Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 76

Archive 70

←

Archive 74

Archive 75

Archive 76

Way's Packet Directory

Does anyone have access to a copy of this? I'm interested to see if there's anything about the Ed Howard (also known as Howard or Edward Howard) beyond what is included already in the article for the warship it became, CSS General Polk. Hog Farm _Talk 00:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The search doesn't reveal any info. Mjroots (talk) 08:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Marine Engineering News

The Marine Engineering News was first published in April 1879. Covers mostly UK shipping, with some foreign. Useful for improving articles about ships of that era. I've added the first four volumes to WP:SHIPS/R#Country specific sources. More will be added later. Mjroots (talk) 09:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

It appears to be the same as The Marine Engineer and Naval Architect, of which there is several volumes in the Internet Archive.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Civilian ships dabbing

Our guidance for dabbing civil and military ships is different. For civilian ships it says The date of launching should be used if there are several ships with the same name. For military ships it is further qualified with In instances where a ship was captured or otherwise acquired by a navy and the article is placed at that title, use the date of capture or entry to the navy, rather than the date of launch, so the name and prefix are in agreement with the date disambiguation. I feel that the civilian ship guidance should have a similar qualification when the ship is acquired and renamed. The existing guideline causes the resultant dates to be confusing as on MS Oscar Wilde where we have a ship launched in 1986 which served as Wilde between 2007 and 2019, another launched in 2007 which served as Wilde between 2023 and 2024 and now one launched in 2010 which serves as Wilde from 2024. Currently under the guidance they would be dabbed as 1986, 2007 and 2010 respectively whereas it would be better if they were dabbed 2007, 2023 and 2024 which gives an accurate idea of when they first served under that name. It also strikes me as strange that we should treat military ships and civil ships differently Lyndaship (talk) 05:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

The year of launch is the best dab, because that is fixed. Ships sometimes get renamed to a name they have carried before. If a ship was launched in 1976, renamed Foo in 1979, renamed Bar in 1982 and renamed Foo in 1987, which dab would you apply? This is why we use the year of launch. Where there are more than one ship of the same name launched in the same year, we can add the builder as a further disambiguator. Mjroots (talk) 06:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Mjroots' logic. Weshmakui (talk) 05:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Future of the United States Navy into List of current ships of the United States Navy#Future ships.

There is a merge discussion here: Talk:List of current ships of the United States Navy § Proposed merge of Future of the United States Navy into List of current ships of the United States Navy#Future ships. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation for Outrigger

I would like to add a disambiguation parenthetical for Outrigger to distinguish from the video game. Taking a look at Category:Watercraft components, Category:Sailboat components, Category:Shipbuilding, and Category:Naval architecture, it seems there are a number of options to choose from: (ship), (watercraft), (nautical), (naval architecture), (marine), (boating), (boat building), (ship building), (ship part), (ship construction), and potentially more that I missed.

In spirit of WP:BOLD I went ahead with (nautical), but I am leaving this comment here to document potential disambiguation... ambiguity? Tule-hog (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Ship template for Scharnhorst

Is there any way that {{ship}} can be got to work for German battleship Scharnhorst? ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 09:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Does this not work for you?

{{ship|German battleship|Scharnhorst}} → German battleship Scharnhorst

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I was looking for something equivalent to Agamemnon i.e. chop out the shortest version of the name without all the extra stuff in the article title. The fact that doesn't work (for me, at least) appears to be a function of the way the article is named. I'm just checking that I'm not missing something really obvious. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 12:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Wiil the following do what you want?

{{ship|German battleship|Scharnhorst||2}} → Scharnhorst

— Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)—

I could have sworn I'd already tried that, but clearly I hadn't. Thanks, ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 15:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

YW Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Navy ship Palestine

Hello everybody. At one time, Palestinian security forces used the former fishing trawler Chandalahe for military purposes; Israel damaged it in 2002 and since then it has been abandoned off the coast of Gaza. I wanted to know what his current fate is? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Vyacheslav84 Does it even have a Wikipedia page? Alexysun (talk) 23:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Alexysun No. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Is Type 001, Type 002, Type 003, and so on in terms of the Chinese aircraft carriers really its own class?

Is Type 001, Type 002, Type 003 in terms of the Chinese aircraft carriers really a "class" of ships if they only have one ship per Type 001, Type 002, Type 003, and so on? Seems to me that it seems to be just a name for the ship before they choose an official name, because it's only one ship. There are not two Type 001s etc. Does my question make sense. Alexysun (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes your question does make sense. I would suggest the usual way of doing things; that is for single ship classes to have just one page like Japanese aircraft carrier Sōryū. That being said, Type 003 is not finished yet and could have multiple ships to that design. However for Type 001 and Type 002, the question is pertinent. Llammakey (talk) 11:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay got it, so it's good as it is right now. Alexysun (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)