Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 62

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 55

←

Archive 60

All ships are ships in article titles

This is split off from the previous section because it is of broad application to a very large number of articles of interest to this WP, has been smouldering on for years and, in my view, needs to be settled. In the current example, I wrote "The most obvious choices would be MV Helgoland (1963) or Helgoland (1963 ship)" and @Mjroots replied "The second suggestion indicates a full-rigged ship named Helgoland and launched in 1963.". A similar assertion was made here: "We can't house these shipindex pages at "Foo (ship)" as that title, under our naming convention, implies a full-rigged ship named Foo". I do not believe that "ship" indicates or implies anything of the sort to the vast majority of editors and readers, including those who have an understanding of sailing ship terminology. And there is no such "naming convention" - or at least neither @Tupsumato nor I could find it in WP:NCSHIP where it would belong.

In 2017, within a broader discussion on ship indexes, this proposal that All articles on full-rigged ships shall be titled in the style "Foo (full-rigged ship)" was made by Mjroots, agreed nem con with refinement, but never implemented; and is now being argued against.

This project consistently uses the word "ship" in the generic sense, notably throughout WP:MOSSHIPS and WP:NCSHIP; indeed the latter specifically includes at Optional disambiguation "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: Santa Maria (ship) compared to Santa Maria" (it was probably a carrack, by the way). That is exactly what I proposed re Helgoland. Imposing an Age of Sail description of full-rigged ship is not appropriate for a 21st century encyclopedia - and it wasn't even exclusively used as such in the 19th century either.

I propose that we ratify the 2017 consensus to use "full-rigged ship" in article titles instead of just "ship" where the rig itself is a necessary disambiguator - there will be few as the launch year will work fine for most. A full text for inclusion in the civilian ships section of WP:NCSHIP could be revised to something like:

Optional disambiguation

Where the article name would be ambiguous, append disambiguation information in parenthesis.

To distinguish from non-ship articles use "(ship)", eg Santa Maria (ship); this may not be necessary where the article name properly includes a ship prefix, eg SS John W. Brown.

Where there are multiple ships of the same name it is preferred that further disambiguation be by year of launch, eg Hercules (1814 ship) or SS America (1939).

Occasionally further disambiguation may be necessary by ship type (eg full-rigged ship, research vessel) or another suitable term.

Note: the term "ship", sometimes used alone historically to indicate a full-rigged ship, is not so used in article titles.

If we reach consensus on a way forward for merchant shipping, it should be possible to go on to develop an integrated guidance on Disambiguation with the text under that heading which is currently focused entirely on naval ships. The principles seem very similar to me, with some differencess of detail only (for example, the use of pennant or hull numbers). I strongly recommend such a two-step approach. Davidships (talk) 01:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The term "ship" was used in the age of sail as shorthand to denote a full-rigged ship. I'm still not comfortable with it being used in article titles for any type of vessel, no matter the rig or method of propulsion. We have rig disambiuators and ship prefixes available, so we should use them as appropriate. That said, this is a nettle that needs to be grasped. How many articles do we have housed at titles disambiguated (ship) or ([year] ship)? These should all really be checked that the disambiguator is correct, and moved to titles appropriate for the rig applicable to the vessel. Davidships is correct when he says that the consensus established needs to be implemented in respect of full-rigged ships being housed at titles in the style of Foo (full-rigged ship) with further disambiguation by year of launch if necessary. Mjroots (talk) 08:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Mjroots, if you are proposing that all articles about full-rigged ships should be disambiguated as Foo (full-rigged ship), I don't think I could support that. Disambiguators should IMO be as short and as generic as possible. If the proposal is that Foo (full-rigged ship) should be used to disambiguate, say, a brig of the same name launched in the same year, I'm not even sure that that is necessary, although I'm open to persuasion. Gatoclass (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: - that is precisely the consensus that was reached in November 2017 as linked by Daviships in the second paragraph of his opening post. What has not happened is the implementation of said consensus. MOSSHIP needs to be amended to show that consensus, then we can do some moving of articles, citing that as the reason for the move. Mjroots (talk) 09:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Mjroots, I couldn't follow that proposal, because it starts by saying All articles on full-rigged ships shall be titled in the style "Foo (full-rigged ship)". If disambiguation is needed ... - but I thought the whole discussion was about disambiguation? Did the proposal mean to say "if further disambiguation is needed"? And what is the "multi-level version" that several users in that proposal referred to? Gatoclass (talk) 09:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Gatoclass - the multi-level version is what Tupsumato proposed. Mjroots (talk) 10:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, well I am still struggling to understand the proposal but it sounds like something I would have trouble supporting. I'm not sure that just disambiguating with the word "ship" is a good idea anyway, since "ship" can mean many different kinds of watercraft, some of which are not ships - like steamboats for example, or tugs. And "ship" when I see it in an article name does imply for me a full-rigged ship. So I'm just not sure where I stand on this at the moment. Gatoclass (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Gatoclass I've had a little think and the best suggestion I can come up with is that sailing ship articles shall only be moved following consensus obtained via the requested move process. I'll put this up for discussion below. Mjroots (talk) 10:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Davidships, I'm a little confused by the fact that you began by saying that this is of broad application to a very large number of articles of interest to this WP and later said there will be few [affected] as the launch year will work fine for most. Have I missed something? Surely it can't be both? Gatoclass (talk) 08:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to have been absent today. There is no contradiction in those statements. The whole point of the proposal is to allow the word "ship" to be used with its normal everyday meaning as a regular disambiguator for articles on individual ahips whose names are also other things - people, places, gods, planets etc etc. That is nothing more than has been the clear advice in WP:NCSHIP since December 2004, introduced with the first guidance for civilian ships here following agreement in WT:SHIPS (the archives of which it seems are no longer extant). There are hundreds of articles which which have followed that advice, and there would be more if it were not for the persistent assertion over the years that "ship" as a parenthetical dab only refers to full-rigged ships, usually citing a non-existant project naming convention. I thought that, three years ago, we had freed ourself from this with the agreement that "ship" would not be used in titles with that most narrow of meanings. Contrary to the statement at the time that WP:NCSHIP had been amended, in this respect it wasn't. And it's still being undermined, for example by the weird observation that if someone is looking for a 1960's merchant ship named Helgoland, when faced in a list with a link to Helgoland (1963 ship), they wouldn't bother with that one because they already knew they didn't want one with poles and canvas.

As for there will be few [affected] as the launch year will work fine for most, that was, I thought, clearly in the context of a possible need to introduce "full-rigged" into the parenthesis where multiple ships were launched in the same year - Foo (1863 full-rigged ship) alongside Foo (1863 barque), Foo (1863 steam ship) (or SS Foo (1863) if that meets conditions of WP:PREFIXSHIP). As an aside, "full-rigged ship" is not the only possibility - "sailing ship" would be fine if there is only one such, and "square-rigged ship" might be more widely understood - but I could go with anything of this sort that garnered general support.

Yes Gatoclass, Mjroots is right when he says that the 2017 agreement was to the refinement set out by Tupsumato, which indeed limits it to dab requirements, and which I tried to encapsulate in the green box above by adding it to the long existing guidance in Optional Disambiguation. If I have not reflected it satisfactorily, please propose amendments. Davidships (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation Davidships, it has given me a better handle on some of the issues. Still not sure I agree though. Gatoclass (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Because I was curious, I wanted to see what kinds of dabs are used. First I tried article title grep with a search pattern of ship\)$ but that just took a long time and failed. When I constrained it to return only the first 100 results, the tool reported that there were some 2600 articles that meet the search criteria – I have not been able to repeat that; all that happens is a long time goes by and then gateway error. I was able to get a list of about 875 articles from the grep search with a search pattern of $ship$$, but again, I have not been able to repeat this result.

Using awb I was able to get a list of 5000 article titles that contain the term 'ship' though it reports that there are some 7600 such articles (5000 is all that cirrus search will return in a tranche and awb doesn't have the ability to ask for the next 5000). From the awb list of 5000, I was able to extract some 1160ish article titles that have 'ship' as the last word in a parenthetical dab. Removing whatever article titles had '(ship)' dabs from the list of 1160 leaves about 735 article titles, most of which have '(YYYY ship)' dabs. Of the 735, there are about 590 that are '(<date>ship)' dabs; about 145 that are '(<date><other text>ship)' dabs, about 50 (<other text>ship) dabs. There is one '(full-rigged ship)' dab: Black Watch (full-rigged ship).

I'll hold on to these lists for a day or two should anyone want them.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

That's helpful, and somewhat more sophisticated than I could manage - but I'm happy to see that my estimations of the magnitude of things were not grossly exaggerated. Davidships (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

With the search above in mind, studying articles like List of clipper ships (no, I don't like that article title), you find links to many articles in the format Houqua (clipper), Rainbow (clipper), etc. Similarly List of schooners gives article names like Adventuress (schooner), etc. The lists are also a useful way of discovering examples of inconsistency. Where does this fit with the proposals put forward? Apart form the inconsistencies, what is there at the moment looks perfectly OK to me.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

ThoughtIdRetired Forgive me, but I for one don't understand why you don't like Clipper as a word. The ancients who designed, built, owned, and sailed on them had no problem with the term. The only certainty in shipping is that a huge number of nautical terms are fuzzy. I can think of a few barques (LOL) that shouldn't be called a clipper, but generally speaking the term fits. The proposed term to replace it, a full-rigged ship is just as fuzzy, there are three masted Junks that fill that description. The average reader has more of a handle of what is a clipper than an understanding of what is a full-rigged ship. Sorry I see no value in adding another open ended term into the mix. Can we not let this sleeping dog lie undisturbed, along with the rest of his pack? Broichmore (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Broichmore I have no problem with "clipper" - it is "clipper ships" that causes difficulties. "Clipper ships" is a term that was applied largely to the US clippers that sailed round Cape Horn during the California gold-rush. The vast majority of them were rigged as ships - they were large vessels (that's how they managed to set speed records) and ship rig was therefore probably the only option, given other considerations. As these vessels were largely intended for a passenger trade, they were heavily marketed, so the term had a lot of exposure. However, at the same time, there were clipper brigs, clipper schooners, clipper barques. In short, when the term "clipper" meant a sailing vessel designed for speed, there was no rule that said that they had to be ship rigged - very much the opposite. The opium clippers were the more obvious example of the variety of rigs for vessels designed for fast sailing (many were schooners). If you have access to the British Newspaper Archive, you can search for, say, "clipper brig" and you will find that you get hits in the adverts placed by ship managers. If you (quite rightly) shy away from a bit of WP:OR, then consider (1) MacGregor's Fast Sailing Ships, pg 206-214, where this acknowledged expert discusses "Clipper schooners and brigs". (2) Then consider the definitions given by MacGregor (many titles), Cutler (Greyhounds of the Seas) and Chapelle (The Search for Speed Under Sail; and The Baltimore Clipper). Whilst MacGregor is a little inconsistent with his definitions of a "clipper", in no case do any of these authors state that a "clipper" should be ship rigged.

There are many "coffee table" type books written by professional writers with no particular expertise on the subject that use the term "clipper ship" quite widely - with perhaps little understanding of what they write. You will also see Arthur H Clark writing about the "Clipper Ship Era" - but here he meant what he said - he was writing about the subset of the class clipper - those that happened to be ships. List of clipper ships does actually include one vessel built as a barque - but the editors responsible for that article went to a lot of trouble to exclude such examples. It is a complete fiction to say that a clipper has to be ship rigged, and this list perpetuates that myth. You will, of course, see people defining a "clipper ship" as being ship rigged (quite correctly, of course), but that is a circular argument that does nothing to help understand the meaning of the word "clipper"ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Just to add clarity to the above, when I said (further above) "...what is there at the moment looks perfectly OK to me", I was saying that Houqua (clipper), Adventuress (schooner) look "perfectly OK" to me.
What is not OK is something like Amazing Grace (ship), an article that starts "Amazing Grace is an 83' topsail schooner." That is like saying something like "Cat (dog)", when you actually mean "Cat (carnivorous mammal)" and you would also find "Dog (carnivorous mammal)". As a suggestion - don't use "ship" as a disambiguator - use "sailing vessel". So Amazing Grace could be either Amazing Grace (schooner) or, as per this suggestion, Amazing Grace (sailing vessel). To be clear, I don't really like "sailing vessel" as a solution, but it is a whole lot better than "ship" being applied to sailing vessels that are not, in the strictest definition, ships.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Moving of sailing ship articles

Proposal - Generally, articles on sailing ships shall not be moved without consensus obtained via a WP:RM discussion. Moves for disambiguation by year purposes shall be allowable, but not for change of rig - "Foo (full-rigged ship)" may be moved to "Foo (1836 full-rigged ship)" to allow the former title to be turned into a shipindex page or redirect to "list of ships named Foo", but the moving of "Foo (full-rigged ship)" to "Foo (1836 barque)" would require discussion. Mjroots (talk) 10:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Now I'm more confused - and I'm not sure how this relates to the previous discussion. However, the more I think about this, the more inclined I am to oppose the use of "ship" as a basic disambiguator, because of the ambiguity - and potential inaccuracy - of the word "ship" itself. I think I'd probably be more inclined to go with basic ship type for the first level of disambiguation, ie, "steamboat", "tugboat", "barque", "brig" etc., not only because it's more accurate, but because of the likelihood that many vessels initially disambiguated with just "ship" will have to be further disambiguated by type anyway when more ship articles are written. So why not just start them off with an accurate term? It would also probably be more useful and informative in categories if vessels are disambiguated from the outset by basic type. Gatoclass (talk) 11:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: we're broadly in agreement here. There are many articles on full-rigged ships which are house at titles which use (ship) as a disambiguator [ship being shorthand]. Consensus was reached a while back that these should be disambiguated (full-rigged ship) but little has been done. Whether we need a RM discussion to move (ship) to (full-rigged ship) can be thrashed out here. However, there are also barque articles housed at (ship) disambigators, and that no doubt applies to other rigs too. These are the ones that I feel would probably be best subjected to a RM discussion. I don't know of any tugs that were not mechanically propelled, so these would seem to sit quite nicely at PS/SS/MV titles in any case. Mjroots (talk) 11:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

(Grin) Well there was the tugantine Norfolk Rebel down in Norfolk. A motel I stayed in on the way to a ship was right by the tug's base and I got to have a conversation with the skipper, the late Lane Briggs. Interesting discussion! As to the proposal, I'm neutral at the moment.Palmeira (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

There's always the exception, isn't there? That site is not available in Europe.

. Mjroots (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Photo here and here. TUGBOAT USING SAILS TO TRIM FUEL BILLS mentions a Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences study showing a 6% overall fuel savings. Palmeira (talk) 00:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The third link fails again. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Links are to archived U.S. newspaper articles (The Virginia Pilot & South Florida Sun Sentinel) that are up in my browser now. Search "tugantine Norfolk Rebel" if interested in finding an article that might work elsewhere. I'm curious now what happened to the tug. For a time it was in the news with regard to modern use of sail for fuel savings. I haven't heard of it in decades. Palmeira (talk) 11:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

There are AFAIK few if any tugs referred to in the literature with prefixes (possibly some modern ones, I'm not sure). And while I was once in favour of the broad use of prefixes, I was persuaded by another user that generally speaking they should not be used if the ship wasn't typically known by the prefix (which is why, for example, I stopped using "PS" for steamboats for which the prefix was never applied). And in any case, as I said above, using, for example, "tugboat" for the disambiguator has the advantage of clearly identifying the type of vessel, whereas "MV" could be any kind of motor vessel. Gatoclass (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd oppose using rig for any ship article title or disambiguator as I've seen too many warships' rigs change over time and I assume that the same thing could happen with commercial ships as well. I think that year of launch works well enough as a disambiguator.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but you could say the same about ship names, they too change a lot over a ship's career but we pick the most notable one, so one can simply add the rig the ship had at the time. Having said that, in my admittedly limited experience, merchant ship rigs don't generally change that often, and when they do it's usually toward the end of their careers when their most notable period of service is behind them. Gatoclass (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: - this shouldn't affect age of sail warships, which take the form "Fooian ship name (disambiguator)" where no naval prefix is in use. Mjroots (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Eh? Age of sail warships certainly did take prefixes - consider HMS Victory for one example. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Martin of Sheffield: - but Imperial Russian Navy vessels (for example) don't have a prefix, hence Russian ship of the line Goto Predestinatsia. Mjroots (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, I think we are at cross purposes here. Did you mean that "this shouldn't affect those age of sail warships where no naval prefix is in use", or "this shouldn't affect age of sail warships where no naval prefix is in use"? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Martin of Sheffield: - I mean it will not affect warships at all. Nothing wrong with the format "Fooian ship Bar" where "ship" is taken to mean "warship", irrespective of rig, although the majority were full-rigged ships. Mjroots (talk) 09:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

General principles

This is one of those "don't go there" issues that occupies too much time in Wikipedia. I think we need to accept that "ship", when applied to a sailing vessel, is ambiguous. There are a lot of historical sources where this ambiguity is invisible to the modern reader. (Remember that an encyclopedia user may consult Wikipedia to try and understand a historical source.) So a writer might say "ship" (meaning "full rigged ship" - which, incidentally, is a modern term invented to deal with the ambiguity) and we read just "a big boat" (for want of a better term).

Then you need to consider that many sailing vessels had different rigs over their lifetime. So applying "ship", "barque"/"bark", "schooner" etc. reduces the level of precision used by Wikipedia.

There are many instances where the same name is used by a very large number of vessels at the same time - I am guessing that all readers of this are familiar with Lloyd's Register, where this can be demonstrated many times over. Some of these have the same launch year. I suggest that this is not a problem for Wikipedia as only a tiny minority of them have sufficient notability for an article.

Unless there is an overwhelming need to use the term "ship" for a sailing vessel, where this might be confused (even rarely) for a statement of the type of rig, there is no need for Wikipedia to use the word as a disambiguator. The year of launch will, in nearly every situation, achieve what is needed. For the encyclopedia user for whom there is insufficient clarity on the point, they are just a click away from discovering what the article is about. If it is the wrong article for them, it is just a click of the back arrow to return to where they were. It is not a big deal. Conversely if you have an article on a sailing vessel which is disambiguated with the word "ship", but the rig is material to the history of the vessel, especially if the article talks about, say, changing from "ship" to "barque" (a common occurrence with redundant tea clippers after 1870), then the title work against the content of the article.

Lastly, the term "full rigged ship" (or its variants) is familiar to enthusiasts. To an encyclopedia user, it may have no meaning whatsoever. Sticking such a term in an article title does nothing for the readability/functionality of this encyclopedia.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. In practise readers commonly visit an approximate ships's article title, if not a precise link; then sort out where they want to be by going to the disambiguator page. It is there that fully rigged can be mentioned, if required. I see no reason for change in our methods here. These proposed changes are not likely to change the search process, I've just outlined. Broichmore (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

SIAs vs articles about a single ship

One additional caveat. If it's a set-index article (SIA), it could be titled "List of ships named X" (or "List of full-rigged ships named X", or similar). If there's no primary topic for "X" and all the ambiguous topics are ships, the SIA could be titled just "X" or use the list titling. If the SIA can't be at the base name, though, it shouldn't use "(ship)" or "(full-rigged ship" or similary, but should use the "List of" titling. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Some basic principles

Given the somewhat confusing and multi-faceted discussion above, perhaps it would be best to outline my concerns under a separate header so that they are not overlooked.

Firstly, the fundamental definition of a "ship" is a large vessel built for seagoing service. That is the common or garden definition you will encounter in any dictionary, let alone a specialized source (and incidentally, the secondary definition commonly given in dictionaries is, yes, a full-rigged ship, but that's incidental to the main point here). We are an educational resource, so I think it's vitally important that we don't actively mislead readers. For this reason, for example, steamboats should never be referred to as ships. Some of them were as large as ships of their day, but they were not oceangoing vessels, and when pressed into such service, they commonly fell apart with tragic consequences for all concerned. Nor in my opinion should tugboats be referred to as "ships", because with a few exceptions, they are small harbour vessels. There are probably other categories of vessels that should not be referred to as "ships" - or at least, not generically - ferryboats being one possible example that comes to mind. In short, there are multiple categories of vessels that already should never be referred to by an encyclopedia as ships.

Secondly, when it comes to naval vessels, we do not generically refer to them in article titles as "warships" - rather, they are referred to as battleships, cruisers, destroyers, steam and sail frigates, ships of the line, gunboats etc. etc. So why would we want to generically refer to merchant vessels just as "ships"? For consistency if nothing else, they should be referred to in article titles (where prefixes are inappropriate) as steamships, motorships and so on.

The question then remains as to how to title merchant sailing ships, and this seems to be the main source of contention. Some are apparently arguing that all such vessels should be generically referred to just as "ships", on the basis that many changed their rigs over time. While this is true, in my experience at least, it didn't occur that often, and when it did, it was usually near the end of a vessel's career, when its more notable service was long behind it. And on that basis, I argued above that just as we choose one particular name for a ship that had multiple names over the course of its career, then we should also simply choose the rig the ship had at that time.

If there's an objection to the above method however, then I might be persuaded into accepting that merchant sailing ships which had different rigs at different times could just be referred to generically as "ship", at least in cases where there is no clear preference. But I think I would prefer the above method regardless.

So to summarize, given that there are already multiple categories of vessels that should never be referred to as "ships", that we don't follow this practice for warships and so for consistency should not do so for merchant vessels, and that most merchant sailing vessels either kept the same rig for most of their career or are best known for a particular rig, then few if any circumstances remain for disambiguating with the generic term "ship". Which would also mean, incidentally, that the clumsy term "full-rigged ship" could probably be avoided altogether in article titles.

If I've misunderstood the proposals being made above, I apologize, but these are the issues that are important to me and that I would like to see taken into consideration. Gatoclass (talk) 12:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I realise that it is flagged as an opinion but I find the opening point over-prescriptive, partly because I don't accept the quoted definition. Indeed, I don't find "oceangoing" in any major modern dictionary at home (OED, Collins, Cambridge, Chambers) or online (Merriam-Webster) nor in Britannica or Oxford Companion to the Sea. Some do have "seagoing", but that's not the same thing. The commonest differentiator from "boat" given is size, but we know that in relation some ship types usage is more variable. Nevertheless WP uses "ship" widely in a generic sense, and I do not think that readers are misled by the contents of this category or this one. If a ferryboat/ferry must not be called a ship, how is it that so many are prefixed by MS?

The reason why naval ships don't parenthetically dab with "warship" (or, indeed, "ship") is that their naming convention requires either (a) a navy-wide prefix or (b) a descriptive phrase pre-nominal (eg Italian aircraft carrier Cavour, though a goodly number do in fact use "ship" (eg French ship La Glorieuse, and then parenthetical dab if required by year and/or pennant/hull number. I can't see merchant ship titles moving from the present guidance, which is more closely alligned to standard WP:NC principles, to require descriptive pre-nominals. Let's keep focussed on the real question in hand - how to most simply and effectively disambiguate something that is generically a ship from something quite different (place, person, emotion etc) so that it helps the reader arrive at right place as easily as possible. Davidships (talk) 00:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Davidships, when I said "oceangoing", I meant "seagoing" as I tend to use the terms interchangeably, but since this has apparently caused confusion, I will alter it accordingly.

Now with regard to the basic definition, I was referring to references such as Merriam-Webster, which describes a ship as "a large seagoing vessel" and dictionary.com which defines it as "a vessel, especially a large oceangoing one" etc. So these sources support the definition I outlined above - and they are generic sources, not specialist ones. Britannica also gives a decent definition: any large floating vessel capable of crossing open waters.

The point here is that steamboats in particular were not designed for this type of service. They were light-draft, low-freeboard, lightly built vessels designed for flatwater service. People in the 19th century who didn't understand the difference between a steamboat and a steamship sometimes paid with their lives for their ignorance, so this is anything but a semantic difference.

Now with regard to ferryboats, it's a less clear category because many ferryboats are effectively ships while others are not, and it is not at all uncommon for them to be referred to as "ships" generically. My point there was really that there may be other categories of vessels, apart from tugs and steamboats, that should not be referred to as ships, and ferryboats were simply one possible example that came to mind. But perhaps I should also emphasize that it's the use of "ship" in article titles for certain categories of vessels that I object to, I don't think it's terribly important if they end up in certain categories that include the word "ship", because categories have to be broadly defined, which is not the case for individual articles.

With regard to warships, yes I do understand that they get referred to by type because that is the naming convention, but that doesn't change the fact that it would be inconsistent to refer to warships by type as a matter of course but not merchant or private vessels. Gatoclass (talk) 10:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, Gatoclass, I get where you are coming from, even if I don't really agree with quite a lot of it.

Unfortunately, so far as I know (because I wasn't here then), the warship system was developed without any apparent consideration of merchant ships. There a certain mindset (which I am not criticising per se) amongst naval enthusiasts which set them off in a particular direction - and they were clearly better organised - while merchant shipping continued with guidelines which in some respects are closer to mainstream WP practices and are still being formalised much more recently. For warships that road began in 12/2001 here and was split off into a specific NCSHPS in following year and it took a further 2½ years for merchant ship even to get a mention. One thing that the warship people did get right is not being hung up on what is allowed to be called a ship or not - all naval vessels come under the same "ship/warship" umbrella, regardless of whether some may considered them "ships", "boats", "craft" or whatever - see the French example above.

ThoughtIdRetired's opening remarks turn out to be oh so true. How foolish of me to think that belatedly adding what was already agreed in 2017 to the sixteen-year-old basic guidance in WP:NCSHIP might be a reasonable ask. I'll plead in mitigation that I felt sorely provoked, but now is another week and I'll self-isolate for a bit. Davidships (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. All a bit like "splitters" and "lumpers" in biological scientific names. Taking to to a Wiki example this is quite a bit like an article on a critter or plant in which the "splitters" have identified many subspecies and races. Does the article deal with the overall generally recognized species addressing the subspecies and perhaps races in the body or a page for every subspecies? Readers, those searching for an answer without the specialized knowledge already, usually do not want to drill down to things they really do not know or even care about at first look. We get that, Common watersnake (U.S.) for example. Under the main, Nerodia sipedon, the body lists four subspecies and someone had to go off with a separate Nerodia sipedon pleuralis page. Now what "User" is going to initially search Nerodia sipedon pleuralis? Far, far fewer than the 700+ views of the species page yesterday. So, is the purpose of this site "inquiry" by those seeking information or us to split things into detail only specialists know or even care about? I lean toward detail in the bodies of general and easily found titles. Now for a proposal I truly hope does not become a "'don't go there' issues that occupies too much time in Wikipedia." Palmeira (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed change: missile range instrumentation/tracking ships category

While working on USNS Rose Knot (T-AGM-14) — and I will not open the can of worms about why the title shouldn't be simply Rose Knot (1945) — a category issue is demonstrated. I was going to simply "lump" the category as Category:Missile range instrumentation ships because from 1 April 1957 to 1 July 1964 the converted ships were U.S. Air Force tracking ships. In fact, even after transfer of administrative control to the Defense Department's auxiliary "ship operator", the Military Sea Transportation Service, the Air Force retained title to the ship (an interdepartmental transfer USMC->USAF as title was always U.S. government) and operational control of the ships when at sea on missions. The exclusive Category:Missile range instrumentation ships of the United States Navy does not cover reality. The problem is that it is the only category for U.S. ships of the that sort. The overall category doesn't even have individual ships. Rather than create a new Missile range instrumentation ships of the United States Air Force I suggest a category of simply Missile range instrumentation ships of the United States, perhaps leaving the Navy category for those few such ships actually titled and operated exclusively by Navy for the other departments and agencies. Thoughts? Palmeira (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Support, puts the ships in a category that users will likely look for, and is more accurate. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 23:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I find the statement: I suggest a category of simply Missile range instrumentation ships of the United States to be ironic. I couldn't think of a more complex, unrepeatable name for a category. Is this not, quite simply a support ship, isn't it the purpose of the article itself to define it as a Missile range instrumentation ships of the United States.

Also since you have opened the proverbial can of worms why does the article title not include the date USNS Rose Knot (1945) or if you must USNS Rose Knot (T-AGM-14, 1945). I thought that this was the procedure after endless debate, why must the US navy be different here, to everything else? Personally I find hull numbers to be very unhelpful, the only context they give is that they are post WWII, actually 1890s. To see where a ship sits we have to go via the disambiguation page. 50 years from now it will be only more confusing. Who in conversation, even in the USN, uses hull numbers to identify a ship. Broichmore (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The proposal is to avoid someone creating a new Missile range instrumentation ships of the United States Air Force to cover the ships — most — that were USAF before USNS. Personally I'd like to see the Navy category merged into the one bucket I proposed because the ships and their function did not change and one category covers them all. That is a "suggestion" because proposing that sort of thing seems to get into buckets of bloodworms here. As far as the "mouthful"? That is what they were, a very specialized category of ships among a host of support types (and those have categories and subcategories). As for "isn't it the purpose of the article itself to define it as a Missile range instrumentation ships of the United States"? A category is not an article. It simply "collects" articles into "buckets" of like things to aid searches and finding like items. One looking for like ships simply clicks on the category at the bottom of the article. Either you miss that point or I must not understand what you mean.

As for Rose Knot, as far as I know it could simply be USNS Rose Knot or even M/S Rose Knot because that ship name is not common and needs no other distinctive label. The USNS is a better fit if picking an armed force prefix as USAF was brief and no few were MSTS USNS cargo vessels before conversion and USAF use. Then the hull/pennant number mess. I personally do not like them. At least in the USN they change, sometimes often. They are largely an internal administrative tool, but do seem to mean something to many. Maybe it is the hats. USS XYZ one decade and then USNS XYZ for another decade and another hat? Anyway, my proposal still stands as a better way to "collect" the range instrumentation/communications/control ships (including NASA manned mission support) into a distinct group. Palmeira (talk) 03:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I think for the subject vessel the article title is not as important as making redirects for the more likely search terms. Redirects basically ameliorated the potential damage when it was determined that a hull number was an "unnecessary disambiguator". One difficulty with USNS Rose Knot is that there is no DANFS article for the ship, which would help with hull number changes. I think some remarks on USN usage of hull numbers are in order. I was on submarines in the early 1980s. Hull numbers are used in daily conversation by USN personnel, most often to refer to ship classes by lead ship hull number, such as "688 class" or "726 class". Lead ship names are almost never used to refer to classes in conversation. For vessels produced in some quantity, a hull number reference such as "715 boat" is appropriate instead of the name. Hull numbers do not change "often" except in a few cases, usually in conjunction with a forcewide redesignation, such as the 1975 ship reclassification. I believe quite a few auxiliary vessels were also transferred to MSC in the 90s, in most cases simply adding the "T-" prefix. A ship is unlikely to have more than two hull number changes in its career, usually one at the most. For those familiar with the subject, the hull number conveys significant information. The hull classification symbol (the alpha portion) nails down the ship type, often showing that the vessel existed in a particular era (in the case of AGMs, the Cold War and post-Cold War). For those familiar with the general history of a ship type, the ship's number shows in which decade or war it was built, and for large or famous classes, which class it was. Ships were assigned numbers such as "Cruiser No. 1" beginning in the 1890s, and the alphanumeric system was implemented in the early 1920s (can't remember if 1920 or 1922), with basically all existing vessels redesignated within it. Of course, the hull classification symbols have been frequently updated with new ones coined as needed, and some converted vessels have had their numbers changed as well. I'm not familiar with the term "hats" as used here. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 03:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

First, "hats" — about six feet away hanging on a chair (others somewhere in a closet) are several dusty hats. One has the name of a ship and a hull number. In the closet somewhere is a hat with the same name and another hull number. It changed over the years I knew the ship. I have two other hats like that. Never got into collecting them particularly, but for ships I knew well and liked enough to acquire a hat there are two cases of hull number changes (then one set is a non U.S. ship). For Navy people and Navy "fans" hull numbers do tell a story. For most people looking here they are incidental factoids of little importance. It also depends in Navy on viewpoint. BUSHIPS/NAVSEA folk I used to know thought of them almost like retail item numbers. How many those things we got active, under mod/repair, inactive? Until Rose Knot went MSTS the Navy connection was pretty obscure and intermittent. Just another coastal cargo in and out of reserve until the missile ranges needed something floating to fill in for islands. Then there was a USAF number. The ones that really rile me are the six Army FS type range ships, no names, just phonetic call signs and numbers with call signs becoming unofficial names. I've got files on the FS type (I like them, once joked with a real sea dog with decades underway I kept up with of getting one for end days at sea.), megabytes and pages and books. I cannot yet identify which FS became which phonetic. Palmeira (talk) 04:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Stellar Banner

Ore ship, Stellar Banner - d:Q86984321 - maybe of interest. It was an ore carrier that was just deliberately sunk off Brazil. It’s in the Brazil news a lot, but not so much in English media yet. Broichmore (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 2020 updated. Mjroots (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move

There is a requested move at Talk:Blue Origin landing platform ship that would benefit from your opinion. Please come and help! P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 23:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

‘Star’ on which the body was brought up

This image is a recent upload to Commons. Can anyone identify the ship, or the event to which its title refers? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Possibilities:-

Might help if we had some context to the caption. Mjroots (talk) 09:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. That's all I have. It occurs to me that this could be an illustartion from a work of fiction. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

A quick search on the phrase showed that during the period it was fairly often associated with vessels and craft that recovered a drowning victim. An occasional, less specific, hit related to a body being transported as in "brought up to" some city — a usage more associated with some notable's funeral. The artist was noted for Punch illustrations from 1851 until 1890 and a periodical Once a Week. If not for a work of fiction it might well be related to some notable or just "pop culture" event of the period. The Encyclopaedia Britannica piece also notes:

"In 1872 Keene met Joseph Crawhall, who had been in the habit for years of jotting down any humorous incidents he might hear of or observe and illustrating them for his own amusement."

It could be some incident of brief note that never made it beyond local "news" and has faded to the vast void of lost — too often destroyed in a frenzy of "it is all on line" — print archives. Palmeira (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Drew a blank searching British Newspaper Archive with a few variants. Some if the possible candidates above could be eliminated - with accommodation and lifeboats (and a gallery?) aft this is not likely to be principally a tug, and one might be able to make judgments relating to size, or the ornate scrolled head. But it would be all rather speculative. Davidships (talk) 02:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Early Australian Steamers, Australian Historical Society, Journal and Proceedings (1904) — Finding this "Star" is probably one of those forlorn hope searches but it did turn up an interesting reference for any here that are interested in Early Australian Steamers. The reference is in two parts. That link, in Volume eight, quickly covers Sophia Jane (here) with considerable additional detail. Volume nine covers additional steamers. Palmeira (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

IMO Numbers

Davidships removed the IMO Number from the SS Jagiełło article, claiming that it was not possible. Both Miramar and one of the Russian sources give an IMO Number for the ship. I note he's edited the IMO Number article to say that they were mandated in 1987. As I see it, he takes this to mean that they were introduced in 1987 and any vessel out of service before then cannot have had an IMO Number.

My understanding is that they were introduced in the 1960s ('63/64?), but weren't mandatory at the time. Thus it is perfectly possible for any ship in service since then to have been allocated an IMO Number.

Can anyone shed some more light on this please? Mjroots (talk) 05:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Prior to the adoption of A.600(15), ships were identified by a 6- or 7-digit Lloyd's Register number; the latter was later adopted as the basis of IMO numbering scheme. Since Jagiełło was scrapped in the 1970s, it never had an official IMO number. Perhaps we need a {{LR number}} for such ships? Tupsumato (talk) 06:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

IMO numbers were not mandated in 1987, and my edit doesn't say they were. They became mandatory on 1 Jan 1996. But all that was in the article before. Davidships (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tupsumato. I don't think that we should adopt a LR number template. That was a private system, adopted for LR's own purposes, and was not used officially beyond that. Unless they had LR-classed vessels (or bought a copy of the printed book), shipowners would not even have known about them. Davidships (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Odd references at SS Jagiełło

The new article SS Jagiełło, about a passenger liner built for Turkey as the Dogu in a German shipyard, seized by the Germans following the outbreak of World War II, and transferred to Poland after the end of the war, and later passed on to the Soviet Union, has as its only reference Slapa, R.Z.; Jakubowski, W.; Kasperlik-Zaluska, A.; Piwowonski, A.; Szopinski, K.T. (August 2011). "Shear Wave Elastography of Abdominal and Retroperitoneal Masses and Inflammatory Processes: A Feasibility Study". Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology. 37 (8): S33–S34. doi:10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2011.05.163. ISSN 0301-5629.. This seems an unlikely source for details on a passenger liner, although Lloyds list [1] indicates that the ship did exist. Can anybody help?Nigel Ish (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Weird indeed - the article started as a translation of a WP:pl article, which uses the same sole reference, even providing page numbers! There shouldn't be too much problem in referencing most of the current content and expanding it. (PS: it's Lloyd's Register; Lloyd's List is a newspaper) Davidships (talk) 23:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I've tinkered a little. Mjroots (talk) 17:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

A couple of things - should Dogu be Doğu? Should we add {{Gdynia America Line}} to the article and the ship to the template? Mjroots (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Probably Doğu, but haven't found a cite yet.

Strange that we have a template with a good handful of ships covered, for a line that has no article. There's a a WP:PL article, which doesn't look all that well referenced, but I would expect some coverage in the standard literature on Atlantic passenger shipping. Davidships (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I've changed "Dogu" to "Doğu" - it's a common practice to ignore diacritics which we need not follow. Just leaves the question of the template. Mjroots (talk) 05:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The Ships List has a page on the Gdynia-America Line. Mjroots (talk) 09:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I hesitated, as both g and ğ and used in Turkish, but as there is no word "dogu" in the Turkish dictionary, so I suppose it's OK. On that basis, the third Turkish ship should be Savaş. Davidships (talk) 09:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

There is Doğu, a male name though. Mjroots (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Lars Bruzelius - inadequate reference?

It is quite common to find "Lars Bruzelius" cited as a reference in articles about ships. Two examples are:
List_of_clipper_ships#cite_ref-4
Taitsing_(clipper)#cite_ref-2
but it is very easy to find many more. As far as I can make out, this source is simply a blog put together by an enthusiast who has transcribed information from all the normal sources for this subject - books like Cutler's Greyhounds of the Seas and MacGregor's The Tea Clippers (the list of sources is a bit longer, but all are mainstream works). Bearing in mind
(a) the rules on what is (or is not) a WP:RS,
(b) the fact that the sources used for the blog are reasonably easily available to Wikipedia editors working in the subject
(c) the Bruzelius blog seems to contain the odd transcription error or source with incorrect information,
is there any reason why usage of Lars Bruzelius shouldn't be weeded out of Wikipedia?

(An example of Bruzelius citing an incorrect piece of information is Taitsing_(clipper)#cite_ref-4 which takes you to a newspaper article that states that Serica (clipper) was built of iron, when she was actually built of wood.)

If anyone wanted to help with replacing with better references, that would be very welcome.

Incidentally, Bruzelius has a copyright statement on his site, yet some of its content appears to be directly transcribed from some of his sources.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 10:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I looked at the sources you highlighted, and saw nothing of concern. Bruzelius lists his sources, which gives me confidence that he takes his subject seriously and will correct errors where known. No source is free from errors, even The Times gets things wrong sometimes. If the source he uses is wrong, the that is not his fault. We have the same situation here - WP:VNT. If there is an error, the way to deal with it is to find another source, and quote that. Alternatively, there is nothing wrong with citing the quoted book sources instead of Bruzelius, iff the editor citing actually has the book to hand. Mjroots (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Mjroots. Replacing that reference with the references Lars Bruzelius cites where applicable might add detail. That said, as a general observation, some of the rules of reference here are rather absurd now. Years ago, on this forum, I observed that very reliable sources had shifted from easily available print and even web sites to "blogs" and even Facebook pages. Smithsonian Institution, many U.S. government agencies and educational institutions had made that shift and abandoned "traditional" (even in digital media) sources. Some are at it again. Meanwhile a publication or web site by some not so well regarded organization was "acceptable" as a cite. As for mistakes in a source? Some of the most reliable sources I know have contained provable blunders. DANFS is generally reliable as far as it goes, but it is written by Navy historical employees or volunteers culling the files and provable mistakes do happen. Those blunders are usually for merchant vessels taken into Navy service. Then there is a rather idiotic "secondary source" tilt here in matters where secondary sources cannot be as reliable as the "owner" of the subject. I cannot count the "sources" in press and even books seriously and provably blundering in such matters. This is particularly true in matters of military projects, facilities and other matters that were "classified" when the secondary sources were written. There are numerous "reliable" secondary sources still resident here describing classified projects and systems as five blind men described an elephant. Many are almost completely discredited by later declassification of the subject. In some cases very reliable sources were unreliable because they were dealing with a cover story. Worse, in several cases I know, the Soviet view of a U.S. classified program crept into "reliable" publications and "expert" but uncleared views and then into publications and even books. SOSUS being a barrier system in pre declassification "expert" descriptions is one example. All sources must be evaluated individually for accuracy — including a time factor with matters once "classified" — and blanket source type rejection or acceptance is information foolishness. Palmeira (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

No, ThoughtIdRetired's concerns are valid. It's not acceptable per WP:SPS; Bruzelius is not an expert in the field, and his four publications all appear to be self-published. Bruzelius' degree is in mathematics, this is clearly a hobbyist website. While it may be generally good, that doesn't mean it's reliable as Wiki defines the term. Parsecboy (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that ThoughtIdRetired and Parsecboy are quite right on the basis of WP:RS and WP:SPS, though some of the specific criticisms seem misplaced. For example, the citation instanced in the Taitsing article is wrongly formulated as it is not a citation of anything written by LB, he is merely providing a generally more accessible text of a published source than this one - and it was being cited in relation to something other than the hull material of Serica. I certainly don't buy the idea that published experts in maritime history would be disqualified if they had started their adult life with an unrelated degree, or indeed none. Palmeira raises some important issues, but they cannot be addressed here; hopefully they will receive some consideration elsewhere, if they haven't already.

For me, LB's work is useful as a generally reliable index/checklist and pointer to appropriate sources. Davidships (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

To make an observation of the British Newspaper Archive link given by User:Davidships(above), this is another source which erroneously states that Serica had an iron hull. (This fact is significant in the history of the development of the tea clipper - Steele built only one more wooden clipper before going over to composite construction. It may originate from confusion with the iron lower masts and yards that Serica had.) The importance of not citing sources that contain relatively prominent errors is that the encyclopedia user may go to the sources cited in the article for additional information. It would be unhelpful to that user to be directed to a source which contains basic errors - especially when other, better quality sources contain full and correct information. Furthermore, if the errors are discernable to the user, it immediately calls into question the accuracy of the Wikipedia article. I would very much hope than any editor's usage of Bruzelius's site is "behind the scenes" (which I think is what Davidships is suggesting), especially since its information has simply been obtained from reliable sources that are available to the editor.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

(Just for the record, the newspaper article, with its error, is not "another" source, it's the same one as JB's accurate and attributed transcription - one might ask, though, whether he should have noticed, and noted the error as a footnote) Davidships (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I have not used quite good works for exactly that reason you give. I was recently updating some missile range ships. A typical "reliable source", Dan Kovalchik in Air & Space Magazine, had useful information in one source but near the end identified the wrong ship as one sunk as a target. No, it was not Rose Knot sunk as a target. A major blunder. All the rest was good to excellent, backed by hard data elsewhere. Since I could cover that useful information with several other references I used multiple others rather than the one otherwise quite good work. That may not always be possible. In the past, I've sometimes used the flawed one for other information with a footnote that the blunder is countered by other references I've cited. That includes a couple of DANFS ship histories that have major blunders. Palmeira (talk) 11:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the subject site can be a "generally reliable index/checklist and pointer" and has very limited use as a reference in itself even if impeccable according to Wikipedia rules. I was unfamiliar with it, though I do have some similar ones I use to locate more complete references. As to the idea that a degree determines the quality of a person's work in another field? There are more than a few real experts in fields outside their "degrees" and even remunerative profession. I had a friend with his doctorate in a field in which he was well regarded but who was a "go to" expert and author in another area of interest to which he applied the same rigor of scholarship. He died with probably more widespread recognition for his "hobby" than the narrow, esoteric field of degree and paid work. As to the issues I raised above, I doubt the amateur, hobbyist driven Wikipedia will ever really address the issue of authoritative references as known in peer reviewed, scientific, historical and scholarly works. The dichotomy of covering both hard facts and popular culture, ship history v. personalities in the news for example, is a factor and probably one of the main drivers of "secondary source" preference that certainly does not work well with such things as government ships, projects and systems. The problem is addressed outside Wikipedia, where considerable criticism is found. I've raised it before to no avail — Support/Oppose votes do not always follow a logical and factual lead. My "classified" comment does have application to ship history and needs to be addressed. Take a look at my 2009 comment at Talk:Project Azorian#No sources?. One of the main references for that article is full of the grabbing:

"Some of these authors grab project and code names out of dark little bags, string them together, mix operational with experimental and weave a tale. Hey, it sometimes sells articles or books."

In my digital and hard copy files I have several on projects and systems in which pre-declassification authoritative authors and publications are so off target as to be laughable. One digital reference is to a U.S. analysis of the Soviet view of SOSUS over time. Many of the "references" still out there are full of the Soviet buy in to the covers and misconceptions secrecy was intended to drive — and that got cited in the Wiki articles. Project Artemis is another that was full of misinformation — and the old references are still on line. That was a very flawed, horribly expensive and probably too early experiment — not a surveillance system itself as some of those references and the Soviets had it. Ships, Thresher and Scorpion come to mind, engaged in classified operations and projects are subject to that problem and worth considering here. Palmeira (talk) 11:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

In thinking this through with a live example - see Talk:Glory of the Seas (clipper) - it seems to me that many of LB's pages are good candidates for External Links, as they clearly meet WP:ELMAYBE #4, on the strength of the bibliographies alone (and using an archived version as it is a personal website). Davidships (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Davidships' WP:ELMAYBE #4 suggestion makes sense. Having had a brief go at tagging the Bruzelius references or re-referencing from appropriate sources, it is interesting to see that you find a lot more information that could be put in articles if looking at the original sources used by Bruzelius. I have also picked up one simple factual error (in List of clipper ships: Surprise) which was not the fault of Bruzelius, but shows what happens when an editor uses an easily accessed on-line source - quick and easy can put the editor in "error mode". (I am sure I must have done this at some stage.)ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Not perhaps fair on Lars Bruzzelius, but is usage of his site an indicator that an article may be of low quality? For example, found him cited on Tarring (rope), an article that is in a complete muddle, uses an illustration of someone doing a similar, but different job (applying boiled oil to wire rigging), and has a section describing another similar but different task.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

No, it doesn't indicate that at all. Like the example first instanced above, the LB reference is a faithful transcription of a non-copyrighted source, and was probably the only version readily available to the WP editor a decade ago, and used only to reference the description of what the article is about. Now it can be replaced by a direct ref to the original book, available in full text online at "Blacking Rigging" (LB does have a typo in the title). Tagging is definitely less useful than actually improving the referencing. If the Tarring article is a mess that's a completely different issue. Davidships (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think I did a good job of explaining myself. If a website is a quick and easy source of information, does it indicate that the Wikipedia editor might have done a less than perfect job? I am probably theorising too much about the behavioural science of Wikipedia editors - but I am still surprised at the proportion of articles using Bruzelius as a source that seem to be inadequate. (Or are there simply that many inadequate article on Wikipedia.....) I agree about improving rather than tagging - interesting that Tarring (rope) has a better description of the process in the link to Two Years Before the Mast, including the total reliance of the worker on the man down at the pin-rail, tending the gantline that supports you. (Scary to think about that job now!)ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses lots of blog-type sites as reliable sources. Uboat.net, for example, is cited over 4000 times here. I've made inquiries about such usage in the past and the consensus seems to be that a site is usable as a source, if not perhaps ideal, so long as it lists the reliable sources from which the information on the site came. Bruzelius lists his sources, so qualifies in this respect.

Having said that, it does surprise me that Bruzelius is used so widely given that the sources he cites are not that hard to get hold of (quite a few of them in fact being out of copyright and published online). A major concern of mine with the use of such blogs is that one never knows when they are just going to disappear, which inevitably leads to a lot of information sourced to expired links that is difficult if not impossible to verify. For this reason, I think it best to replace such sources wherever practical.

With regard to inaccuracies, many of these enthusiast blogs can actually be better than secondary sources because they are kept up to date. And I've yet to find a secondary source on ships that doesn't have errors - many of them are in fact riddled with errors. This is one reason why the emphasis on secondary sources can be problematic (primary sources are often better for certain types of information, but that won't stop your article being slapped with a "primary sources" template, for example). Regardless, as I said, I believe sites like Bruzelius are valid, just not preferable when the underlying sources can be cited instead. Gatoclass (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

First, you are precisely correct regarding about "enthusiast" often being better than secondary, published sources. The number of blunders, errors — in some cases, deep misunderstanding of the subject by book and magazine authors (let's not even get into "press" features") — is in my experience more frequent when someone is engaged for love of the subject rather than getting published and paid.

The concern with the disappearance of blogs if valid. That said, one of the greatest perpetrators of disappearing information is the United States government. When a reorganization or new policy takes effect it can be like the burning of the Library of Alexandria. Take the U. S. Coast Guard Historian's information that just went dark or was reorganized (concurrently with becoming part of "Homeland Security") into a mess of disorganized icons to click. A once nearly DANFS like history of cutters is largely only in private archive sites. When Naval Historical Center lost its web site management to an "information" command and then it became Naval History and Heritage Command (rather than an historical center) things went weird for quite a while and some never came back. I have whole pages of DTIC links from years ago to .pdf publications of considerable value. Many are gone without a trace, though some can be recovered by searching DTIC under the full titles and publication number. The same can happen to corporate sites after takeover or bankruptcy. A sad story, regarding hard copy that never got digital, is a memory of a good friend, a lifelong mariner and long time captain of ships, from a period when he was ashore and working at the corporate office in Manhattan that managed a huge tanker fleet. Down in a subbasement was the archive. Every ship the company had owned or chartered and all those assigned to the ships were covered. Every construction order, purchase, maintenance and operating record going back to the early 20th century was there. Just like the Navy's Ship History Branch at now NHHC has every report sent that archive had the logs and reports of every tanker, tug and lighter in its massive world wide fleet. It lasted he thought into the early 1970s but "vanished" when the huge corporation was broken up and the bits of carcass sold off. Vandals burning great libraries are always with us. Fortunately there are some that work of saving bits and pieces. Palmeira (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes. But I am less worried about the longevity of sources in personal websites like LB's because so many are, or can be, archived. That's why I mentioned above that archived versions would be preferable where LB's pages are used as External Links. It should be standard practice for WP editors to check that web-references are archived at the time of editing - if not, just do it - it's about three clicks on web.archive.org (or may be it could be automated by WP). By the way, I dislike the description of serious amateur research websites as "blogs" as they have none of the characteristics of a blog - it sounds pejorative and makes them seem ephemeral or journalistic. Davidships (talk) 00:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Civilian vs Military in WPSHIPS class and prefix templates

Back in 2018 I queried whether RMS should be moved from militaty to civillian in {{WPSHIPS_class_and_prefix_templates}}. See here. The discussion sort of fizzled out with so I'm going ahead and implementing the change. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

No doubt about RMS.

Meanwhile, another loose end from that earlier discussion is SY and S/Y, where nobody commented at all. Whether it is sail or steam or both, it most certainly refers to a yacht, not a ship. Davidships (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Another little oddity: the Raven which is used as an example of SSSY, has been a MY since 1934. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Nothing odd about the change itself - many ships and yachts made the same conversion. Her designation as a "yacht" was, I think, a bit of an affectation by the Ullswater company, to cut a bit of Victorian swankiness (there were a few excursion steamers on the Scottish lochs that were similarly styled). Davidships (talk) 03:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The oddity is using her as an example. It's been wrong for 86 years. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

history.navy.mil down?

Is anyone else unable to connect to https://www.history.navy.mil/ ? I'm getting an error message. Parsecboy (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Straight in, no problems. There's nothing under "news" about site problems. Try again, and if you are still having problems flush your browser cache. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it's working now - wonder what the issue was. Parsecboy (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

SS Atlantic (1871)

Should this ship be prefixed RMS or SS? SS seems to be used on North American sources (and could be an argument under COMMONNAME) but British sources suggest RMS is correct. Lyndaship (talk) 07:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Surely a ship should have the prefix used in the country of her port of registry - so in this case British ship, RMS. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Of course both are correct. She was a Screw Ship as well as a Royal Mail Steamer (indeed she was also a Barque, but since the sails were auxilliary we'll quietly ignore that). In general though, where a ship has a specialised purpose that takes precedence, consider for example HMS Queen Elizabeth which is also an MV. In the present case, if the Atlantic held the royal warrant to carry the mails she should be styled RMS. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

SS is certainly correct. RMS is a functional prefix and would only be correct for the period that she held a contract/warrant from Royal Mail. To prefer RMS would need sources on that. Davidships (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

There's a singular lack of sources generally. I've been rummaging through half-a-dozen online sources and will give the article a good shaking (sourced) this evening. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Just noticed something else above, though it doesn't affect the answer. Although it is true that SS was used to mean "screw ship/steamer" (differentiating from paddle ship/steamer), it is more conventionally used since about the 1930s as "steam ship" (differentiating from sailing and motor ships/vessels), so its use by sources may well depend on their age. Also R08 is a bad example for two reasons: firstly British warships are never prefixed in reliable sources as MV/SS etc (except possibly by the most pedantic of naval writers who won't allow HMS until the ship is commissioned, yet think that a ship is naked without a prefix); but secondly because it would be wrong - QE has integrated electric propulsion with both diesel and gas turbines as generators. Davidships (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I was corrected a couple of years ago for using SS when I should have used PS, so I think your 1930 date is a little suspect in some quarters! It is a bit illogical though that MV is used when she's not steam – you could say that all MVs are SSs. Furthermore, why MV and not MS? QE was a quick example to illustrate a point. What prefix would you use if she were not "HMS", I can't see one for "Electric Ship"? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

So many terms and concepts are time based and understanding limited. Pedantic U.S.N. folk even remove the U.S.S. when a commissioned ship is undergoing long refits and "out of commission" yet some here tag every scow ever mentioned in U.S. Navy context as USS something. The "steam ship" thing is another that is misunderstood and one about which I've had minor disputes here. Pure steam ships had steam as basic power — propulsion and every powered auxiliary aboard so that "Installed power" was the boiler system. In some cases auxiliary boilers provided steam for some services, but in many designs the main boilers provided steam power for main engines and every winch and powered function aboard. That condition existed even into a more modern era of steam turbines when steam drove electric generators in the power train, as in C.S. Long Lines, for auxiliary power for ship's services. A division came when boiler steam drove generator sets and the electric propulsion motor(s) was the major use of that generated power. Even then "installed power" is not the same as propulsion power.

Speed is another little trap. An edit I just made in Sophia Jane reminded me of an old issue with ship speed that is very time variant and often location dependent. At one time and in many old references one finds the now oxymoronic term "knots per hour" — there is a reason.

"Sophia Jane's time running the 60 knots from Newcastle to to Sydney was seven and two-thirds hours, equal to nearly eight knots per hour in 1831."

At one time knot was used as a measure of distance, an archaic term (A probably circular reference as I doubt anyone cast the log and counted the knots from Newcastle to Sydney!) for nautical mile (which itself has to be understood in context). Only later did a knot become defined as one nautical mile per hour so that now one blunders adding that bit. Another sometimes weird issue arises from craft operating in inland waters or strictly harbor/coastal waters being rated in statute miles per hour. Then they go oceanic and someone decides that is an error making it knots. This is very common in those WW I section patrol boats that were sometimes inland yachts or work boats. Many came from the fad of wealthy individuals competing in racing steam and gasoline yachts (some designed as "patrol" boats) where the races were in mph, not knots. Nautical measures of all sorts emerged out of dim traditions and got all sorts of varying definitions until fairly recently when we began defining things to a standard. One has to examine the context of the thing to understand how it fits in those modern terms — and it often "ain't simple"!. Palmeira (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if I confused by missing out that, whatever happened to the use of SS, PS continued in common use as it had before (and there are been precious few diesel-powered paddle steamers to muddy the water). "1930s" was a bit out of the air, but by then motor ships/vessels were becoming more common - they could indeed have continued using SS for all screw ships, but they didn't - perhaps it was a desire by shipowners, shipbuilders and journalists [there was a separate technical journal "The Motor Ship"] etc to emphasise modernity. Also, "Steamship" or "Steam Ship" in company names came to be often abbreviated to SS, and that probably also influenced the gradual change in usage. MV/MS are the same thing, there are just preferences - I would judge that MV is more common in Britain, MS in Germany/Scandinavia (works with their own languages), I don't know about the US. Some people do use abbreviations like DE/D-E for diesel electric ships and other others for powering variants and combinations, but I would not say that they are widely-used. And top of all that, for many ships, the reference sources do not use any of these merchant prefixes, in which case the appropriate article title should be without a prefix (then dabbed as necessary), per WP:NC-SHIPS. Davidships (talk) 03:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

A case could be made to drop the SS, MS/MV and such "engineering/advertising" prefixes from titles. They are not part of the name and indicated no formal status as do HMS, USS, USNS, or even RMS. At one time registers divided sail and steam into large categories. As diesel came into common use there was a period with a separate section for motor vessels. Later, at least in the U.S. registry, one had to look at the abbreviations in the data columns and symbols such as the square for oil burning steam vessels. In professional nautical context the prefixes are often not used at all. The only functional use of the prefixes here is to perhaps distinguish ships from namesakes. If a generic means of doing that can be implemented all the prefixes, so often changing over time, should be covered in the text. Palmeira (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

So I went and checked original reports of the disaster in the hope that this would lend some weight one way or the other. Unfortunately all I was able to determine is that newspapers in the 1870s had higher standards of grammar and writing than today. None of the four sources I looked at used any abbreviation at all. They all spelled it out fully as "steamer" or "steamship Atlantic." That said, I did not find any use of "Royal Mail Ship."[2][3][4][5]

Above comment was mine. Clearly I forgot to sign. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Personally I prefer the old usage, particularly for ships of that period. With that sail plan the ship was not a pure steamship. The SS prefix for a ship pictured with such prominent sails is likely a bit confusing to a person without nautical background. For many of those early vessels with boilers it is a bit hard to define whether they were auxiliary steam or auxiliary sail. They used whichever was most practical and economical under sea and wind conditions. Perhaps (paddle steamer/barque) and (screw steamer/barque) type suffixes would be more descriptive for vessels of that period. Palmeira (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

"With that sail plan the ship was not a pure steamship" - that's not what people thought when these ships were newly in use. They had the steam engines running all the time (as long as they didn't miscalculate their coal consumption). I think the picture that illustrates the article is a little misleading - the standard practice when going to windward would be to house the topmasts to reduce windage - this is discussed in The Advent of Steam, ed: Robert Gardiner, chap 8 Sail-assist and the Steamship (chapter written by Basil Greenhill and Peter Allington). The illustration to the article is possibly the artist showing as much of the rig as possible. A major function of the rig on a passenger vessel was to reduce rolling. Another was marketing - who wants to sail in a ship without sails? Other steamships of the period generally had sails. The true steam auxiliary merchant vessel was a rarity - as is stated in a caption to a photo (from Greenhill's collection) of an 1874 ship of this class.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

MV Alstertor

Hi Folks, I've started to create the MV Alstertor ship article that is another article in the Kriegsmarine supply vessels in the west series. Any help is appreciated. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 14:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Scope creep: - Lloyd's register (link on my user page) should have plenty of info on the ship under both names. Mjroots (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much @Mjroots: I will take a look at it. scope_creep^Talk 18:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Scope creep: - Sjohistorie has a little on the ship (in Norwegian). Mjroots (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mjroots:. I couldn't find the Lloyds link on your user page, but it too the Southampton council? scope_creep^Talk 19:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Scope creep: - That's the one. Marked "Lloyd's Register 1930-45" towards bottom of my user page. Rose, 1938 Lloyd's Register, Alstertor, 1940 Lloyd's Register. Take a look at the SS Rodopi article. That will give you a good idea of the kind of info that can be extracted from LR and incorporated into an article. Mjroots (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Robert M Sloman Jr is the oldest German shipowning firms still in business (started 1793), but neither of the articles of the individual family members Robert Miles Sloman and Henry Brarens Sloman have anything to say about the business in the period in question. There is a good comprehensive article on the firm on deWP, with a para on reefer transport,Rob. M. Sloman [de], so I have linked that for now. It is well referenced to German sources (though mostly not in-line), and a translation could form the basis of an article here. Davidships (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I see it mentions the old MV Alstertor in the Refrigerated shipping section. I could possibly fit it in at some point. It a relatively straight job of doing a translation, assuming the source are translatable. I'll check it first. scope_creep^Talk 12:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

"Arrest warrant" for a ship?

The article on the Beirut explosions, when referring to the detention of the ship MV Rhosus (subject of above section) uses the term "arrest warrant" in the context of the detention of the ship in the Port of Beirut by the government of Lebanon.

Question to shipping people. Is this a thing? Can ships be arrested in standard civil or maritime law? Is this lingo pretty standard to be used in Wikipedia shipping articles?

Here's the entire paragraph, so one can see the context of the use of the term:

The Rhosus then quickly ran out of provisions, while the crew were unable to disembark because of immigration restrictions.^[1] Creditors also obtained three arrest warrants^[a] against the ship.

This usage of the term "arrest warrant" with respect to ships is not something I've seen before. Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Notes

^ A ship may be "arrested" and detained in port by a court order in support of a maritime lien claim by creditors against the vessel.^[2]

References

^ Cite error: The named reference rhosus.shiparrested was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cheng, Eugene (3 April 2020). "Points to Consider if your Ship is Arrested". West of England. Archived from the original on 5 August 2020. Retrieved 5 August 2020.

Maybe begin at Ship arrest and Maritime lien. "Arrest warrant" is normal terminology, see here, and here (page 250) for the specific regime in Lebanon. Davidships (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

That is super helpful Davidships! Thanks for the quick response. N2e (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The arrest article says nothing about ships. Is it worth making an addition to the "see also" section of that article? Mjroots (talk) 05:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I added a redirect for Arrest warrant (ship), and a other uses hatnote at the top of the main Arrest warrant article. Others please do feel free to modify or improve. Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

MV Rhosus

MV Rhosus (1986) (IMO 8630344) was indirectly the cause of the 2020 Beirut explosions. I'm offering a bribe of a barnstar to any editor who writes an article on the ship that is of at least start class and includes an infobox, description and history section. Mjroots (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I will up the offer, if an article is written that meets the above criteria I will donate $25 to the Wikimedia Foundation.Juneau Mike (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Michaelh2001:, Dying created the article and brought it to a stage where it met the required conditions. Tupsumato has since improved it. It's easily C class, and possibly B class. Mjroots (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Donation made to the Wikimedia Foundation! I even paid the extra $1 on top of the $25 to pay for the transaction fees so the Wikimedia Foundation can keep 100% of the transaction. Well done, everybody! 😀 Juneau Mike (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

oh, wow, thanks, Mjroots! this was actually my first ship article, so i'm really happy that you believe it's at least a c-class article. Tupsumato was a big help with all the information hidden behind a paywall. also, thanks for making the donation, Michaelh2001! dying (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, no problem — I'm always happy to help. Sorry for making a bit of a mess while working on the article; the ship had quite a patchy career. Tupsumato (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again, everybody! Juneau Mike (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I've sorted out the redirects and added the ship to the List of ship launches in 1986. Do we have definite info on the ship's fate? Mjroots (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

it's not definite info, but the former captain stated in an interview with rfe/rl (in russian) that there was a hole in the ship, and since there was no crew to regularly remove water from the ship, it sank about two or three years ago. this is consistent with Anchr's observation that pictures on google earth imply that it sank about 500 m north of the port in early 2018. dying (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this is most probably the final fate of the ship. However, we need something beyond WP:OR to confirm this. Perhaps the link above would be sufficient to at least include the details to the article? Tupsumato (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

i was debating that, but the statement seemed possibly speculative or based on hearsay. something like "The former captain stated that the ship eventually sunk because there was a hole in it and no crew members were present to remove water from the ship." might work. i was just worried about stating outright that the ship had sunk. dying (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The ship was removed from Moldavian registry on 23.02.2014, so not sure where she was registered after that. If you can read Russian, here is a link https://rossaprimavera.ru/news/9b12d94a Crook1 (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

There's an image currently on Commons (File:MV Rhosus.jpg) which is liable to deletion on 12 August. Is there a good case for hosting it on en-Wiki under fair use rules? Mjroots (talk) 06:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll ask around if someone in Shipspotting.com would like to release their photograph under Creative Commons license. The photograph currently in Commons is probably this one. Tupsumato (talk) 07:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Rhosus sank between 16 and 18 February 2018. Mjroots (talk) 05:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

[3] A ship may be "arrested" and detained in port by a court order in support of a maritime lien claim by creditors against the vessel.^[2]

[rhosus.shiparrested-1] Cite error: The named reference rhosus.shiparrested was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[2] Cheng, Eugene (3 April 2020). "Points to Consider if your Ship is Arrested". West of England. Archived from the original on 5 August 2020. Retrieved 5 August 2020.

[1]

[a]

[2]