed and only link to Equasis main page retained. Tupsumato (talk) 06:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

"In the olden days". Of course, it was originally just open access, but then they introduced the registration requirement so, as Tupsumato says, direct linking to database entries, or even a live search page, would be self-defeating. Also I can see that individual ship data pages do not have individual URLs (it's compiling a page from the full database on demand), so there is nothing to link directly to anyway.

This is the starter page. Davidships (talk) 10:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I implemented the url that Editor Davidships provided. After that, Editor Ahecht changed it to this:

http://www.equasis.org/EquasisWeb/restricted/ShipInfo?fs=Search&P_IMO={{{id}}}

That url is, I suppose, fine for readers / editors who are already logged in to Equasis. For those who are not already logged in, that url lands at an error message:

Your session has expired, please try to login again

Perhaps for editors that is not something that would be unexpected. For readers? I'm not so sure that we should be sending them to an error message page.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: I like to have a direct link to where the data can actually be found, whenever possible. In this case, the worst that happens is that reader gets an error message prompting them to log in, which is required to acccess the referenced data anyway (and which we've already warned about with the gray lock icon). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the above. By the way, now that you are working on the template, could you check the other database links as well. Some may have changed in the recent past. Tupsumato (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ahecht: Unfortunately that doesn't work for me. Using my example http://www.equasis.org/EquasisWeb/restricted/ShipInfo?fs=Search&P_IMO={{{8716306}}} - if already logged in I get error message "We're sorry...it seems that we can't find the page you're looking for" and a pop-up "No ship has been found with your criteria". So it's now worse if you are already logged on than if you aren't (confirmed that it works properly if manually entering that IMO in the search box). Davidships (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@Davidships: When the template is used, it would replace the entire {{{id}}} string, including the brackets, to produce http://www.equasis.org/EquasisWeb/restricted/ShipInfo?fs=Search&P_IMO=8716306. That link works for me. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't work, "Page not found is all I get". Frankly, kind of pointless to redirect to a non-existing page. Crook1 (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, @Ahecht:, that works if I am already logged in. If I am logged out, I get the log-in/register page which is what I would expect. Well done. Davidships (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Vikrant-class aircraft carrier into INS Vikrant (2013)

You might want to comment on this merger proposal. —Gazoth (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Madeline Blair

Article brought over from the french Wikipedia about a stowaway hooker on USS Arizona. Was just added to Arizona's see also section. Thoughts? - wolf 01:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Surely significant enough, especially given the severe repercussions, to merit a brief mention in the main chronology. If even a sentence is thought too much, then some annotation of the 'See also' would be helpful for readers. Davidships (talk) 14:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree, should be mentioned in prose on the ships article Lyndaship (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees. It's at AfD. - wolf 20:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Different question. There should be a mention in USS Arizona (BB-39), regardless of whether the Blair article stands or falls. 23 courts martial with up to 10 years in jail - and a serious reprimand for every officer from Captain to Ensign (how many?) - is a significant event in the life of the ship by any standard. More so, I would have thought, that the ship's use as a film location in 1934 for Cagney - and that makes it into the Lead. Davidships (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Life on board a ship is a major part of it's story, including unusual or out of the norm events. Broichmore (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

FWIW Friedman's US battleship book gives a complement of 55 officers, 860 enlisted as built for Arizona's sister Pennsylvania. I looked at several sources before finding one that gave the number of officers. Friedman does not give a complement figure for Pennsylvania as reconstructed in 1931; Conway's gives a total figure for Arizona of 1,052 after reconstruction. RobDuch (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Y'all are free to add the Blair info if y'all like. I don't believe that the incident was mentioned in Stilwell's history of the ship. I've ordered a replacement copy so I can add a good figure for the complement as I'm seeing a rather wide disparity in my sources on hand. In the meantime I'll replace the current subtly vandalized figure with something a bit more reliable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Got the book, updated the complement figures and covered Madeleine, though not like some of the crew did.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

USS

So I came across USS Gypsy (SP-55), and as far as I'm aware, if a vessel hasn't actually been commissioned, it's not a "USS" anything. Before I go and remove the prefix, however, I figured I should ask here if anyone has a different understanding. Parsecboy (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Kablammo (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Concur. Not a "USS". - wolf 05:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

What title should it be? I'd think it would be United States patrol boat Gypsy based on the naming conventions (and it might be worthwhile to add a line on rare exceptions like this one to the conventions - I know this isn't the only case, as I recall Palmiera mentioning the motley array of vessels in the Philippines in the interwar period that weren't actually commissioned but still get the prefix applied incorrectly - if anyone's interested, that old thread is here). Parsecboy (talk) 12:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Or just Gypsy (SP-55), if the number wasn't was reassigned. They usually aren't. - wolf 00:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

No suggestion in DANFS or Navsource of reuse of SP-55; I suppose that the USN could quite happily plough on through the numbers for SP- and ID- with no constraints, especially as there was lots of scope for confusion with acquisition of vessels of the same name. As it happens, this is an example where there was another Gypsy, allocated SP-92, though this one didn't even get as far as being prepared for USN service. However, Naval History and Heritage Command muddies the common understanding on "USS" with this photo [9]. Davidships (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Another consideration is commonname (not a particularly good policy, but were stuck with it), she was originally named "Gypsy" when she was built as a private boat five years earlier. That is the only name she was known by. Perhaps the page should just be titled Gypsy (motor boat)...?

She wasn't commissioned, and SP-55 just happened to be the next available number when she was acquired. But given she was never actually used by the navy, and doesn't seem to have much notability as private boat, is this even an article worth keeping? It's not as if she was a capital ship. This article is a stub, of a basically a non-notable boat, that will never be more than it is now. I'm not pushing for deletion, just throwing that out there. I'm good with either Gypsy (SP-55) or Gyspy (motorboat). Cheers - wolf 13:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

That's a good point - there's probably a fairly strong argument to be made that the article out to just be deleted (or redirected to List of patrol vessels of the United States Navy). Anybody else have particularly strong feelings? Parsecboy (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

My take on WP:COMMONNAME is a little different - the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) - in the sources that we have, Gypsy (SP-55) best fits that definition and is reasonably consistent with the five policy criteria. As for whether the article should stay, I am quite firmly for retention - it may be a modest little story but this is a named vessel that was acquired by the USN and given an ID, then unexpectedly destroyed; it is properly referenced and can be even better illustrated, and there remains the possibility of a little further expansion. A redirect to List of patrol vessels of the United States Navy would be effectively a deletion as it is what it says it is, just a useful checklist and index to articles - and neither is Section patrol a useful destination for a redirect and the current content. Davidships (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't know that a couple of lines in DANFS is enough to meet WP:GNG - it's not exactly independent of the subject, right? I had a look in Conway's and it's not there (unsurprisingly). I searched Google Books, and apart from DANFS, I found a list in Proceedings that includes it and a similar table in The New Navy, 1883-1922. All together, they hardly meet the bar of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Unless someone can come up with a significant source (and given the obscurity of the vessel, I doubt such a thing exists) we'll probably head to AfD.

As for the list, it probably ought to be split up and developed along the lines of List of battlecruisers of the United States, List of protected cruisers of Italy, etc. Such a list would be an ideal place for the little information there is on the vessel. Parsecboy (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree with that at the conceptual level, but I cannot see how it could be anywhere near practical, nor an improvement. Comparing it with those "list of" articles on capital ships is apples and oranges - they provide overviews of the subject where the ships, and indeed their classes, have their individual articles (to my mind they are articles-proper, not "lists" at all). There are nearly 600 listed SPs of which it looks like over 400 have articles now. On a small sampling the vast majority are stub-sized articles drawing on the same sources as this one. If, say, 20 vessels would fit on a page, that then spreads the list over 20 separate pages; and, on the assumption that the list would be split numerically, that would remove the current ability to search the full list to find the SP number of the vessel sought. At the moment the coverage of smaller types of USN vessels is organised efficiently and practically and that structure should be left well alone. Exactly the same considerations apply to several other types of smaller USN vessels, not all in the patrol boat category.

As for AfD, picking off random examples which happen to pop up for unrelated reasons is (I bite my tongue) an inappropriate way to approach improving WP. And worse, USS Politesse (SP-662) is a cautionary example - on the same argumentation as above it was decided not to delete, but to merge with List of patrol vessels of the United States Navy. What happened? The content was deleted, and it is left in the List as a circular redirect to itself. This is directly contrary to WP:MERGECLOSE. Now why would that be? Davidships (talk) 13:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Why exactly is it not appropriate to address random examples as they pop up?

As for lists, the main list could be kept for that sort of searching (or perhaps a category would achieve the same result with a main list analogous to List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients), with subdivided lists developed further. Parsecboy (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Wow, this took a left turn. To address the original question, the article should at least be moved in the interim to remove the USS from title since she wasn't commissioned. I'm happy to do that if there are no objections. What happens after that seems to be heading for a broader discussion... - wolf 20:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, please do, wolf. Davidships (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Waited a few days to see if anyone had any further comments or objections, there were none, so the page has been moved to Gypsy (SP-55). This was done primarily to remove the "USS" prefix from a boat that was not commissioned. If anyone would prefer one of the other titles mentioned, or would like to suggest another one, they should feel to contribute their thoughts to the discussion. - wolf 09:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The MB itself is possibly Gypsy, 1912, George Lawley & Son, owner Robert F. Herrick with nearly identical dimensions. Herrick was a Harvard 1890 grad mentioned in Alumni Notes as having donated his Gypsy to the Navy. Not much else about that boat, but it was one of a series, with a later Herrick 56 foot Gypsy IV donated to the Army's harbor boat service and his 101 foot Gypsy to the Navy YP-70 for WW II. 72.196.202.60 (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. Cannot be added to the article as WP:OR, but you might add it to the talk page to help further ref searches. Davidships (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The thing nagged me because with that much I was pretty sure I had a good source somewhere in my memory and library of sources. The definite published link fixes the fact that it was Herrick's Gypsy of the Lloyd's registry and Harvard magazine that was SP-55. I added the $9,000 purchase price and owner based on that. I had that in my inventory of Section Patrol bookmarks. That whole Section Patrol is poorly explained and understood here as it was unlike the usual WW I "acquisition" and very much a thing of wealthy yachtsman, some even building boats in anticipation, of becoming "Navy" in event of war. Sources mention its being very popular on college campuses among sons and hangers on of yachting as well. For anyone interested the discussion of First Naval District here offers some background and Gypsy is listed here among the boats of the Boston Section. On finding more? I don't think that is likely outside local sources of the time. That Gypsy was only one of Herrick's and apparently not so interesting as to warrant a piece in the usual yachting sources. 72.196.202.60 (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Since I was the admin who closed the USS Politesse (SP-662) AFD as merge, I was emailed by Davidships because the article was just redirected to the list. I've restored the article, since it is contrary to the close, but the target list (List of patrol vessels of the United States Navy) seems like it could be split up so these smaller articles can actually be systematically upmerged to smaller, manageable list articles. Just my 2c. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I've long thought most of these SP (and other USN small vessel type) stubs should be treated much as are the Lists of Empire ships with organized pages with brief descriptions such as List of Empire ships (A). 72.196.202.60 (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

This is exactly what I've been thinking, as well, though I hadn't brought to mind the Empire ship lists. Parsecboy (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

More than a few of those SP boats had interesting and even significant history as yachts that is not in any way reflected in DANFS. I've done that addition for a number and have a list of more. My criterion for spending the time when I get the inclination is that they have some design or even "social" history beyond just being another luxury toy of the late 19th or early 20th century (USS California (SP-249)). I can find racing histories with cups and times, but nothing of real interest. My last effort here was on the SPs that were and remained owned by the State of Maryland's "Oyster Police" (Governor R. M. McLane (steamboat)) — and those have interesting historic value with regard to the Chesapeake. Most do not and never will have much beyond the fact they existed, they raced or were associated with a wealthy individual and they served in the Section Patrol as SPs. Those should go to a list such as is used for the Empire ships that should also note bare bones and link to articles about the few that had other significance. 72.196.202.60 (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I do find it a little odd that so many of the SP boats have articles while none of the Eagle boats, which were decently sized purpose warships, have individual articles, not event the ones that survived to WW2. In a related issue, I've created List of SC-1-class subchasers (SC-1 to SC-50) and List of SC-1-class subchasers (SC-51 to SC-100) - comments/insults are welcome - perhaps someone could do something similar for other miscellaneous US Navy ships such as the Section Patrol boats.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I expect that difference is simply the different coverage in DANFS. The converted yachts of the rich and famous (with a few commercial typs thrown in) had names before becoming SP. They had independent "publicists" during and after the war. Some were actually built in the period before U.S. entry to be patrol boats. It was a fad and can be seen in those motor boat yacht's design. A rich guy already racing built with Navy input the patrol boat he would command when war came to our shores was not uncommon in the SP world. They got little paragraphs under those names that were generally retained when the vessel and often the owner as commanding officer were called up. I had to laugh at text in USS Patrol No. 8 (SP-56): "Coincidentally, at this same time, Vanderbilt, a Naval Reserve officer, was ordered to active duty and given command the Patrol No. 8." No coincidence at all. He was the owner before both he and his boat were called up. The Eagle boats were no name "workers," just stamped out with no glamour and pedigree, stamped with a number, and then crewed largely by anonymous folk. They were covered entirely differently in the print DANFS, just a long list with bare bones dates. When people began copying DANFS into Wikipedia the named show dogs got "articles" and the mutts got nothing but a list and most will never get more. 72.196.202.60 (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Quick Miramar query

Hey folks, I've just run across two references to a different keel laying date for Brazilian battleship São Paulo.^[1] While I'd normally wave this away and assume Conway's is a solid definitive source, the two publications worked directly with British shipyard construction records, and the two dates aren't especially close (30 April for Conway's, 24 September for these two). Could anyone take a look at Miramar's entry for this ship to give me a third data point? Thank you! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

References

^ Ian Johnston and Ian Buxton, The Battleship Builders: Constructing and Arming British Capital Ships (Barnsley, South Yorkshire: Seaforth Publishing, 2013); David Topliss, "The Brazilian Dreadnoughts, 1904–1914," Warship International 25, no. 3 (1988): 240–89.

Miramar just says June 1907 for keel laying Lyndaship (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Lyndaship! That is, ironically, yet another date. :-) (Conway's says 30 April; Johnson/Buxton and Topliss say 24 September.) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Fixing ping and a quick additional ask—can you give me the ship id Miramar has it under? I cited Miramar in Error: {{Ship}} invalid control parameter: 4 (help) but not São Paulo for some reason... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

6103921Crook1 (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I asked Ian Buxton about this and he confirmed that he researched directly Vickers records - the Vickers databook has order 20.2.07, keel 24.9.07, launch 19.4.09. He added "My copy of Conways is full of corrections in the RN section. I was told that the editors also had many corrections later, but Conways refused to produce a revised edition and preferred to keep on reprinting the old one." Food for thought. (I will not edit in relation to this per WP:EXTERNALREL.) Davidships (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

USCG dispute

Please see Talk:United States Coast Guard#Founding dispute. (self-explanatory). FYI - wolf 04:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

MARAD Ship History links

The www.marad.dot.gov/sh/ShipHistory/Detail/#### with a number linked to ship histories and data cards is gone at least for now. The server has changed to https://www.maritime.dot.gov/ but simple substitution there does not work and searches for the ship history part fail. This may be another glitchy roll out or it may be another abandonment of a valuable historical service by another federal agency. If we are fortunate all the links to Vessel Status Cards for detail about historical ships of the last half of the 20th century will be fixable by replacement of server information — but then such competence in continuity seems too rare. 72.196.202.60 (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Update. They know the section is down with the new platform and are working to get it back. We can hope that the linkage will be in a format so that a bot can fix any broken links. 72.196.202.60 (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Ships named Enterprise

Can someone tell me what happened to the article Ships named Enterprise? I worked for weeks on that, and I can't find it. User:Pedant (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

If you did, it didn't get saved under that name. There once was a Category:Ships named Enterprise. You edited that category page at various time in 2004 and 2006 but there is nothing there that indicates that you worked for weeks on that. I searched your contribution history for the text 'ship' and 'enterp' but found nothing like what you are describing.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

If it exists, it should be at List of ships named Enterprise. Mjroots (talk) 07:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I found a link to List of ships of the United States Navy named Enterprise as an example of WP:SIA, might be what you're looking for. RobDuch (talk) 06:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

nvr links

I have just updated Module:NVR/data which translates USN hull designations to the code that forms a url linking into a ship's page in the NVR. For the most part, the random number parts of the code have gone away and the code is just the hull designation code using underscore instead of hyphen. For example, SSBN-659 used to have the code SSBN_659_1635 but now has the code SSBN_659. In theory, we could throw away most of the data module and simply calculate the code from the hull designation. We could. But then, NVR would probably invent some other encoding mechanism so, for the nonce, I have no intention of changing how we link into NVR.

New to this version of the data module are links for these submarine escort ships (blocking vessels) AGSE

I don't know what these actually are but were I to hazard a guess, I would guess that their job is to run interference between SSBN type submarines entering or leaving port and nosy trawlers looking for sound signatures etc. I put this here for those of you who may be interested in the various USN ship lists.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Article title according to the yard or operator name

I'm asking for your advice concerning articles about former Russian Okhta yard and its historical operators.

There is a separate article about Okhta shipyard. It used to be titled Wm. Crichton & Co. Okhta shipyard and was focused on the era when it was operated by W:m Crichton & C:o. There are, however, short summaries about the previous and following operators.

And then there is an article about the Petrozavod. It tells about the time when the yard was operated by Petrozavod.

The question is, that how should these articles be split?

In my opinion the article about the yard should be restored with the original title Wm. Crichton & Co. Okhta shipyard and the Petrozavod article should have a summary about the previous operators. An additional article about the yard is also fine but it should focus more on the infrastructure. --Gwafton (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

This issue also relates to a number of Finnish yards - how to split or combine the articles when there have been multiple major owners who have also owned other shipyards at the same time. Now that I think about it, a navigation template with a flowchart could be a good idea but doesn't solve the initial issue about topics... Tupsumato (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes a separate article about the yard and company is justified and makes sense for the reasons you mentioned above. Can you show an example about an appropriate navigation pane with a flowchart please? In this particular case I don't see a reason for a separate article about the yard and I would just change back the name of the Okhta shipyard article and improve the Petrozavod article about the preceding operators. --Gwafton (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately I was unable to find a suitable navigation template on a short notice, not to mention that original flowchart that I was going to use as the basis of the navigation template, but I will keep looking later. As for the original question, I agree with you regarding the yard/company split for major shipyards and not having a separate article for the shipyard site in case of smaller yards. Tupsumato (talk) 06:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe something like Template:British Shipbuilders evolution?Nigel Ish (talk) 11:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Something along those lines. Perhaps I'll give it a try some day - I first need to collect the data. Tupsumato (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the current content of the two articles, I would split it differently. As Petrozavod only existed to run this shipyard, I would merge its meagre content into Okhta shipyard, and leave Wm. Crichton & Co. Okhta shipyard as a redirect, thus telling the story in one place. But I would move the production table to a separate List of ships built at the Okhta Shipyard, which could then be extended to pre- and post-Crichton production - and doing that would allow comfortable room for further expansion of the Okhta article. Davidships (talk) 09:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

This arrangement would work only as long as the article is short. The Petrozavod era leaves a lot of space for improvement, and if the article is extended, it soon becomes overly lengthy. In many cases a yard continues working with the same organisation and projects when the ownership changes, but what comes to this shipyard, each era has got a clear start and end. Crichton started from scratch in 1897 and so did Petrozavod in 1913. For the same reason I don't support the idea of putting all the projects on one list. --Gwafton (talk) 11:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree in principle, but at the moment the ship list takes up a lot of the article and if that is separated out there is considerable space for expansion of the history (it's only about 1850 words of prose at present) - there is some useful guidance at WP:LENGTH. I would only worry about splitting it up when it actually gets too long. No objection to three separate "List of ships built..." if that makes more sense (I've a couple of comments on the Crichton list which I'll put on the article talk page). Davidships (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Currently the article Okhta shipyard consists of 37,000 bytes. I don't know how big part of this consists of the list of ships built. The Russian version about Petrozavod is about 51,000 bytes. If the English Petrozavod article is improved to the same level and joined with Okhta shipyard, it makes roughly 88,000 bytes, and still there would be a lot of space for improvement. The only thing that is common between Crichton Okhta yard and Petrozavod is that they have been on the same ground. The difference between these companies is like between Aquincum and Budapest. In my opinion the shipyard history should be split at least into three articles: one for the Okhta Admiralty Shipyard, another one for W:m Crichton & C:o Okhta shipyard and a third one for Petrozavod. And the list of ships built for each one of these. --Gwafton (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

<od>Sorry for being late to the party; it was me that moved the page, for the reasons I gave on the talkpage there; the yard had a 280 year history, of which the Crichton period made up less than 20, so a more unified title seemed appropriate. Also, the history section seemed to have as much to say about when it was the Okhta Admiralty yard as it did when it was Crichtons; and we already had a page on Crichtons (the company), so it wasn't clear why we needed a second page just on their St Petersburg operation. So it made more sense to have it as a page on the yard itself, though its various incarnations, with links from the other titles targetted to the relevant sections. I suppose if anything I was expecting a proposal to merge the Petrozavod page into it (though Petrozavod seems to have a company identity separate to the shipyard, so an article on it is probably viable).
If there is enough to say about all three phases of the yard's use then spinning off separate articles is in order (though that isn't the case at the moment), but an over-arching page (this one) with main article links to the subsidiaries would still be sensible. Meanwhile moving the ship list to a separate page is reasonable; currently the article is top-heavy (or maybe bottom-heavy!) with the list of Crichton boats, and if we ever find a list of the 160-odd ships built when it was Okhta Admiralty it'll be even worse. Xyl 54 (talk) 02:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

PS: I've been looking for analogous situations: Most UK ship-builders started and ended in one place (John Brown, Cammell Laird, Hawthorn Leslie, etc) but there are a few:

Yarrows opened on the Thames, then moved to the Clyde, and they also had a yard in Canada. We have one article on Yarrow Shipbuilders that covers all three sites, and an article on Burnard Dry Dock Ltd, who took over Yarrow's Canadian operation.
Thorneycrofts started at Chiswick, then moved to Woolston, then merged with Vospers of Portsmouth. We have one page on John I.Thorneycroft & Co, another on Vosper & Company, and list pages on the ships built; we also have one on VT Group, which is now an American company.
For Vickers we have separate pages for Vickers Armstrong, VSEL and Canadian Vickers (though that covers both shipbuilding and aerospace), and list pages for their ships.

I'm not sure where that leaves us... Xyl 54 (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Canal infobox template

Comments and template assistance are requested at Template_talk:Infobox_canal#Adding_field_for_maximum_draft. Kablammo (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Use of sources in Viking Sky

I would like to invite other members of the project to participate in a discussion about the use of sources in the article about Viking Sky, the Norwegian cruise ship that recently ran into troubles off the Norwegian coast. In particular, I would like to hear other members' opinions regarding citing subscription-only databases for technical information; this will also have an impact on my future participation in this project as I use IHS Sea-web every now and then when I can't find an open source for some particular detail. Also, there's some discussion about using sources for the lead ship of the class to describe technical solutions in this one. Tupsumato (talk) 05:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Naval Vessel Register

Does anyone know of an appropriate infobox for the above article? --Puzzledvegetable (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

"Infobox database" would be ideal but doesn't exist, so it would appear that Template:Infobox website would be the most appropriate choice. - wolf 11:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Please explain abbreviations (USS, SS, RMS, HMS, etc.) to us non-ship folk.

Hi, I came across the name S.S. Kungsholm and have been trying to figure out what S.S. stands for. I've decided it's "Swedish ship." To make it easier for other non-ship folk, would you all please add to articles what initials in a ship's name stand for? Thank you! DBlomgren (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

SS means steamship. There is more info at Ship prefix. Llammakey (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Flag issue

On 11 December 2018, Illegitimate Barrister made some edits to {{Country data Kingdom of Great Britain}} which had the effect of turning the display of {{flagcountry|Kingdom of Great Britain|naval}} from Great Britain to Great Britain. I've spent much of today going through the shipwreck lists for 1707-1800 and think I've corrected them all. There are a number of ship articles which may be affected by this change. Mjroots (talk) 19:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I will go through and double check to see if there are affected pages beyond the shipwreck lists. Llammakey (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Mystery Image for April 2019

Can anyone identify this vessel, her name and story? There are two articles about it, one is the front cover of the Illustrated London News, 25 March 1906, and the other is the same article echoed in The Times History of the War, (pub. 1914), both referenced in the Commons file. The information given is: this is the Entrance to a diving bell. An air-compression vessel, used for laying moorings for battleships, fitted with a diving-bell, the entrance to which is down the big funnel amidships. Another image here - No-35-AIR-LOCK-DIVING-BELL-PLANT --Broichmore (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Answered here: Air Lock Diving-Bell Plant -Broichmore (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

[1] Ian Johnston and Ian Buxton, The Battleship Builders: Constructing and Arming British Capital Ships (Barnsley, South Yorkshire: Seaforth Publishing, 2013); David Topliss, "The Brazilian Dreadnoughts, 1904–1914," Warship International 25, no. 3 (1988): 240–89.

[1]