Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

A-Class review for SMS Posen now open

The A-Class review for SMS Posen is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Azov (1826 ship)

The article give the impression that the ship is still in existence, in which case there should be material available to expand it. Russian ships of the line are a bit outside my area of knowledge though. Mjroots (talk) 07:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• With 153 penetrating hits, seven of them below the water line, they were lucky to get to Malta. Azov was kept afloat for three years after Navarino although they'd better sell it for firewood right there in Greece. Give me a few days. East of Borschov (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Done, please cleanup/copyedit (I am totally blind when it comes to definite articles). East of Borschov (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ady Gil within project scope?

Wondering if Ady Gil meets our project scope. I removed the tag based on it not being a commercial or military watercraft and under 100' in length. The removal was reverted. This seems more like a watersports or motorsports project scope. What say you? Brad (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it does fall within the scope of the project. Regardless of length, it is an ocean-going vessel with distinct notability. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure, WP:SAIL may be a better WP to take this one. Mjroots (talk) 06:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Even though its not a sailing vessel? -- saberwyn 06:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, good point. Not sure if there are any other WPs that this would come under. Suppose we'd better take it under our wing then. Mjroots (talk) 09:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

List of ships attacked by Somali pirates

It has been proposed to split this 176k long list into four lists. Comments at the talk page please. Mjroots (talk) 09:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

International Journal of Nautical Archaeology

Does anyone have access to the International Journal of Nautical Archaeology? There are several articles that would be useful to improve La Belle (ship), but I'm not willing to pay $30 each for them. I'm interested in the following:

• Hall, Rebecca A., Andrew W. Hall and J. Barto Arnold III 1997 Presenting Archaeology on the Web: The La Salle Shipwreck Project. The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 26(3):247-251.
• Arnold, J. Barto III 1996 Magnetometer Survey of La Salle's Ship the Belle. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 25(3 & 4):243-249.

Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sent you an email about it. Woody (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Would this journal have anything on USS Bonhomme Richard (1765)? Richard is one of my back burner projects set on simmer. Brad (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I did a search and couldn't find anything under various variations (Bonhomme, Bonhomme Richard, USS Bonhomme, USS Bonhomme Richard etc) Sorry, Woody (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It was worth a try; thanks. Brad (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Ships of Germany

I've been thinking about this cat, and subcat thereunder. "Germany" is rather vague here. There has been a progression from the German Empire, through Weimar Germany, Nazi Germany Allied-occupied Germany East Germany and West Germany to reunification in 1991 producing the present-day Germany.

Therefore I propose that each period has its own categories, with ships being categorised by the period they were under the German flag as follows - German Empire (up to 1919) Weimar Republic (1919-33), Nazi Germany (1933-45), Allied-occupied Germany (1945-49), East Germany or West Germany (1949-91), Germany (from 1991). Mjroots (talk) 11:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds logical. I presume Category:Ships of Germany would remain as a holding cat? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Ships of Germany would remain, as it would be the cat for ships in service from 1991. I intend that a full explanation as to where ship articles should be classified will appear on that cat, to assist editors in deciding how to classify article.

Another questions is should these be separate country categories, or subcats of the Ships of Germany category. I'm inclined to go with the latter. Mjroots2 (talk) 09:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It sounds a tad like overcategorization to me. For ships that existed through multiple eras, you are going to have to add multiple cats, to articles that probably already have a plethora of cats. Do we really need all these separate cats? I'd like to see a more thorough discussion about this. Gatoclass (talk) 10:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops! I'd already made a start. Will hold off for now. I had mentioned this about a week ago without any comments against a split. I believe the situation is similar to other cases where country names have changed through the years though. Mjroots (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If consensus is against this split, then it is nothing that can't be undone. A separate issue is the use of the correct flag for ships linking to the correct article and not the generic Germany article.

I've been thinking this over. The category for West Germany should stay (it complements the category for East Germany, which had already been created, both cover the period 1949-91). If there is opposition to the other categories, then they can go, and the article return to the Germany category as before. Mjroots (talk) 05:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, as they were two separate countries. Gatoclass (talk) 07:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I, too, think it overcategorization, in the case where there was only one Germany to consider. I figure three cats would handle all situations: Germany, East Germany and West Germany. Binksternet (talk) 09:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this a done deal? If yes, shouldn't someone actually fill the categories (poor old SMS Schlesien will have many of them)? And what's the point of having separate "World War II" and "Nazi Germany" on the same level - aren't all "World War II" a subset of "Nazi"? East of Borschov (talk) 09:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Not a done deal, under discussion and I'm prepared to revert changes I made to articles and cats. Looks like this may be one of those ideas that sounded good in theory but didn't work out in practice. Mjroots (talk) 10:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've been through and recategorised all articles and deleted all cats except the West Germany one per above discussion. Mjroots (talk) 06:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merger

I have proposed merging Skipper (boating) into Captain (nautical). Both are about the same persons. Captain explains the job and requirements. Skipper only explains the use of the word. I know that both words have special meanings in the military, but that could be explained in the relevant articles. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

An 8-year old kid on a 4-meter dinghy could be its skipper, while the Captain (nautical) aritcle refers to a position/professional qualification that requires years to attain. I don't see a good way to merge the articles without making the latter clunkier than it already is. Perhaps the best approach would be to rename Captain (nautical) to something less arbitrary. Haus^Talk 20:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't "Skipper" more of a slang term? Was there ever an official rank or title with this name? I've a feeling that too many TV shows have put this word into pop culture. Captain (nautical) almost always means one in control of the ship whereas the military/naval rank of Captain does not always mean that the person is in charge of a ship. Brad (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently it was an official title in the Royal Navy Reserve. I believe it's "the accepted term" in sailboat racing and (fwiw) Germanic languages. Haus^Talk 00:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as "skipper" has no references or sources I'd be wary of believing anything written there. But all three terms, skipper, Captain (nautical) and naval Captain are all intertwined in some manner. Brad (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Just because it's unreferenced doesn't make it automatically inaccurate. Skipper as a rank in the Royal Naval Reserve was instituted in 1910 when a trawler section was formed. The first skipper, by his own account, was William Oliver of Hull. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 07:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok.. so does this mean that you will go over and reference the article? It's been tagged as needing references since Dec 2007. Brad (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

British ships

The {{Country data United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland}} has been created. This means that all ships in service between 1801 and 1922 can now link to the correct article via a flag - (correct)* rather than (incorrect)*. There are many ship articles that need the flags tweaking so that they link to the correct article.

*Click on the flag to see why. Mjroots (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Reference

Hi All. I'm attempting to raise European Ferries which I extensively re-wrote a few weeks ago from C to B class, all it needs is sufficient inline citations/references. However I'm stuck on the following line from the Jumboisation section.

The design of these new ships endured many negative reactions. Many people thought the aesthetics of the ships were lacking however, their extra capacity provided additional revenue.

The only thing I can find to "reference" this are two posts on internet forums, one being a post from a Ship Simulator forum [1] and the second being a post from a Brittany Ferries enthusiasts forum [2]. Would these be acceptable to reference the opinion expressed? JonEastham (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No, forums are never reliable. You could look through google.news to see if there are any articles about the ships, but I'd say you'd need more than one to support a claim of "many" negative reactions. If you can't find them, it would be better to remove the line entirely. Parsecboy (talk) 10:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Parsecboy Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

As it doesn't really add anything to the article, I've removed it. It comes across as a point of view anyway. Thanks all. JonEastham (talk) 12:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Spanish Navy

I propose that we rename articles relating to Spanish Navy ships from "Spanish ship article name" to "SPS article name". From what I've read on various webpages these initials aren't used officially by the Spanish Navy but used to refer to Spanish ships on joint NATO training missions - I've found a couple of webpages referring to the SPS Galicia and SPS Castilla. 79.72.51.117 (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Per ship prefix we do not invent prefixes for ships where they are not used in the country of origin. SPS is a NATO abbreviation, not that of the Armada Española. Mjroots (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I understand that. But wouldn't SPS be more preferable than having "Spanish ship" - from which we get the acronym - preceding every article name. It just looks so out of place. Alternatively, how about just having the articles with just the name of the ship followed by the pennant number - to distinguish the ships from any possible articles relating to their namesakes. 79.72.51.117 (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
    • WP:NC-SHIPS is explicit, we don't use made-up prefixes under any circumstances and the Spanish ship is appropriate according to the conventions. I see no reason to change it. The only time prefixes are used is if the navy in question actually uses them. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
      • We have as system in place to handle disambiguation if necessary - e.g. Spanish frigate El Foo (F77) and Spanish frigate El Foo (F101), with Spanish frigate El Foo being a dab page. Mjroots (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for SMS Blücher now open

The featured article candidacy for SMS Blücher is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 19:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship needs attention

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship/archive1 needs some attention. Thanks in advance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hyphens in book titles

A small point, but it's important to me, anyway: it's a shame that Google searches and spiders won't show a hit on a source title after you change a hyphen to a dash, as is often required at FAC, so I'm recommending that we keep a page of sources we use with the hyphens intact to catch these searches. Many spiders ignore subpages and user-space, but otherwise, I don't have a preference where it goes. I'll start putting together a list until we decide where to put it at User:Dank/Sources. - Dank (push to talk) 13:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of battlecruisers of Russia now open

The A-Class review for List of battlecruisers of Russia is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 20:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Help requested

White Shadows is going on vacation and needs help with his GAR while he's gone. Talk:German Type IXA submarine/GA1 shows what remains to be done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Sturmvogel, how about putting the GAN on hold, and adding a note at GAN that the nominator is on vacation. Status can be returned to review when White Shadows gets back. Mjroots (talk) 09:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

SS Atrato and RMS Atrato

Is the picture used on RMS Atrato of SS Atrato or RMS Atrato? Here it says: 1853 http://www.nmmprints.com/image.php?id=407220&idx=1&fromsearch=true

Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 10:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC))

You're right, it's the wrong image. This is the 1888 ship. Parsecboy (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Names of foreign ships

Just stumbled across a piece on the wreck of a german ship. While maybe English doesn't know the umlaute, should german (or any other) ships change their names because of that? We're not talking about Japanese signs here, so what's the point? the latter in question is the (MS) Mülheim, listed in en:wp as (MV RMS) Mulheim. Regards, --G-41614 (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I did wonder about this one. The photo on the article shows two dots over the u, but these are rusty while the u is in white. Possibly a redirect may be in order. Generally, I am in favour of using diacritics where it is verifiable that these were used (with a redirect from the non-diacritic title). Article is at MV RMS Mulheim. Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy with the redirect since I found one Google hit that had the umlaut ... but only one. The rule from our policy page WP:TITLE is: write it the way it appears nowadays in most English sources, and this one is overwhelmingly written without the umlaut in English news sources. Many of the German battleships I work on do have the umlaut reproduced in a fair number of English sources, and then we put it in. (Characters other than accent marks of various kinds are a harder call, and have to be done case by case.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Redirects created. Mjroots (talk) 05:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

My Google count came up differently, with a maiority for Mülheim. Besides, using media and Google as sources? Only if there's no other source to be had. Like a picture of the object (here the ship) in question, showing wonderful, albeit a little rusty, diacritics. I see the point of the english usage, but this is an encyclopedia. If there's a fact can be referenced, why follow an anonymous mass of writers can't be bothered with diacritics? For now, --G-41614 (talk) 09:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

G-41614 did a copy-paste move into the title with diacritics. I've undone this and advised him to file a WP:RM over the alternative title. I expect that G-41614 will file a request when he is next on Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 09:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Google Deutschland give 9,110 hits for "RMS Mülheim", and 14,800 hits for "RMS Mulheim", which include "RMS Mülheim" hits. Google UK gives 24,000 hits for "RMS Mulheim" and 23,900 hits for "RMS Mülheim", which include "RMS Mulheim" results.

I've no objection to moving the article to the title with the diacritic, subject to a show of support here, with a WP:RM thereby being avoided. Mjroots (talk) 10:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I won't - put in a RM, for now at least. Ok, so the Google numbers seem to suggest avoiding such a move, but my general criticism of using Google as a source still stands. There are other sources to be had, such as a picture of the ship's stern clearly showing the diacritics, even thought they're a bit rusty. It has been suggested that the rust and the difference in appearance of the letters might be due to a second re-naming from 'RMS Mülheim' to 'RMS Mulheim', but according to en: as well as de:wp, such a name change did not occur. I would imagine that most english writers/readers are neither familiar with the use of diacritics nor with the pronounciation, naturally. But the same would on a regular basis give rise to the mis-representation of foreign names that use diacritics. In the case of the Mülheim, it is one wreck. Google gives (thnx, Mjroots) some 14800 or 24000 hits, .de or .com, respectively. Considering the amount of pages, even just english ones, on the Internet I don't think this is sufficient to constitute a common use. As to the move, well - next I'll see into why I should put in an RM instead of being bold and just move. For now, I will do neither. Regards, --G-41614 (talk) 11:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll have to put in a RM because the redirect will prevent you from moving the article yourself. An admin will have to G6 the redirect for the article to be moved. Mjroots (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it is generally agreed that diacritics should be used in article titles where appropriate. The discussion on Mülheim/Mulheim should really continue on the article talk page, per comment from G-41614 on my talk page. Mjroots (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

SS Paris

The Saint Nazaire page states that a ship named SS Paris was built there in 1921. Is this a different ship to those listed at the shipindex page? Mjroots2 (talk) 07:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

"Built" there means completed; Paris was not completed until after the war. Kablammo (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

A Challenge

The Fort ships have very little coverage on Wikipedia. There were only 198 of them but none has an article on Wikipedia. The nearest we have is the article on the explosion of SS Fort Stikine. SS Fort Stikine is a redirect, which could be turned into an article. All the other ships need articles creating. Basic info on ships Fort A fo Fort J, Fort K to Fort S and Fort T to Fort Y is available from the Mariners website. Mjroots (talk) 10:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Update - there were something over 200 ships, some being renamed as Parks between launch and completion. Two ships have articles - Fort Rosalie and Fort Cataraqui. Mjroots (talk) 08:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Signpost Interview

Hello WikiProject Ships. I noticed you are a member of WikiProject Ships and wanted to let you know that per the request on the WikiProject Desk at the Signpost, I have decided to feature the project on July 5. I will post interview questions here and look forward to your replies. Thank you, monosock 23:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Please pass this note on to another WP:SHIPS member.

This needs clarification. I inquired about having the project do a report as I didn't know how one should request such. Apparently my inquiry was copied over to the request page. I had intended to query the project before requesting an interview. However, since the ball is rolling it might be a good idea to have one civilian ship editor and one military ship editor reply to the questions. Brad (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so you didn't establish consensus. monosock 04:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not make the request. However, let's see what turns up by the deadline. Brad (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I've answered a couple of questions, but I can't answer all of them as I'm not that involved with the GA/A/FA area. Please note that I have No objection if another editor wishes to answer all the questions and in more length than I have (and thus delete my answers). Mjroots (talk) 06:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I answered a couple. My GA answer would reflect WP:OMT waaaaaaay too much, and I didn't know of any initiatives (initiatives? Cool!). Buggie111 (talk) 09:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the form is here with answering the questions. Suggest that editors answer the questions they are interested in and the Signpost editors can choose which they want to include in the final article. Mjroots (talk) 10:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

←Well, we like to have in-depth answers, but not a thesis. The more editors the better.mono 23:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that Buggie's answer re measurements is not a view held by the majority of this WPs member. My stance is that we go with what the sources say. For many historic ships, this means imperial => metric. For most modern ships in means metric => imperial. I've asked Buggie to consider refactoring his comments but there's been no response so far. Mjroots (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I've read his comments too and it's like ...huh? Conversions aren't a set policy or need. For example the missing infoboxes and the articles that Ed pointed out are undeniably a need. If Buggie doesn't respond then I guess an exorcism will have to be performed. Brad (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I've expanded my comment. Not sure if Signpost will want a redlink, so maybe someone ouught to get an article up on the Fort ships. Mjroots (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I've struck the part of Buggie's comments that do not reflect consensus here, leaving an edit note by way of an explanation. Mjroots (talk) 10:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

milhist and omt

The interview was for the ships project but it's turned into an advertisement for milhist and omt. I understand that ships works closely in conjunction with milhist and omt and that there is a lot of crossover between the two. However, I would like to see the focus turn back to the ships project. The most popular ship project article by number of visits is, has and continues to be RMS Titanic. Last month Titanic had 340,774 visits and Deepwater Horizon placed second with 299,035 visits. The closest omt article was German battleship Bismarck in 10th place with 73,418 visits.

The ships project is a lot more than just military ships. Mjroots has done extensive and well sourced articles on Empire ships. Haus has done a lot of work on bulk carriers. There is an active interest in cruise ships as well. I'm not suggesting we rid the interview of any mention of milhist or omt but I think we're losing focus on what the ships project is actually here for. Maybe omt should request their own interview. Brad (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Then those editors should participate, it is not our fault if OMT editors chose participate in the interview and the others did not. As to modern cruise ships, we don't have one above B class and the highest rated ship that comes close is the modern ocean liner RMS Queen Mary 2 which is a GA. Most of the attention afforded those articles is just to keep them clean of the advert/junk that they attract. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, a significant minority of Ship regulars are also OMT'ers. On the flip side, there is a reason I didn't participate in the interview; adding another OMT'er would be overkill. Speaking of Titanic, if anyone wants to do most of the heavy lifting, I'll be happy to collab and add information from Titanic: An Illustrated History by Don Lynch. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Ed, you're as cool as a block of ice. At least you get it. Thanks for adding Titanic etc. Brad (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh, thanks, I do my part. :-) I used to be really interested in Titanic, etc., but that never carried over to here because I don't have the sources. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 16:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Titanic would be a massive undertaking. I just scanned the article and fled in horror. It was once an FA but rightly so was delisted 3 years ago. Additionally the work will be made more difficult because of controversy and the extreme amount of pop culture. Brad (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

So you see why I don't want to be the primary editor, just a collaborator. :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

MBK You could help answer the question Your project has 40,123 articles associated with it. How do you keep all these up? by explaining your role in patrolling for unsourced information, vandalism and silly edits. I know you do a lot of work in that department. Brad (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Question -- some of the answers are getting quite long with 4/5/6 people answering. Should trim one or two answers from these? (and if so, which?) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 09:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I was going to ask you to add into your comment that 15 April 2012 is the 100th anniversary of the Titanic sinking. Events are scheduled in Southampton as well as the re-release of the 1997 movie. "Titanic Mania" will hopefully not overshadow the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812; 18 June 2012. Here's hoping that the article might be at least a GA by then. As for your concern, there are still a couple weeks before the interview goes to press. Brad (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Good thought, I'll add something about that now, and okay —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

14 June Signpost

Nice interview with the Guild of Copy Editors. Stays on topic, is focused and isn't hijacked for a political platform. Brad (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#http:.2F.2Fnavweaps.com

Some Wikipedians at this link are distrustful of navweaps.com as a source, even though we rely on it in many of our FAs, and many editors consider it a source we can't easily replace. Tom has suggested as a compromise that we ask people to use an additional source when using navweaps.com as a source, in order to back up our claim that navweaps.com is often cited and, to the best of our knowledge, the most accurate source for many of the weapons it covers; is this an acceptable compromise? - Dank (push to talk) 20:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it, except that it's often the only source available for pre-dreadnought weapons and other older or obscure weapons. McLaughlin often covers Soviet/Russian weapons used in the BBs, but that still leaves some holes that can't be backed-up.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

For God's sake hasn't this been settled yet?! What Tom proposed is essentially making Navweaps a secondary rather than a primary source. I suppose that will be ok but weapons of that era are outside my scope. Brad (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't like it any more than you do Brad, but if you have a better solution to the problem then I would be very interested in hearing it. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

After reading through the carnage of the main thread, it got me thinking about what Navweaps is doing. When we write articles we often run into conflicting sources and somehow have to fix them up in order to properly present them. For example, notes are a common part of articles such as the ones I had to make for United States, Chesapeake, Congress, Constitution and President. In a lot of ways this is the same thing that Navweaps has been doing. Comparing sources, weighing them and deciding if they're reliable or pieces of crap. One of my favorite lines spotted at Navweaps was "RUN; do not walk away from this book." But in a less blunt way we do this for articles to make them clear. If I come across a book that is crap I just leave it out of the article. With that in mind, I think some of the naysayers in the thread of doom over there have a point. Navweaps would be a great secondary source or the source of last resort when nothing else can be found. Brad (talk) 03:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, its use as a last resort will cause a FAC to fail because it's unreliable. I just checked by primary source on Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship and it's got nothing on muzzle velocity or range data for the ship's guns. Navweaps.com does because it references Russian-language stuff that I can neither acquire nor read if I could find them. So now I'm supposed to toss out perfectly good, reliable data because of some idiotic bureaucrats in love with their perfect policy? That's bullshit, plain and simple.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sick of this. As I've said before, Navweaps contains referenced information that I have never encountered an unexplained contradiction with. The information we use is just statistics; not controversial at all. He rarely gives opinion in his introductions, and if he does, it's rather obvious (i.e. the Bofors 40 mm was "probably the best heavy MG AA weapon of World War II". Well duh, of course it was.).

I am not going to go out and buy one/two/three books that give me the same information. Why? They're expensive, I'm in college, and I'm spending enough money on books that contain information which is not already online. Like it or not, I'm using it in my class articles. If I fail a few FACs, then I guess the number of Milhist's and Ship's A-class articles will be increased. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you both. The policy quoters aren't in a position to see where you've worn out all of the available sources and are almost forced to use Navweaps. If in your position I would ask myself how important "muzzle velocity or range data" is to the overall article. If you think the article could live without it then remove it. Once the article passes FAC you can add it back in because you might find a reliable source later on. Brad (talk) 06:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we site IAR then to maintain navweapons as a reliable source? TomStar81 (Talk) 09:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

We're doing fine for now; no one objected at RSN to Tom's compromise. I didn't understand Tom's compromise to include backing up every piece of data with another source, just using another source in a support role ... it could back up some of the data, it could back up what we know to be true about navweaps, namely, it's used as the source of choice by at least 23 reliable and even authoritative sources. My understanding of "reliable source" is that it isn't used to distinguish between great and poor-but-okay sources; it's meant to be a very low bar, but one that helps us give quick "no" to newbies who want to use websites as sources. Navweaps isn't a perfect source, but my position is that it's a "reliable source" by that definition. I'd rather not focus on what's going wrong at RSN or with YellowMonkey's arguments at FAC; if people feel attacked, they may fight back. But the bottom line is, if they had just read the links we gave them, it would clear up the confusion over navweaps, so let's use second sources when we cite navweaps so that we can clear up that confusion over time. - Dank (push to talk) 12:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that it isn't reliable, given that 23 books cite it.[3] I'm sure that a couple are SPS books, so let's be generous and say eight are. That would mean that 15 are still RS' that cite NavWeaps... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 09:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If we initiate an rfc on the matter could we establish consensus that navweapons is a reliable source? I ask because increasingly this seems to be the only option left for us to prove the reliability of the site. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Since Sandy said "Please ping me when this is resolved" after the one image issue at the FAC for Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship, and since YellowMonkey hasn't opposed, that suggests to me the article might be about to be promoted with navweaps in. While we're waiting for something to go wrong, we can do as you suggested and offer up second sources that agree with or praise navweaps. - Dank (push to talk) 01:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the basic problem is that normally self-publication is a good sign of unreliability, so normally WP:SPS is a good rule. However, in this case, we have a self-published source which appears to be more reliable (and certainly more complete) than most published sources in the field. So to stick to a strict interpretation of existing Wikipolicy, one is essentially saying that "being published" is a form of magic pixie dust that takes accurate facts and makes them "reliable". I think the fact that a number of works that do meet WP:RS are citing Navweaps is probably quite influential. also, there appears to be a live discussion along these lines (though not about Navweaps) at: Wikipedia talk:Verifiability The Land (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Struma

Struma (ship) was recently moved to The Struma incident and then to The Struma, leaving a trail of double redirects. I'm sure the original was correct but will leave it for someone from the official wikiproject to handle. Sparafucil (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:NC-S, the article should be at SS Struma. Mjroots (talk) 08:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Has been moved to SS Struma. JonEastham (talk) 08:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

And user Crum375 (talk · contribs) has moved it back to 'The Struma', which the ship certainly was not called, apparently because 'No source for 'SS'. I don't want to get into this right now, but sources that specifically use SS Struma in rebuttal to this user, if anyone so wishes:

• 'European Refugees: 1939-52: A Study in Forced Population Movement‎' - the forcible deportation of Jewish refugees from Palestine to Mauritius, and the disastrous sinking of the SS Struma, in the Black Sea...
• 'With Firmness in the Right: American Diplomatic Action Affecting Jews, 1840-1945' - The incident of the SS Struma shocked a world that had already become inured to reports...
• 'Shield of David: the Story of Israel's Armed Forces' - Most indelible of all was the episode of the SS Struma which arrived, desperately seeking haven...
• 'To Dwell in Safety: the Story of Jewish Migration since 1800‎' - The SS Struma blew up just after leaving Istanbul harbor...
• 'A History of Israel: from the Rise of Zionism to our Time' - On December 16, 1941, the SS Struma entered the harbor of Istanbul...
• 'Great Britain and Palestine, 1915-1945' - In February 1942 information was received of the sailing of the SS Struma from a port in the Balkans...

This is just a small sample, and I would also support the move to the accepted conventional title of 'SS Struma', and certainly not the current 'The Struma'. Benea (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the article back to SS Struma per the above evidence. Mjroots (talk) 12:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Article naming clarification

In recent time the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has operated three vessels, the Steve Irwin, Bob Barker and Ady Gil (formerly Earthrace). According to SSCS, these vessels were all last registered as Motor Yachts,[4] so should these vessels currently be at MY Steve Irwin, MY Bob Barker and MY Ady Gil? --AussieLegend (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the articles should be moved, titles suggested are in accordance with WP:NC-S. Mjroots (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

All three article moved, double redirects fixed. Mjroots (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Coding Help

I've just created {{P&O ships}}, due to the size rather than splitting it out onto separate templates for each of the different names/divisions over the years, I wanted to set it up so that you could put a different identifier depending on the vessel. ie for Pride of Calais only the P&O European Ferries, P&O Stena Line and P&O Ferries sections are relevant so would want to hide the P&O Irish Sea section.
e.g {{P&O ships|Ferries=y|Stena=y|Portsmouth=n|Northsea=n|European=y|Irish=n|Pandoro=n}}
However my knowledge of WikiMarkup isn't sufficient to be able to do it. Anyone with coding knowledge able to help out? JonEastham (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I don' know about coding, but it is possible to have the sections collapsed too - see {{Dutch Windmills}} for an example. I fixed the template name issue, btw. Mjroots (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's an approach to doing it: template and test page. Cheers. Haus^Talk 21:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Haus, that appears to be exactly what I needed :) JonEastham (talk) 08:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

A somewhat related AFD: Nautical metaphors

At Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_June_16#Nautical_metaphors_in_English. East of Borschov (talk) 03:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Capitalisation of "first rate" and similar

Please come and participate in the discussion at Talk:First-rate. Shem (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Spam: Admin help needed

Links from ship pages to blog/forum site gcaptain.com have been appearing on ships pages for about a year, in violation of WP:ELNO #10/#11. They are typically removed, but currently about 70 links to the site still exist.

I put requests on XlinkBot/RevertList and the local blacklist to address this spam. I'm not that familiar with the process on these pages, but apparently any admin can add a site to the lists. If anyone feels motivated to take the ball and run with it, I would appreciate it. Thanks. Haus^Talk 19:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The first rule of what not to do with the admin tools is not to used them in areas where you're active as an editor, so I can't help with this one, but I agree with you that that site isn't appropriate for ELs. - Dank (push to talk) 20:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I would action this but have never used those admin tools and might screw it up.... The Land (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I have the same problem as Land. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm recused on both counts. Have given WP:ANI a shout for assistance. Mjroots (talk) 12:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Added to XLinkBot for now. MER-C 12:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help everyone. I'll AWB the links out and we'll see what happens. Haus^Talk 17:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS Baden (1915) now open

The A-Class review for SMS Baden (1915) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 11:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Using sourced info from other Wikis

I know that we cannot source other language Wikipedias as references for articles on en.wiki, but what about using sourced material from other language Wikipedias? Both the SS Söderhamn and MV Wickenburgh articles could be expanded with info from the equivalent de.wiki articles de:Söderhamn (Schiff) and de:Savilco, where this is info cited to books.

Question is, is it permissible / desirable to do such a thing when you haven't seen the source yourself? Mjroots (talk) 09:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say no... if you haven't seen the source yourself then you are relying on the word of the editor who claims to have represented that source fairly in the German article. They may not have done so, and without access to the offline source you may end up repeating falsehoods or misconceptions introduced by another editor. Perhaps another avenue would be to contact the editor on de.Wiki, perhaps they have a copy of the book and might email you a scan of the page you need? And failing that, you could request a copy of the book at your local library, as it may help with many article on en.Wiki.

Ps I know that most of our sources end up being third hand, like for example the BBC quoting from a book. The difference is that we trust the BBC to fairly represent the source material, but we have no such assurances with a Wikipedia editor. Weakopedia (talk) 09:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added the book sources as "further reading" sections to the articles. If anyone has those sources could they please expand the article in question? Mjroots (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for HMS Indefatigable (1909) now open

The A-Class review for HMS Indefatigable (1909) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 04:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for HMS Princess Royal (1911) now open

The featured article candidacy for HMS Princess Royal (1911) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 04:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

John Ross, salvage tug aka Smit Amandla

I am currently working up an article on the salvage tug, formerly known as John Ross (when built, she(?) was one of a pair of the most powerful tugs in the world), but since 2004, named Smit Amandla. By what title should the article be named? Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The guideline is "An article about a ship that changed name or nationality should be placed at the best-known name, with a redirect from the other name." If neither name is clearly its "best-known name" it's up to you. Haus^Talk 00:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

With the claim of "most powerful in the world" at building, I imagine that John Ross would be the better name. As an aside, it should probably be formatted as John Ross (salvage tug) to meet the naming conventions, or even John Ross (tugboat). -- saberwyn 02:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The prefix ST can be used for steam powered tugboats, such as ST Cervia. Mjroots (talk) 11:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

TFD related to this project

Template:Barbel class submarine has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_June_22#Template:Barbel_class_submarine. The viewpoints of ship editors would be appreciated here since this may be the start of a massive cleansing of such templates. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

"Caused"

This is just a copyediting question, but it comes up a lot and opinions differ. My position is that when you say that "X caused Y" or "X led to Y", then the text and the references need to support the causation. Sometimes it's pretty clear that X was a provocation that almost certainly led to Y ... but if it's that clear, then reasonable readers will get the connection when you say "After X, Y happened." Pretty much the same applies with any statement that implies that you know what someone was thinking; sometimes that's exactly the right thing to say, if the sources are sure they knew what was in someone's head, and if what was in their head was a crucial point. Otherwise, it works to just say what they did, and leave it to the intelligent reader to figure out why they did it. That's my understanding. - Dank (push to talk) 16:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay - I thought someone answered this. Does WP:SYN help? Haus^Talk 05:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Flags for Clipper Ship City of Adelaide

Copied from user talk:Mjroots. Thanks for fixing up my addition of Code Flags, I was unaware of that Code Flag template - very nice. With your second change from to I suspect that change was not correct. My rationale is that the City of Adelaide was removed from the Register on the 7th of February 1895 (after having been derigged in 1893) and so from then up until being commissioned as a training ship in 1922 she was nothing more than a civil 'building' albeit still afloat. Therefore, the Civil Ensign is not appropriate and an 'undo' is necessary. What do you think? Yours Aye, --Cruickshanks (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to this one, therefore I'm throwing it open to WP:SHIPS for further input. My instinct is that the civil flag is correct, but I may be wrong. Mjroots (talk) 07:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Today there are international laws (i.e. UNCLOS Article 91) which say that if the ship isn't registered in a country, then it cannot fly that country's ensign. I'm not aware of any international laws on that subject before 1956, and have no idea if the UK had any laws on the subject at that time. I can say, by way of comparison, that there was no U.S. law on the matter in 1922 - the Panamanian flag of convenience was just starting up and rulings by the shipping commission were the source of flagging policy. Haus^Talk 20:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Haus, that was bacically my belief, that the Ensign needs to be lowered when the ship is not regsitered. Similar to a naval vessel when decommissioned - it can then not fly either the Civil or Naval Ensign. I will revert article to landlubber flag. --Cruickshanks (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for USS Indiana (BB-1) now open

The featured article candidacy for USS Indiana (BB-1) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 20:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

CSS Acadia..?

CSS Acadia was apparently a Canadian Survey Ship but also for a brief period HMCS Acadia. Using a prefix of CSS of course conflicts with Confederate States Ship. Did Canada actually use this prefix? For that matter did the Confederate States also use the prefix? Officially used, that is. Brad (talk) 02:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like Canada did—see this image's gangplank. Not sure on the Confederates. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Good enough evidence for me. As for Confederate States Ship I think the prefix needs investigating. Brad (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like ship prefix will need to include this one. Mjroots (talk) 06:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit-Warring on Frigate

An anon, I, and another user currently have a few issues with the article's choice of images. The main issues it that in one of the subsections, an image of an Indian frigate is being used and the anon has voiced an objection to it. Failing to assume good faith, he accused Bcs09 of replacing the image because his account exists only to support the cause of "Indian nationalism". I've done a little research and digging into this user's past and it turns out he has a history of removing images pertaining to India (the reasons for which I am unable to ascertain at this point, one would assume though that he has a bias). The real question at hand is, what image can be used in the frigate section. The anon has given some vague, poorly thought out explanation as to why the image should be changed and this is primarily because the Shivalik class frigate is "not notable" but apparently the German Sachsen or Dutch De Zeven Provinciën class frigates to be more notable examples. Normally, I would have no issue with this but given the user's recent edit history, his failure to assume good faith and his baseless argument, I don't feel removing the image of the Shivalik class is justified. I would like to get some opinions from other users on this. (Note: More details can be found on the talk page for the article.) Vedant (talk) 06:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The point is Bcs09 changed without consensus the long standing image of the De Zeven Provinciën class frigate. As this change was reverted Bold, Revert, Discuss should have happened, which didn't as you and Bcs09 continued to revert the article back to the change. Both you and Bcs09 appear to be single purpose accounts, possibly socks, whose contribution histories are near enough 100% Indian nationalism. The image shouldn't have been changed simply so that it was instead of an Indian or Asian frigate, like was stated on the talk page. Considering they really wanted the image changed I suggested an image a Sachsen class frigate, which seemed to be a more relevant and notable example of a modern frigate for the section, only for it to be rejected for not being Indian or Asian. The image should be that which is the most relevant and notable, not because of it being Indian or Asian. Both appear to edit war regularly with editors who revert their Indian nationalism and it seems I'm just another one of those editors. 88.106.101.204 (talk) 06:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not necessary to obtain consensus for adding information to a Wikipedia article. In this case, since the photo that was added is a better example of what it was trying to represent, the addition did add information, and no consensus was required.

And you didn't revert - you just changed the image to your preferred image some days later.

Your continual cries of nationalism are unwarranted, and extremely rude, as has been your manner throughout. Consensus is against you. The image should be that which is most udeful to the article - you seem to be under the impression that we should include even the worst photos if they are, according to you, the most relevant. That is not the purpose of an encyclopedia, which is of course to educate the reader. The Shivalik photo does that far better than your preferred photo, so if anyone is displaying nationalism here it is the person trying to add a less representative photo simply because it is 'not Indian'. Weakopedia (talk) 07:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The two factors that should decide which image to use are relevance and quality. A slightly less relevant photo of a much higher quality may be preferred over a more relvant photo of a lower quality. Generally, nationality should have nothing to do with the selection of the photos. Vedant and bcs09 should be aware that their editing may be reviewed by admins and action taken should there be further disruption. BRD means there should now be discussion at the article's talk page. Mjroots (talk) 07:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Noted, I'm more than happy to have my edits reviewed by an administrator should it come down to that. In general, I don't violate WP:3RR unless its a case of blatant and obvious POV-pushing/vandalism. I would also like to state that I objected to this edit mainly because I didn't want a precedent being set which I have detailed here and not on the basis of it being an Indian ship (hell it could be a Klingon ship for all I care).Vedant (talk) 07:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Also noted that discussion is taking place, with consensus possibly being formed for the inclusion of the Indian ship over the Dutch one. Mjroots (talk) 07:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact is the Sachsen class is more relevant then the Shivalik class. The Shivalik class is only being picked because it's Indian. No other reason than this has been given for it. 88.106.101.204 (talk) 07:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Two independant editors have just given you a reason for using the Shivalik photo, and the reason was nothing to do with nationality. Please do not invoke nationalistic arguments where none exist. As noted on the talkpage of the article, consensus seems to be against you in this case. Weakopedia (talk) 07:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Note to admins: User talk:88.106.101.204 has placed a not here asking ofr help on the Frigate article. Ao333 is a "aparing partner" of Vedant's, and known for his Chinese POV. I think this is tantamouhnt to canvassing. Another IP. in a similar range to the current 88-series editor, and also geolocating to a Manchester UK ISP, attempted to solicit help at Talk:Bundeswehr here, but I did revert that as canvassing, with a warning to that IP. I think that edit makes it appear that the user does indeed have a pro-German/Germanic bent. I have not warned the current IP for canvassing, but it could well be warrnated here too. - BilCat (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Warships & passengers ships

Why do there need to be two articles for the same ship just because their career changed (like SS Normandie and USS Lafayette (AP-53)? Aquitania (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's the guideline. Cheers. Haus^Talk 03:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for ARA Moreno now open

The A-Class review for ARA Moreno is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Sail-plan

Depending on which sails are used, a boat can have several names (eg barquentine, brig, ...)

I've removed this image from the article on sail-plan, noting in the edit summary that the image was unencyclopedic. I believe that is the case, and that it detracted from the article greatly. Weakopedia (talk) 07:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I also took it out of Sail - the image can be easily replaced with a free image illustrating sail types, I don't see the need to start adding crayola outlines to encyclopedia articles unless there is no better available image. Weakopedia (talk) 07:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio at HMS Untamed (P58)?

I assume that it is a misunderstanding, but HMS Untamed (P58) is currently tagged as a copyvio. Haus^Talk 21:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Appropriately, I think. The "sinking" section is almost a word-for-word copy of http://home.cogeco.ca/~gchalcraft/sm/page28.html (scroll down to the bottom), which (according to the websites main page) is claimed by a Geoff Chalcraft as copyright. -- saberwyn 21:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes mea culpa, though I meant to get back to the admin about this. It's been three years since I apparently created that page (I've no memory of it, I don't think it was even on my watchlist). No intention to copyvio, but for some reason I didn't reword the section appropriately. An admin is welcome to delete the page forthwith and I'll work up a new version, or the specific section can be removed. Benea (talk) 00:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Or you could fix it yourself! Mjroots (talk) 06:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Doing so myself is not an option listed on the template. Benea (talk) 11:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Use the template to create the subpage, write new article there. New article can then be reviewed and used to replace copyvio. Mjroots (talk) 05:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The new article is ready here and can be moved at your convenience. Benea (talk) 11:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio deleted and replaced by temp article. Mjroots (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost article on this project

Hi, it's due for publication Tuesday. I've made trivial alterations to the text of those members who were "interviewed", so that it fits more smoothly with the run of the text. Please let me know if there are any problems with this.

Link Tony (talk) 02:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Guys, I've redone the pics at the Signpost article. Let me know what you think. We can't have them all. I want to remove the pics from the talk page before the article is launched on Tuesday. Does anyone object? Tony (talk) 17:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you've chosen a wide variety of high-quality pictures, and the simplified formatting will prevent problems for readers. A couple of thoughts:

* Vieques is a politically touchy subject, removing the words "near Vieques Island, Puerto Rico," might sidestep some unnecessary controversy

* The term "landing craft air cushion" is correct but may look like a grammatical error to those unfamiliar to it. Another option would be to use the term hovercraft.

Thanks for your effort in zinging the article up! Haus^Talk 19:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

[What Haus said.] Thanks for getting the page ship-shape! *fires up outboard, zooms off* Djembayz (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Landing Craft Air Cushion has an article, so I wikilinked the phrase in the caption. Mjroots (talk) 05:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

SpellingGuru

Please see User talk:SpellingGuru#Please stop and their contributions. I'm really not sure how to handle this. - Dank (push to talk) 13:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Also now User_talk:Dank#North_Caronlina_revert. - Dank (push to talk) 14:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

A fairly simple rule that should be followed is that if it's not hurting anything leave it alone. Particularly towards redundant editing. Whether it has mdash spelled out or entered by the keyboard makes no difference. Non breaking spaces aren't hurting anything either. Leave them be. NC class battleship had more changes than I could follow but a lot of them were unnecessary and redundant. Brad (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what else SG has been doing, but I am opposed to the use of bullet points in infoboxes, they are a waste of space and totally unnecessary. Gatoclass (talk) 04:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

FAC

Just a general observation: if you ask a lot of questions in a FAC, and say or imply that you're going to come back to look again and never do, it may sometimes give the impression that you didn't think a lot of the article, even if you don't write "oppose". This may or may not be holding up some of the ship articles currently at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 02:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Citations & Format

Hi, I've noticed in the last few days, Emerson7 has been removing citations from infoboxes and replacing them into the notes section of the infoboxes. I believe this is an erroneous removal of citations as you then are unable to determine which piece of information is sourced from where. I wanted to get the confirmation from others before I begin the length task of reverting his edits (which he marks as "copyedit & cleanup"). In addition, he's also been bolding the ship names in the infobox (and occasionally in the article body as well), I advised him about this regarding the WP:MOS on his talk page after reverting his edits on MV Atlantic Freighter, but he promptly re-did them. I left it as I didn't want to edit war on it. If I'm correct about this being wrong, I'd appreciate an administrator confirming it to him for me. JonEastham (talk) 09:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

If the info is stated in the infobox and then repeated in the article with a citation, then I don't see a problem. Personally, I think infoboxes look better without references - they are supposed to give a brief overview of the subject. That said, it Emerson7 finds that this pattern of edits is being reversed, he should discuss the issue on the talk page of the article rather than edit war (not saying he has, as I've not looked into his contributions, but this is what should happen). Mjroots (talk) 10:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It's better to leave citations rather than notes, obviously, so I think he should stop doing that. As for the bolding, I always do that for the name field myself, so if he's confining it to the name field I don't have a problem with that. Gatoclass (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Having looked at the article in question, I think the infobox is overcited, so I can see why Emerson did what he did, but I don't think his solution is appropriate. Per Mj, the info should be repeated in the article with the cite included there, you don't need a cite in both the infobox and the text. Gatoclass (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I recapitulate all the data from the infobox so I don't need any citations there, which I find very annoying. But moving the citations to the notes section of the infobox is just silly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I've found adding a cite or two covering the technical data to the "Notes" field of the "Characteristics" subtemplate to be useful (see as example HMAS_Sydney_(R17)), but think the data in the "Career" field should be replicated in the body of the article, and cited there (unless its a fact that has a history of being contested, but that's getting into a different discussion). -- saberwyn 23:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see a need to do that, although I will concede that it's much neater than spraying citations all over the infobox, if you replicate everything in the main body.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd recommend keeping individual cite notes until all the data is collected, verified and ready for a peer review. Until this time data collected from different sources must be clearly attributed. East of Borschov 09:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we get an agreement not to include bullet points in infoboxes? I find them unsightly, and they are also quite unnecessary and a waste of space. Since we have one or two users apparently adding these deliberately, I think it would be useful to have a consistent position on this. Gatoclass (talk) 06:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, popped this item out to a new thread below. Haus^Talk 07:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that bullet points should not be used in infoboxes. I'm unsure exactly what Haus has proposed below about lists though. Mjroots (talk) 09:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Question

Just a quick question on general policy here...is there a preference on whether you would use "it" or "she" when discussing a ship? I've seen it both ways, so I was wondering if one or the other was considered correct, as I've been largely avoiding it and just using the name of the ship or "the ship," but that doesn't always work well. Cheers, C628 (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It is up to the editor, see WP:MILMOS#Pronouns and Gender-specific pronoun#Ships and countries. Cheers. Haus^Talk 22:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. C628 (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Double topsails etc

A ship with at least one square-rigged mast could have double topsails. USC&GS Carlile P. Patterson had double topsails on her foremast and no topgallant. My question is why this is two topsails and not a topsail and a topgallant? My guess is it is because both are on the topmast; it does not become a topgallant until there is a topgallant mast; but I've never seen anything that spells this out. Any comments? References? I think I've seen an example with double topgallants but can't recall it now. Dankarl (talk) 23:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

MV Fairwind

I created an article on MV Fairwind, limited to the very little information I have on it. The wreck was recently found and reported by the Australian Broadcasting Commission's 7:30 Report. Any critical review, addition or improvement is welcome! Wikipeterproject (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Bullets in Ship Infobox

Proposed per Gatoclass's comment above, that we add the following sentence to Wikipedia:MOSSHIP#Infoboxes

(a) Lists, including bullet points, should not be used in the ship infobox.

or

(b) Numbered or bulleted lists should not be used in the ship infobox.

Support - such lists were the cause of incredible headaches during the infobox conversion drive, and will be again, if/when we make changes to the infobox code. Haus^Talk 07:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Question - exactly what is being proposed here? Where a ship has gone through a series of changes of name, owner, operator, flag, identification etc, the only way to deal with them adequately is to list them in the infobox with relevant dates. Are we really proposing to present these in a non-ordered format? I agree that bullet points should not be used in infoboxes, but that is as far as it goes. Mjroots (talk) 09:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that is best handled with multiple {{Infobox ship career}} sections, no? For example, see MV Baffin Strait (T-AK-W9519). If I'm missing your point, could you point me to an article to see what you mean? Thanks. Haus^Talk 09:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Also: please clarify what should be done about lists of weapons and lists of armor. If not lists then what - unformatted text? omit altogether? East of Borschov 09:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem with listing them (ie using line breaks). It's just the bullet points that are at issue. Gatoclass (talk) 09:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, wait, looks like I didn't read the proposal properly. I'm not opposed to the use of "lists" in infoboxes - lists are essential in some circumstances. I'm only opposed to the use of bullet points in lists. So I can't vote for this proposal as it stands. Gatoclass (talk) 09:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Using multiple {{Infobox ship career}} makes the infoboxes far longer than they need to be. Examples are the City of Adelaide (1864) article (multiple) vs (condensed) - which is the reason that I use the list method with line breaks. Mjroots (talk) 09:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that issue has been discussed before, and it was agreed that lists are more concise and a better option. Gatoclass (talk) 09:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support - proposal (b) above. Gatoclass (talk) 09:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support proposal (b). Mjroots (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Erm - I am not clear why this addition is necessary, can you expand on the reasons? While I don't particularly favour the use of bullets, they are much easier Wikicode than using breaks etc, and I am a bit concerned about instruction creep... The Land (talk) 09:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support - proposal (b) - And to help ease The Land's worries about instruction creep, I would suggest submitting a bot request that routinely trawls through WPSHIP articles to replace bullets/numbers with line breaks in infoboxes. JonEastham (talk) 11:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Question - 1) are instructions to this end even necessary. 2) is it wise to consider letting a bot loose just to look for bullets?
• Support proposal b--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

General characteristics
Armament	1× 32 cell, 1× 64 cell Mk 41 vertical launch systems, 96× RIM-66 SM-2, BGM-109 Tomahawk, RIM-162 ESSM Quadpack, or RUM-139 VL-ASROC missiles 1× 5 in (127 mm)/62, 2× 25 mm, 4× 12.7 mm guns 2× Mk 46 triple torpedo tubes
General characteristics
Armament	1× 32 cell, 1× 64 cell Mk 41 vertical launch systems, 96× RIM-66 SM-2, BGM-109 Tomahawk, RIM-162 ESSM Quadpack, or RUM-139 VL-ASROC missiles 1× 5 in (127 mm)/62, 2× 25 mm, 4× 12.7 mm guns 2× Mk 46 triple torpedo tubes

I don't understand the problem, and find bullets helpful in lists with multi-line entries. Compare:

General characteristics
Armament	• 1× 32 cell, 1× 64 cell Mk 41 vertical launch systems,   96× RIM-66 SM-2, BGM-109 Tomahawk, RIM-162 ESSM Quadpack, or RUM-139 VL-ASROC missiles • 1× 5 in (127 mm)/62, 2× 25 mm, 4× 12.7 mm guns • 2× Mk 46 triple torpedo tubes

If space is a concern, the list can be tightened by using <br/>•s:

—WWoods (talk) 16:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

---

I like the one with the bullets. Weakopedia (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope, not one bit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Of the three infoboxes, the top one is neatest. Mjroots (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree. All three lists are a mass of text, including code-names and abbreviations likely unfamiliar to the casual reader. In the first box, unless I'm paying close attention, its hard to work out where to start reading (particularly in cases when the a line crosses the entire infobox...is the next line a continuation, or a new item?), and my eye is 'slipping' between the lines. With the bullet points, there's a 'start' point, which makes reading easier, and it just looks tidier to me. -- saberwyn 21:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll concede your point, but that's because the examples used were poorly chosen, IMO. I'd have left all those different kinds of missiles for the main body and also broken out every different kind of weapon onto its own line using break commands. One line per weapon, etc. is pretty important for legibility, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Missiles:	1× 32 cell, 1× 64 cell Mk 41 vertical launch systems, 96× RIM-66 SM-2, BGM-109 Tomahawk, RIM-162 ESSM Quadpack, or RUM-139 VL-ASROC missiles
Guns:	1× 5 in (127 mm)/62, 2× 25 mm, 4× 12.7 mm guns
Torpedoes:	2× Mk 46 triple torpedo tubes

My feeling is that if you feel the need to stuff a bunch of information into a field, it is a hint that the field should be more specific. My suggestion would be to add fields giving something like shown to the right. Haus^Talk 22:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

General characteristics
Armament	1× 32 cell, 1× 64 cell Mk 41 vertical launch systems 1× 5 in (127 mm)/62 guns 2× 25 mm guns 4× 12.7 mm guns 2× Mk 46 triple torpedo tubes

In one sense this example creates its own problem by trying, IMO, to fit too much info into the infobox to begin with--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC).

And should look more like this:--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support (b). - Dank (push to talk) 17:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Opinion: I like the bullet points in the examples given here (especially the second one), but note the comments of the supporters above. Wikipeterproject (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - I would oppose a move to remove bullet lists from infoboxes at the moment. I'm not opposed to it in principle, but as things stand, the bullet lists serve the hugely important function of taking an unsightly mass of numbers and abbreviations that actually I do not understand half the time (well, with modern ships, which aren't my thing), and marking out where something new starts. I do agree with Sturmvogel that actually the problem is probably not one of bullet lists per se, rather that there is simply too much detail going into the box and this in turn is producing the need for bullets to get some clarity back in things. Since the armament of a warship is pretty much by definition an important aspect of the ship, it should be mentioned in the body of the article - where it can be dealt with fully with no space concerns; the infobox surely should provide a simple summary of the key facts. Drilling down into detail of specific model names is I think the issue here. Martocticvs (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly right - there are so many articles that basically consist of an infobox and nothing more, and those articles often have few citations. I think probably someone went on an infobox drive once, which is good, but it is up to us now to make that content a bit more wikipedific by turning the overcomplicated infobox lists into prose. Weakopedia (talk) 09:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said in the Signpost interview, an infobox drive is needed - for ship articles that don't have an infobox. Mjroots (talk) 12:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

(Re Martoc) The fact that some articles only consist of badly formatted infoboxes is not a reason to start using bullet points. Wikiships guidelines are about best practice, and while some people may feel that adding bullet points is a quick and dirty way to clean up messy content, that doesn't mean we should endorse such methods as best practice. Adding a clause which states that bullet points should not be used in infoboxes will not stop some people from adding them, but it will resolve edit conflicts when one person is trying to add bullet points and another is removing them. We should aim for a consistent standard, not have different stylistic approaches from one article to another. Gatoclass (talk) 12:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I started out saying I oppose it, but actually reading my comment again I think I support it :D But it needs to be more than simply removing the bullets and leaving it as it is. You are absolutely right that it is about best practices. That armament field must surely only be for a basic summary, so 4x 25mm, rather than 4x Mk.XXVIII 25mm Super-Dooper Shoot-o-Matic... Martocticvs (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

QE2

Just a heads up, members of a QE2 forum are discussing the article here, and wish to improve it. I've had contact fron a forum member and replied asking him to post on my behalf there pointing out various policies and what Wikipedia is and is not. It seems that members of that forum are of the opinion that RMS is not the correct prefix. Of course, forums are not reliable sources, but this opinion may bear further investigation and turn out to be true. Mjroots (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Category: Surviving Merchant Ships: Pre 20th Century

I am interested in ascertaining if there are any more pre-20th century merchant ships surviving today, other than the thirteen in the list below:

• 1843 - Great Britain - Iron steamship, Bristol, United Kingdom
• 1853 - Edwin Fox - Wood 3 masted sailing ship, Picton, New Zealand
• 1863 - Star of India - Iron 3 masted sailing ship, San Diego, United States of America
• 1864 - City of Adelaide - Composite iron/wood 3 masted sailing ship, Irvine, Scotland
• 1869 - Cutty Sark - Composite iron/wood 3 masted sailing ship, Greenwich, United Kingdom
• 1874 - James Craig - Iron 3 masted sailing ship, Sydney, Australia
• 1843 - Elissa - Iron 3 masted sailing ship, Galveston, United States of America
• 1878 - Falls of Clyde - Iron 4 masted sailing ship, Honolulu, United States of America
• 1885 - Wavertree - Iron 3 masted sailing ship, New York, United States of America
• 1885 - Polly Woodside - Iron 3 masted barque, Melbourne, Australia
• 1886 - Balclutha - Iron 3 masted sailing ship, San Francisco, United States of America
• 1896 - Rickmer Rickmers - Steel 3 masted sailing ship, Hamburg, Germany
• 1896 - Glenlee - Steel 3 masted barque, Glasgow, United Kingdom

I had the thought that looking into Wikipedia categories might solve this. It didn't. Whilst there are Categories for shipwrecks, and ships that have disappeared, and ships of various eras, no categories actually look at the survivors. The same would go for surviving warships. The closest I came upon was 'Museum ships'. Close, but there is a whole lot of replica ships and modern record-breaking boats and yachts in there too.

I am hopeful of getting some advice from the WikiProject Ships as to whether such a Survivor Category might be warranted. Thanks Cruickshanks (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Falls of Clyde is one. This raises an interesting point: my impression is that disestablishment categories are spottily used. I wonder if there's any interest in pursuing auto-categorization by {{Infobox ship career}}. Haus^Talk 17:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a useful category to me. Perhaps it would help us stimulate some more interest in merchant sail. What would you suggest it be called? Djembayz (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

(going for the blindingly obvious) Category:Surviving pre-20th century merchant ships. Mjroots (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

We could also have a template for these. Mjroots (talk) 09:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Mjroots, I love the above Navbox idea - also blindingly obvious in hindsight. While my personal interest is in the pre-20th century merchant ships, obviously other people would have similar interests in other categories ... and with such large numbers of maritime enthusiasts, to celebrate the survivors seems to something that is crying out.

I was thinking that a pre-20th century category is obvious because there are only 13 merchant ships and hence a further breakdown is not warranted. Assuming that military vs merchant is a 'natural' breakdown, then perhaps, the following are viable:

• <1900
• 1900-1914
• WWI
• 1919-1938
• WWII
• 1946-1960 (present year minus 50) - survivors less than 50 years old are not of 'survivor' merit - not old enough.

With respect to a new template, I presume that you mean a new Navbox template as you have designed as the Template:Infobox ship characteristics seems to have everything needed except for Construction: wood/iron/composite/steel. ... or perhaps you were thinking along some other line that has not dawned on me.

Perhaps the Navbox could look something a bit like that below. Cruickshanks (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that seperate templates would be better than attempting to cram all cats into one template - other templates can be linked from each template. Some merchant ships started off as military ships, others ended up as military ships, and some had spells of military service in the middle, so we'll need to work out how to cover these. (probably on a case-by-case basis) I'm not sure how this affects surviving merchant ships though. I've tweaked the 1900-14 to read 1901-14 as 1900 was the last year of the C19th and 1901 was the first year of the C20th. Mjroots (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW, there may be more ships, such as Moyie (1898). Mjroots (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mjroots, I am a newbie and so lack the experience to know the best ways of doing the Categories. I suspect I am misunderstanding what you mean - I note that Template:Infobox ship career has an 'Age of Sail' section which has almost everything except 'construction' and caters for steam, diesel, military, non-military, etc. However, perhaps you are thinking in terms of something similar but new like a Template:Infobox museum-ship template, which could include details of the parent museum or managing trust - like Mystic Seaport, Mary Rose Museum, Vasa museum, Cutty Sark Trust - and could also therefore cater for survivor/replica/sporting feat (e.g. Australia II) or something like that.

With respect to the Moyie, that is outside of my (unexplained) focus, as Moyie was not a trans-ocean vessel. There is a plethora of small craft that survive today, and also the world's largest collection of paddle-wheelers on the River Murray in Australia. Perhaps, they justify having their own Catergory viz Military (ocean going) : Military (non ocean going) : Merchant (ocean going) : Merchant (non ocean going). The Ocean-Going category would be the tight category with fewer ships, the other categories the 'catch-all' to keep the smaller vessels out of the big ocean-going ship category.

In my last post I deleted mention of 'Pre-20th century' in the heading of the Navbox and have just now also added '(ocean going)'. Not mentioning my 'Pre-20th century' term seemed less confusing when trying to focus on ship built in the 1800s. Therefore, I used 'Pre-1900s' (i.e. less than 1900) as the numerical year basis seemed clearer - and hence 1900-1914 (now changed back in Navbox). Thanks --Cruickshanks (talk) 01:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW, another list: Preserved Square-rigged Ships, from The Maritime History Virtual Archives. Djembayz (talk)

Have created a navbox template. Needs populating with additional WWII ships or alternatively truncatng to pre-WWII as there are many.--Cruickshanks (talk) 09:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Mary Rose

Copied from Template talk:Surviving ocean going ships. I would dispute the inclusion of the Mary Rose on this template, she is not exactly surviving, rather what we have of her is recovered wreckage and although some of the wreck survives to this day, I would not consider her surviving in the same sense as the Cutty Sark or the Victory and she is certainly not ocean going. JonEastham (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks JonEastham, the term 'ocean-going' was only intended to differentiate between the multitude of minor vessels (eg riverine) that abound to avoid the list being diluted/drowned. Thus Cutty Sark, Victory and Mary Rose were all formerly 'ocean-going'. That said, I take your point that the 'Mary Rose' can hardly be said to be surviving. The intention for developing this template was to capture the names of the shrinking number of heritage vessels that survive. I am in two minds: I don't think that including Mary Rose harms the intention of the list nor risks the inclusion of a whole lot of shipwrecks; I am worried that including it might actually justify the inclusion of skeletal remains on a remote beach somewhere.--Cruickshanks (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Just had another thought and consulted the website for National Historic Ships (UK) to consider their criteria for UK vessels. To qualify for the National Register of Historic Vessels, a vessel must:

• be at least 50 years old
• have demonstrable and significant associations with the UK +++ (not applicable for the Template in question)
• be based in UK waters +++ (not applicable for the Template in question)
• be more than 33 ft (10.07 metres) in length overall (length OA) measured between the forward and aft extremities of the hull overall excluding any spars or projections.
• be substantially intact

Perhaps something along these lines could be used as the basis for the guideline - omitting the two UK geograhic criteria. The NHS register inclues the Mary Rose although hard to say that it is "substantially intact". Nevertheless, it is amazing so much of the ancient Mary Rose and Vasa survive and their inclusion highlights how little of our maritime heritage does survive. I might be in two minds but lean towards the inclusion of 'Mary Rose'.--Cruickshanks (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)