Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maritime Trades
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Maritime Trades |
||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Maritime Trades Toolbar | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Invite | Talk | Logs | Edit | Add | Assess |
Contents |
[edit] What's on your mind?
As the project is just getting started, please don't be shy. Share what's on your mind with the group! Cheers. Haus42 13:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merchant Navy/Merchant Marine Redirects
The Merchant Navy now re-directs to Ship transport. I think it's a bad move - why not use the IMO term: shipping? Yosy 14:12, 02 April 2007 (UTC)
- Valid point, and I almost did that. It might be the right thing to do. What stopped me is this: if you Google shipping, the first few results that come back are UPS, USPS, and FedEx.
- The first step would be to put in these two templates:
- {{mergeto|Shipping}} on Ship transport
- {{mergefrom|Ship transport}} on Shipping
- And in case we can't come up with a consensus, we can propose it at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. Anyone have any feelings on this? Cheers. HausTalk 13:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Project scope?
Haus, can you further explain the scope of WikiProject Maritime Trades project? Are we talking all things maritime, which the Major Categories item in the info box suggests? Or are we focused upon maritime occupations as suggested by project title and recent project articles? Irregardless, I like your approach of collaboration. --Fishdecoy 17:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- This is absolutely open to debate. My original idea was "Everything dealing with working on the water." But there are other WikiProjects that cover many of the subject areas. So think of it like doing a subtraction: (Everything dealing with working on the water) - (Navy) - (Ships) - (Shipwrecks) - (Lighthouses). So, for example, a Jet Ski would probably not qualify. Nate Bowditch worked on the water, so he would. You use a GPS or a sextant or a needlegun, so they qualify. Whaddya think? HausTalk 22:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] AB (occupation) and AB (rank)
This is a copy of a point User:KAM brought up at [[Talk:Able Seaman (occupation)]. I wanted to copy it here and see if there are any feelings on i:
This page and Able Seaman (rank) were split from Able Seaman. Haus42 15:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps this should not be split between two equal articles. There is some overlap in the terms usage, at least historically. Should the main article be AB with a link to the Naval rating. KAM 14:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Typical ship transport occupations
Content for articles listed in the "Typical ship transport occupations" template at the bottom of project articles such as Harbor pilot, Chief Engineer, etc. is distinctively maritime. However, the model falls apart with articles such as Carpenter and Electrician. Shouldn't we create new pages that are unique to the maritime trades for those few example? For instance, maritime occupation content would go into Carpenter (nautical) or Carpenter (maritime).--Fishdecoy 00:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, like with Captain (nautical). User:Frelke mentioned that he really disliked parenthesized titles, which I thought was a good point, but I still haven't thought of a better approach. Something like Marine electrician or Ship's carpenter might be possibilities. Any thoughts? HausTalk 19:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge FOWT?
Hi folks, something similar to Fishdecoy's post above has been bugging me for a while. Oiler (occupation) isn't a masterpiece by any means, but it is probably in "start-class." There is no "Marine fireman" article. There is no "Watertender" article. Wiper is very much a stub. So my question is this: do you think we should a) create a merged F/O/WT article, and b) should we merge Wiper in with FOWT? This area is a real blind spot for me. Cheers. HausTalk 16:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] French speakers?
fr:Utilisateur:CaptainHaddock runs the extremely well done fr:Projet:Maritime and has suggested we do some collaboration. He's not completely comfortable in English, and his English is at least a couple of notches above my French. But there's a lot of room for helping each other out. I've already "borrowed" some stuff, like this. But there's room for much more. For instance, check out their Ship and Bulker articles -- top notch. Anybody have a black belt in French? Cheers. HausTalk 01:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hello guys. I am also quite active on the French project along with CaptainHaddock, and my English isn't too bad (I actually live in England), so maybe I can give a hand at some point. Feel free to ask on my talk page if you need some stuff translated. I was also responsible to a large extent for the "Ship" and "Bulker" articles, and I would welcome any comments to help improve them ; just because they are FA doesn't mean they can't be improved ! Thanks, le Korrigan bla 07:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Wow, I expected that post to sit there for months. A few notes: I borrowed most of fr:Amarrage (maritime) for a rewrite of Mooring (anchoring) today. I think Ship/fr:Bateau is our biggest need, if you have any interest in chipping in on that it would really be appreciated. Our highest rated articles are listed here, and you're more than welcome to them. Other than that, thanks for chiming in, and, well, enjoy the roastbif! :) Cheers. HausTalk 20:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Well, a potential issue would be the distinction between ship and boat, which is far more pronounced in English than in French (I actually devoted all the first part of the article to the definition of a "bateau"). I'm not 100% sure about what should go in Boat or Ship... I'm currently working on different cargo ship types (Multipurpose cargo ship, Reefer, etc.), maybe some material could be sought from there. I'm using mainly sources in English anyway :-) Finally, I just improved the List of ship types, with fishing vessels and leisure crafts still missing. If it can give some inspiration, feel free to use it ! Cheers, le Korrigan →bla 21:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)