Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 70

Archive 65

←

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

→

Archive 75

Nashira (AK-85)

I came across this article (by way of the January auto-assessment check over at MILHIST) and it seems to me that since the ship never actually saw service as Nashira, it should presumably be moved to Richard R. Arnold. Anybody have thoughts? Parsecboy (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Spent much longer as Richard R. Arnold. Llammakey (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Question

With the Endurance on the main page, I have a question regarding reference. The ship is referred to as "she" throughout the article, but the wreck is referred to as "it". Is this a common convention? Once a ship (she) becomes a wreck, is the ship a "she/her" no more? Primergrey (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Always been my understanding that is correct - but I have nothing to back that up. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Or it could be that the article was created 17 years ago, while the wreck was only discovered last week, right around the time the "she vs it" debate was started on the MoS talk page. Funny timing. - wolf 20:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history of the article, the usage of "it" for the wreck predates this year's news of the search and subsequent discovery. However the article is a complete mess of whichever usage one goes for, as the general description of the ship in service uses "she" and "its" a lot - as if an editor did not realise that one could use "her". The original usage of the article was definitely "she/her" so I guess one would be within one's rights to go in and fix it. That might throw fuel on the fire of the MoS discussion - which is still ongoing. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I've already changed the "its" to "hers" because that's how it was originally written. I'm just wondering about the wrecked ship, if that is still a "her". And, FWIW, I came to this page because it's on ITN. Primergrey (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

That should not be controversial from an editing point of view as consistent with current guidance. My habitual usage (not knowingly based on any convention) is, like ThoughtIdRetired, "she" for the ship, "it" for the wreck of the ship, and hence "her wreck was found"/"it is remarkably preserved". Davidships (talk) 07:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I've fixed a few remaining "it"s in the article, and the odd "she" for a repetitive "the ship". I will be interesting to see if this triggers any action from those with strong opposing views (despite the existing compromise of WP:SHE4SHIPS). I have left "it" when it refers to the wreck. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

That makes sense. I was just curious if there was an actual convention. Thanks for all the responses. Primergrey (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Help needed at CCI

The following Contributor copyright investigation case - Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/DeltaSquad833 has recently been opened which is relevant to this Wikiproject. The editor in question (who has since been blocked) has created large numbers of articles about ships, and the more hands to help the better.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

There's also the overflow at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/DeltaSquad833 02. Hog Farm _Talk 16:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

In addition to the copyright issues - many of the articles need massive clean-up.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Could use some more input in a split discussion

See Talk:Knik Arm ferry#split?. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Earwig's Copyvio Detector for USS Lofberg

It's showing an 89.89% of a violation and lists this document from http://www.hazegray.org/ which has a copyright notice on the homepage.Dawnseeker2000 20:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

It's a copy of DANFS, which is a US Navy publication and hence public domain - see [1]Nigel Ish (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

ARA Santa Fe (S-21)

ARA Santa Fe (S-21) could use some attention. A whole bunch of new material is being added to the article, almost all of it unsourced or sourced to unreliable blog sources. The new material is also full of typos, style goofs, and bad grammar. There may be some BLP problems too. GA-RT-22 (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

www.convoyweb.org.uk under discussion in WP:RSN

The input of the members of this wikiproject would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#www.convoyweb.org.uk. Thanks, Ljleppan (talk) 08:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020 needs your help!

WP:URFA/2020 is a working group dedicated to reviewing and improving featured articles that were promoted before 2016. This year, URFA/2020 wants to finish reviewing all articles promoted from 2004-2006, and make significant progress on the 2007 articles. This is where we need your help.

We need ship specialists like you to look at these articles and either document that they meet the featured article criteria, improve them until they meet the criteria, or document concerns on the article's talk page. Subject matter experts are especially important because they know if the prose includes all necessary information, the sources are high-quality, and if there are any other concerns that an unfamiliar editor would not know to look for. This has been a really active area at WP:FAC, so I'm hoping that we can bring some of that energy into reviewing these older FAs.

Below is a list of articles that fall under WikiProject Ships's purview. If you believe the article meets the featured article criteria, please mark it as "Satisfactory" on WP:URFA/2020A. If you are working on the article, please mark it as "Working", and if you leave notes on the talk page, please mark it with "Notes" and a link to the diff. More detailed instructions can be found at WP:URFA/2020.

Here is the list of articles under this project's purview that were promoted or last reviewed in 2004-2006:

• USS Missouri (BB-63) (notes left on talk page)
• New Carissa (notes left on talk page)

Here's 2007 articles:

• USS Wisconsin (BB-64) (notes on talk page)
• Battleship
• USS New Jersey (BB-62) (notes on talk page)
• Vasa (ship)

Thanks for your help with this. If you have any questions, please ping me. Z1720 (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Review request

I'm hoping to get CSS Baltic up to FA before December in order to run a TFA for the date of it's CS Navy purchase. Having never taken a ship article about GA before, I was wondering if some people more experienced with writing such content could take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/CSS Baltic. Hog Farm _Talk 15:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Vorpostenboote name question

Hello all. I've dabbled in creating some articles about German Vorpostenboote from World War II (a topic which I believe is sorely neglected in the encyclopedia). They are patrol or flak ships usually created by converting fishing trawlers or other small ships. A while ago, when I first created an article on one (forgive me, my memory is foggy and I don't recall details), it was moved to have a title of German trawler V### Foo from V### Foo. V### is the numeric designator of the ship by the Kriegsmarine, and Foo is typically what the ship was called either at the time of its creation or requisition by the German navy.

I didn't think much of it as an editor unfamiliar with the topic, but I recently went back and thoroughly read WP:SHIPNAME which pretty clearly states that V### Foo would be the more acceptable title. I've created maybe ten or so of these articles by now, and want to move them back to the less clunky and more right name, but figured I should swing by here before doing so to make sure I'm reading everything right and to see if there is precedent about this that I may have missed. Thanks all for your help, Fritzmann (message me) 21:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Ship naming convention says for those that don't use prefixes (eg HMS, USS) that " <nationality> <type> <italicized name>" is the preferred form. GraemeLeggett (talk) 04:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Support Graeme, continue to use German trawler V### Foo. See German destroyer Z4 Richard Beitzen for how it is dealt with in larger ships. Llammakey (talk) 11:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fritzmann2002: If you work from the List of Vorpostenboote in World War II, the correct links are already formed there. Thanks for your interest in these ships. From personal experience, some of them proved to have very interesting histories. Mjroots (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Frigates or destroyers?

I came across Tariq-class destroyer, which refers to the ships as frigates in the text, but the title has them as destroyers. Given that they started out as Type 21 frigates, I'd assume that classification would remain. Thoughts? Parsecboy (talk) 10:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Appears they were classified as frigates (Type 21) during their original service with the Royal Navy, then reclassified as destroyers by Pakistan when they got a hold of some them. - wolf 11:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

According to the sources given (a lot of them are dead on that page), it is a situation much like the French where they should be called one thing, but the nation operating them defines them as another. According to the majority of sources, they are frigates, but those that do discuss the change in designation state the Pakistan Navy themselves defined the ships as destroyers. Llammakey (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I found a reference (Singh 2002) and have added the reclassification to the article. Alansplodge (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

FAR for USS Missouri

I have nominated USS Missouri (BB-63) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 02:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Ship Infobox - "Namesake" field

The template usage guide for this field reads If the ship's name originates from a particular person, location, event, or object, it may be added here. However, descriptions longer than a few words (e.g. a person's name or "Finnish for "potato"") should be placed in the article body (my emphasis). That is, simply put, the meaning of the name. Where, as is common tractice, especially with naval vessels, the same name is reused, it continues to have its original meaning. For example all five ships USS Yorktown were named for the Virginian town where the 1781 battle took place. This principle is clearly followed by DANFS as the Navy's published official history [2], which draws no distinction between any of the USS Yorktowns. See also [3]

At the same time, there can be specific reasons for the next use of a name having particular significance - the decision to bring forward the next use of Yorktown for CV-10 was occasioned by the loss of CV-5 and a desire to pay tribute to the men and their ship (and I suppose to boost morale). This is well-attested, for example at [4], [5] and [6] (indeed, Navsource, sets out the two aspects of the naming rather elegantly). Such references do not assert that the CV-10 was not named after the town as the others were. There were similar circumstances with Wasp (CV-12), Lexington (CV-16) and Wasp (CV-18). Nonetheless, some editors have taken to substituting the established Namesake entry with the name of the previous ship rather than the meaning of the name. Of course that material whould be explained in the article itself but not, I feel, in the Namesake field.

We had a similar discussion on this last year, but I am wondering whether some additional clarity should be included in the template guidance? Davidships (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree Davidships. Same thing happens in Japanese warships, where modern warships with the same name are given their WWII vessels as namesakes and not that actual basis for the name. For example JDS Asagumo. Llammakey (talk) 11:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I dunno, does it need to be more explicit? Or do we just need to follow the sources better? CV-10 wasn't named after CV-5, the sources are pretty clear on that. The name was chosen for that particular hull to honor the earlier carrier, but that doesn't mean it's the namesake.

On the other hand, there are cases where ships are named for earlier vessels, and I don't see why those shouldn't be in the infobox. Grille and SMS Grille come to mind; the former was named for the latter, not the play that the earlier vessel was named for. Perhaps it's a German thing, as there are other examples, like SMS Gneisenau, which was named for the earlier Gneisenau, which was in turn named after that Gneisenau. Parsecboy (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

The Type 31 frigate comes to mind [7]. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with both of those points. However, since both of those would have to be explained in the text, would namesakes just be better placed in the text and not in the infobox at all? So far all of the examples given require explanation, be it Yorktown, Grille, Gneisenau or the Inspiration class and would require sources to back it up. Even something as simple as USS John Paul Jones should have an explanation of its namesake in the text. As it stands it seems like a field that can filled in by drive by users without requiring sources. Llammakey (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

It is tempting to agree with that, but this is a commonly completed field and must be in thousands of ship articles, both naval and merchant, the vast majority of which are not at all controversial or in doubt. "What does that name mean?" is a reasonable entry-point question for a reader. Where too complicated for an infobox entry, better to point the reader to the article itself. Davidships (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Glossary of nautical terms has been split

Due to size problems, Glossary of nautical terms has been split into Glossary of nautical terms (A-L) and Glossary of nautical terms (M-Z). In an ideal world, the two new articles would have been called Glossary of nautical terms (A–L) and Glossary of nautical terms (M–Z) – that is with an n-dash – but that didn't happen (mea culpa). This can be fixed with a page move on each of these new glossary pages. Does anyone see any problems with this? All I can think of is that for article titles including an n-dash, less adept editors may have trouble linking to glossary terms.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

For information, most of the articles that link to a term in the old Glossary of nautical terms have been changed to the correct destination - but over 100 remain. You are welcome to fix them, especially if they are in articles you have worked on. It is the ones that need changing to the M-Z glossary that are the problem. The redirect from the old page points to (A-L).

On a related point, much of the content of the glossary suffers from a serious lack of references. Consequently some editors have linked to the glossary from an article with a perfectly correct usage, but the glossary has the target term is poorly defined and does not explain what the linking editor intended. (I recently fixed amidships which only had one meaning of the term and the shortened midships was also wrong.) Thoughts on fixing the scale of the referencing problem would be appreciated.

Incidentally, I was surprised to see warships articles using the glossary - terms like J.G. Hitzler Schiffsw and gunport. (That's me trying to drum up some interest in the subject.) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Seems sensible to me. Looks like the contents panel at the bottom of the page needs to be updated to match though. Martocticvs (talk) 11:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Tables of contents have been fixed. There might be a more elegant solution, but what is there now works OK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThoughtIdRetired (talk • contribs) 13:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The contents tables look nice. What would be more elegant is to include the "Part 2 of this glossary...." within the same box, if that is technically possible, or at least a matching box. Davidships (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I've not been able to find a way to put part 1/part 2 in the table of contents list. Doesn't mean there isn't one. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

There's quite a few links which now solely go to A-L eg Merchant ship when they relate to any nautical term. Should there be an index page of some sort? Lyndaship (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there's much value in links like that - I was removing See also links when I was working on cleaning those up earlier. Parsecboy (talk)

Agreed but not all of the links come from a See also Lyndaship (talk) 06:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to ask the "idiot question", but just what are these pages for? And what links to them?

About half of the entries seem to be also the titles of relevant articles, so why would readers be brought here?

I can see the point for those which are nautical expressions, or nautical applications of common words, which will never justify an article; indeed, WP is not a dictionary. However Wiktionary can provide suitable references (eg there is a ref for the right meaning of aback).

Some in-article links lead to non-existent entries, eg advance note has link to absent "ship's articles". - Davidships (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

List of auxiliaries of the United States Navy

The article List of auxiliaries of the United States Navy is, frankly, unusable. It is over 260KB in size. Scrolling through it, at least on my computer, is impossible.

I am proposing that this article can be reduced to 148KB upon taking the following steps:

• 16KB can be saved if the IX section is deleted; this section duplicates the article List of unclassified miscellaneous vessels of the United States Navy; if people think that IX ships are auxiliaries then the section can be retained and a single link to the IX article can replace the list of ships.
• 71KB can be saved if the yard and district ships and craft are deleted and placed into a new article titled List of yard and district craft of the United States Navy (link points to the proposed article in my sandbox - BTW, I was able to reduce the 71KB to 40KB by removing dead links).
• 16KB can be saved if the ship lists for the AO, AOE, AOR, and AOT sections are deleted and replaced with links to the equivalent sections in the article List of United States Navy oilers.
• 9KB can be saved if the ship lists for the APM and APD sections are deleted and replaced with links to the equivalent sections in the article List of United States Navy amphibious warfare ships.

To repeat, the articles 'List of United States Navy amphibious warfare ships' and 'List of United States Navy oilers' do have sections that repeat some of the lists in 'List of auxiliaries of the United States Navy', simply because some types fall into two list categories. The oilers article in particular is very well written and should be the primary source. All of these lists are treated equally in 'United States Navy ship types'.

Due to the extent of the proposed changes I don't want to attempt this without some consensus. Thank you for your consideration. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

NI Mar Portugal - NI Mário Ruivo

Hi, The vessel was acquired by IPMA, I.P. (https://www.ipma.pt) in 2015 In 2020 the NI Mar Portugal was renamed NI Mário Ruivo (https://www.ipma.pt/en/navios/mario-ruivo/)

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.115.229.54 (talk) 08:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Russian cruiser Moskva displacement

If you have access to Jane's Fighting Ships and can look up the displacement of Russian cruiser Moskva, please comment at Talk:Russian cruiser Moskva#Full load displacement. GA-RT-22 (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

proposed ship-infoboxen template merger

An editor has nominated these ship infoboxen templates for merging:

• {{Infobox ship begin}}
• {{Template:Infobox ship image}}
• {{Infobox ship class overview}}
• {{Infobox ship characteristics}}
• {{Infobox ship career‎}}

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 April 30 § Template:Infobox ship begin

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Passenger-Only Fast Ferry-class ferry § Should we change the names of the vessels listed?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Passenger-Only Fast Ferry-class ferry § Should we change the names of the vessels listed?. Awhahoo (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Navboxes for deletion

Several class navboxes are up for deletion here. This may be of interest to members of the project.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Can people watchlist Ålesund-class destroyer, Spanish destroyer Ariete (1955) and Spanish destroyer Audaz (1951) as judging by the win at all costs attitides of those demanding that the navboxes be deleted, that the articles themselves will be targets for disruption or deletion.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Tfd's are not Afd's. It's the template that is up for discussion. Not the articles. If the template is deleted, it will be removed automatically from those articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I cannot assume good faith that you will not disrupt the articles - as you are already disrupting the templates just so you can win and make sure that they get deleted. As you are pursuing me here, where I have requested that people watch out to make sure that the articles are not attacked, I have to assume that my contributions to any articles or to any talk page discussion is not wanted. I will leave this discussion so do not bother to reply to this message.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@Nigel Ish: - hope you don't leave WP over this. Would hate to see a known content creator and regular contributor to wt:ships driven away over the way you were treated. Cheers - wolf 02:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Another has been nominated on 8 May Template:Douro-class destroyer Lyndaship (talk) 06:03, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Picture needed: civilian working boat under oar

The article Rowing needs a picture to show a working boat (of the European/Western maritime tradition) being propelled by oar. Until the outboard motor came along, generally it was oar or sail for such craft. There are plenty of photos of military boats under oar and many of sport or leisure rowing. However, it is a real challenge to find a copyright-free picture of fishing, pilot or other examples of people doing their regular work in this way. Best I can find is some salvage work[8] but this is still within copyright. Does anyone have anything suitable? I guess most will be historic photos in libraries and museums, so we are at the mercy of the copyright retaining policies of such institutions. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

There's a lot of stuff floating around Commons, though a lot of the older pictures of (presumably) fishing boats are not obviously working rather than recreational so aren't great here.

I quite like c:File:The cruise of the Cachalot - round the world after sperm whales (1906) (20686877656).jpg, which shows several boats being launched from a whaler (there's a range of other similar illustrations in c:Category:Whaling in art). c:File:London labour and the London poor; a cyclopædia of the condition and earnings of those that will work, those that cannot work, and those that will not work (1861) (14577164330).jpg shows two men with oars on a Thames lighter - I'm not sure if these are strictly "rowed" or if the oars are mainly for steering, though.

Alternatively if you'd prefer a photograph, c:File:Halibut fishermen in dory, ca 1909 (MOHAI 6217).jpg is quite a nice one. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

BTW, the bargemen are actually rowing or "driving" the lighter with oars; the skill is preserved in an annual race, see The Thames Barge Driving Race. Alansplodge (talk) 09:14, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I like the photo. Busy day today, but I think I will try and find a place for that in the article sometime soon.

Any other potential candidates are still welcome, though. (Sorry if that sounds ungrateful, it is not intended that way at all.) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Here are some suggestions. File:1228. Finmarken, Fiskekvæner - no-nb digifoto 20160111 00031 bldsa AL1228.jpg, File:Jahn Ekenæs - Bønder Fiske.jpg, File:Fishermen working (SM sg381z).png, File:FMIB 43044 -Fisherman in Row Boat-.jpeg, File:Ferryman Varanasi 462751819.jpg, File:Veerman Ferryman.jpg. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)