User talk:Kjet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kjet is on wikibreak until further notice. Apologies for all the unfinished business, but due to real-life concerns I simply do not have the time, energy nor desire to complete them right now.

Welcome to Kjet's talk page. Start new discussions at the end of the page. Use the "new section" button above, or click "edit this page", scroll to the end of the page and use a proper ==heading==. Keep discussions in one place. Unless you request otherwise, I will reply to you here. If I have left a comment your talk page, please reply to me on that page. Sign your comments.

Archives

Archive 1: 2006—2007 DYK Archive

Contents 1 Steam Packet Confirm Name Changes 2 Splitting up Shipping Company articles 3 Navbox needs converting 4 Super SeaCat article 5 M/S to MS 6 clarification 7 MS (SS?) Stockholm 8 MS/MV Val de Loire 9 Good Work! 10 re: nofootnotes tags 11 cn tag on MS Queen Elizabeth 12 Tonnage tweaks 13 Moving MS Holiday page to MS Carnival Holiday 14 Bowie - Video Collection Omissons 15 Norwegian Dream and Superstar Aquarius 16 Finnbirchistä kuvaa? 17 Ventura 18 Brutto Register Tonnage 19 NCL ships sold - better source? 20 Ship's most notable incarnation 21 CP Ships 22 Launch date vs. date of sea trials

[edit] Steam Packet Confirm Name Changes

Hello again K.

I have changed the fleet names on the Steam Packet Page, because the new online brochure has now confirmed these name changes and I have cited the link for them so that they are sourced.

To save you time, I have the link to it here - Brochure. The names are confirmed changed on Page 6 of the brochure under Vehicle deck limitations.

I hope that this clears it up for you. Lightoller (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 22:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting up Shipping Company articles

Hello Kjet

Thanks for the award you gave me. Really nice :). I have been thinking that the history parts of the articles of the shipping companies that we are writing about are taking up too much space. In the name of readability I was thinking that the history of the companies should be put into articles of their own. My current articles in mind are the Silja Line, Viking Line and Tallink ones (which have huge history sections) but this should of course be expanded into other articles. What do you think?

/FarbrorJoakim —Preceding unsigned comment added by FarbrorJoakim (talk • contribs) 10:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I see the point about readability, but I'm not sure about splitting the articles. What could be considered is moving the history sections lower in the article (although that would mean putting them under the fleet list, which might look a bit silly - plus the current layout seems to be the preferred one in most wiki articles). Actually what probably should be done is make the articles less biased towards the company history, for instance by adding more material about the current status of the companies, their market positions, enviromental records (in case of Silja at least). All this stuff could be put above the history-section, and would explain what the company is right now. For instance, Tallink is the market leader in Helsinki-Tallinn and Sweden-Estonia traffic, and the sole operator in Stockholm-Riga route, yet the article doesn't actually mention that at all. Nor does it mention Tallink's aggressive expansion in clear terms (in does mention it under history, but it should probably be made clearer). So, a section called "overview" (or something), as the first subsection which would succintly explain what the company is. I think that would already help a lot.

And you did deserve the award. ;) -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 10:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually what probably should be done is make the articles less biased towards the company history, for instance by adding more material about the current status of the companies, their market positions, enviromental records (in case of Silja at least). All this stuff could be put above the history-section, and would explain what the company is right now.

I totally agree. The problem is that I think that this material is too comprehensive to be put only into the article header. So, I really do believe that a split up (Main article/History) is necessary in order to make the quality of the main articles higher. The alternative is to shorten the history parts and I really don't want to do that (I'd rather expand them). —Preceding unsigned comment added by FarbrorJoakim (talk • contribs) 14:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Shortening the History is definately right out. I've been meaning to expand Silja's history with stuff from the 50th anniversary book for some time now, but haven't had the chance to get around to it yet.

Maybe we should put this question up somewhere where other contributors interested in this could also have their say? (In practive this would mean the talk pages for the articles in question I guess) I'm not really sure if the two of us should make this decision without hearing other opinions. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 15:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Navbox needs converting

As you have an interest in Ferry articles, I thought I would ask you to take a look at Template talk:WSF Ferry Classes to see if you had any suggestions. I was in the process of reviewing the use of {{tl:WAFerry}}, and in the process of examining the links I came across the WSF Ferry Classes template, on which I proposed a change. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I've given my thoughts - thanks for bringing this up, I would have certainly missed it otherwise. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 11:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Super SeaCat article

K. I think that the article should be renamed to "MDV1200 class fastferry" or "SuperSeaCat fastcraft" something on those lines. It would make more sense and it would make much more sense to have a article for the SuperSeaCat company and the SuperSeaCat ship. What are your views on this...in the mean time I've started an article...we can always move it if a better name for it comes up. Here: MDV 1200 class fast ferry - Lightoller (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I very much agree about the renaming. However, instead of starting an entirely new article on MDV 1200 class fast ferry you should have moved the existing Super SeaCat article under the new name, to avoid having two different articles on the same subject. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 07:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] M/S to MS

Hi Kjet,

I dare say that you would have noticed in the last day or so that there has been somebody running around wikipedia changing all ship articles with M/S to MS. Now I can’t say I like this much as it is not correct way of doing it as MS is for a divorced woman not a ship. Now I don’t know what the guidelines say in wiki for this, but I can’t see any good reason for this change. Plus I see that all the articles you have created are with M/S and you seem to know the rules of this place pretty well. So what are your thoughts on this and what action if any should be taken?

Regards MitchellMbruce1 (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I was aware of this. It was done for technical reasons, as having the backdash in the article name made all of those articles subpages of the article M. Take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#A little admin help is required for the full discussion. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 09:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah thanks for that Kjet :)

I thought someone was being a hero and stuffing up all the ship articles. But I do hope it will remain standard practice to have M/S in the actual articles them selves.

Regards Mbruce1 (talk) 09:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that the general idea was to keep writing them with a / in the article texts. But yeah, it was a shock for me too, coming here yesterday and noticing so many article being mass-renamed... but luckily it turned out there was a good reason. ;) -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 10:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] clarification

Just to clarify, in your edit summary you mentioned "Oh, I didn't know Pride of America was the first US-flagged, US-built ship ever" - technically, PoAm wasn't US built - just first new-built US flagged ship in 50+ years. I think you knew that, as the actual edit to the article doesn't claim it to be US built, but I wanted to mention it to make sure. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, thanks for clarifying in the article that they're the first large ships, not just first ships. With the number of smaller US flagged cruise ships out there, some were certainly newer than 50 years ago. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I did know that, I was just having a spot of fun at the expense of the anon editor. But it's always good to make sure. And yeah, it occurred to me that Douglas Ward's book (The Complete Guide to Cruising) mentions several small US-built cruise ships built before the Pride so I though I better put a mention in - although "large" might not be the most elegant way to say it. I might dive into Ward later on and establish the precise tonnages. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 18:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MS (SS?) Stockholm

Was the Stockholm built as a steam powered ship and later re-engined? If so, then SS Stocholm would be correct in the Andrea Doria article. Mjroots (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

All SAL newbuildings were built with diesel engines. The (ex-)Stockholm was re-engined with new diesels at some point of her career (presumably during the big 1992 rebuild), but the originals were also diesels. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 14:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MS/MV Val de Loire

It may be inconsistent, but I think we should use the prefix that the owners used in each case. Thus it should be "MS King of Scandinavia", but "MV Val de Loire". (Unless I'm mistaken and they didn't actually do that!) Thanks, --RFBailey (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This is probably something that should be taken up at WP:SHIPS. I'd prefer to use just one form through-out the article, but to the best of my knowledge there is no generally established guideline on this. I've no idea what prefix Brittany Ferries used either - it's also possible that they didn't have a consistent approach on the matter - at least DFDS and Tallink use different prefixes (or none at all) in different materials. -- -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 14:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Work!

		WikiProject Ships Barnstar
		In recognition of your work on an issue that I brought to light, I hereby award you this. Keep up the good work! -MBK004 17:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Seconded! Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 03:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, you're too kind (both of you). DYKs are frightfully addictive... -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 08:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: nofootnotes tags

[Moved to User talk:Otolemur crassicaudatus#Your reverts to my nofootnotes tags to keep the discussion in one place as requested above.] -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 12:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] cn tag on MS Queen Elizabeth

Hi, I was going to remove the cn tag (now a fact tag) from the MS Queen Elizabeth article's "Installed power" listed in the infobox, but I wanted to first check why you added it. It appears that you added "4 × MaK 12 M 43 C diesels, 2 × MaK 8 M 43 C diesels" with a source for that, but then added a cn tag for "combined 64 MW". This seems odd to me, as the data you added shows (4*12)+(2*8), which equals 64 MW. Granted, I'm assuming that the source you provided abbreviated "MW" to only show "M", but I believe that's accurate. Am I missing why the cn tag was added? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The source I used didn't specify the combined output, and I didn't make make the connection betwee the engine model name and the output—on most engine types the two seem entirely unrelated. It's possible the M's stands for megawatts, but it's equally possible it doesn't. But if you feel like it, do go ahead and remove the tag. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 19:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

True - like I said, I was making an assumption. So I did a quick search and found an alternate source that provides the combined load. I'll add that as a ref to the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 19:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tonnage tweaks

Hi Kjet! I noticed that I kind of steam-rolled over one of your edits at Silja Line when I went back to do some more work on it. I wasn't particularly happy with the my Gross tonnage/Gross register tonnage formatting -- it's tricky when they're both in one column of a table. Anyway, I reverted that page back to your last edit. If you have any concerns on other articles where I'm tweaking units like that, feel free to drop me a line. Cheers. Haus^Talk 00:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I found an approach that I liked for formatting the table when GT and GRT are in the same column. I went back and applied it to Silja Line. If you have another idea, please adjust as you see fit. Cheers. Haus^Talk 02:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the new approach, it specifies which is which without streitching the column out of proportion. That one should be adopted for all relevant articles (unless you have done so already, obviously ^^). And good work on this issue in general btw. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 07:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moving MS Holiday page to MS Carnival Holiday

Hi, I noticed you moved the page MS Holiday to MS Carnival Holiday and stated in the infobox that it was renamed Carnival Holiday. I'm very sure that this never happened. The ship is still named as Holiday on Carnival's website and also in recent photos. Only the Fantasy Class will get the "Carnival" prefix on the ship names through their series of refurbishments. Carnival Cruise Lines is currently phasing out the Holiday Class. The Celebration is soon to be retired. And the Holiday may possibly be retired sometime around fall of 2008 or by the spring of 2009. Because of this, major refurbishments will not happen until it is retired from the Carnival fleet. I believe renaming the page as MS Holiday and removing the "Carnival" prefixes on the page would be an appropriate action for the factual accuracy of this ship's page. WikiEK (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This usually very reliable website stated she had been renamed, which is why I moved the page. However, seeing that the Carnival website lists her without a prefix, it is possible that the site I relied on was mistaking - feel free to revert the move if you wish. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 17:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bowie - Video Collection Omissons

Hi

It was stated on a previous version of this page that "When the Wind Blows" was the only major omission (something I myself have pressumed), and yet your last edit stated that it is not.

From memmory, the Nicholas Pegg book, and comparisons with the later "Best of Bowie" double DVD set I am pretty sure that "When the Wind Blows" is the only RCA/post-RCA era promo video missing.

To get to the point I'm curious as to what other Bowie videos may be missing. "Under the God" and "You Belong In Rock and Roll" both fit into the timeline but as Tin Machine rather than Bowie tracks maybe they didn't/don't belong, and yes uncensored "Day In, Day Out" and "China Girl"s would have been nice, but I'm stuggling to come up with anything else. Also, many RCA singles never had promo videos, while later singles "Tonight" and "Dance Magic" never to my knowledge had promo videos either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flumper666 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Also missing are "The Drowned Girl", "Under Pressure" (which admittedly doesn't feature Bowie - but then again neither does WTWB to my understanding) and the alternate video for "Loving The Alien" "Blue Jean", dammit! (admittedly it would have been slightly weird to include it, but it was an official video never the less) and "This is not America". -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 08:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Norwegian Dream and Superstar Aquarius

Why did you decide to remove the "vessel class" information? These ships are "sisters", virtually identical in fact, ordered as a pair in 1990 from Chantiers de l'Atlantique. --OneCyclone (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

For one thing, I addded the ship class navbox in the footer - which is a standardized way of linking the ships of the same class. Additionally in SuperStar Aquarius the same information was already included in the "History" -section - I presumed the same was also the case for Norwegian Dream (I admit I was speedreading and should have checked properly before making any removals). I'll restore the information on Norwegian Dream right away (apart from the Kiel canal part - there are a horde of cruise ships out there capable of sailing though it). -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 18:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the information. We all occasionally overlook things, which is one reason that talk pages are so useful. As for the Kiel canal, I'll defer to your knowledge about other cruise ships, but do they, like Norwegian Dream, have the ability to flip their funnel in half to allow the passing? Based on video and photos of the passage, I thought that was a rather unique attribute for a ship of this size. --OneCyclone (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

True about the funnels - I believe there have been a handful of other ships with adjustable funnels, but these two are the only ones remaining in service as far as I know. So yes, that info should probably be (re-)added (I don't think it was mentioned in Aquarius to start with though?). However, I'm not certain if they were built with the adjustable funnels (and radar masts), or if these were modified in 1998 at the same time with the lenghtening - I have a vague memory of reading about them being changed in 1998, so I'll have to check that when I have the time.

And indeed, talk pages are a beautifully civilized way of dealing with things such as these. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 09:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't mentioned in Wind/Aquarius; as far as I know it was only Dream that had this feature. I don't know as to when this feature was added either, quite possibly during the lengthening, but I'll do some checking as well. --OneCyclone (talk) 09:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

After checking Douglas Ward's The Complate guide to Cruising & Cruise Ships, both ships were rebuilt with "foldable" funnels and masts at the same time they were lenghtened. I'd presume Wind/Aquarius simply never had any use for the feature as she wasn't deployed in northern Europe like Dream. I don't have the book with me at the moment, but I can update and generally expand the articles when I get home (the book also had some other info that should go into the articles). -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 05:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Great information on that page. Thanks for your work and for the constructive dialogue. --OneCyclone (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you as well. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 08:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Finnbirchistä kuvaa?

Terve! Ajattelin tulla kysymään, että sattuisko sulla olemaan MV Finnbirchistä kuvaa Commonsiin, kun olet noita Helsingissä käyneitä laivoja sinne lisäillyt? Olen suomi-wikin puolella laajentanut Finnbirchiä enkä oikein viitsisi Finnforestinkaan kuvaa artikkeliin laittaa. Eikä tästäkään kuvasta oikein ota selvää onko siinä Birch vai Forest. :) Roquai (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No mutta, kansainvälistä toimintaa Wikipediassa. ;) Valitettavasti Finnbirch ei koskaan sattunut kennolle osumaan - ellei tuossa Hansa-luokan laivojen kuvassa sitten ole kyseinen laiva, en valitettavasti päässyt koskaan tarpeeksi lähelle tarkistamaan asiaa kun noita kuvia otin. Eli taitaapi olla Foresin kuva ainoa vaihtoehto. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 08:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No ei voi mitään. Nyt täytyy etsiä sukellusta harrastava wikipedisti ja käskeä käymään hylyllä. :D Roquai (talk) 13:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Totta, sehän on aina mahdollinen ratkaisu... XD -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 05:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ventura

Calm down!! viz `Don't include new information under a pre-existing reference that does not support that information` I found aggressive and uncalled, we all make mistakes. Palmiped (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologise. There have been several edits like this made to articles on my watch list during the past weeks, and due to the large number of these cases I could have gotten overtly worked up. So apologies, I did not conciously mean to sound aggressive or rude. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 07:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats fine, know what you mean bad editing can be fustrating. Regards Palmiped (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brutto Register Tonnage

Hey, Kjet I have a Svensk/Dansk problem and I wonder if you could help me out. I posted at WT:SHIPS before it occurred to me that you might be the guy to ask. Anyway, I'd seen the terms BRT, BT, and Brutto Register Tonnage on a lot of ships articles (mostly WWII) and had assumed it was an old measurement. Inasmuch as I can (sort of) read sv:Bruttotonnage, that appears to be nothing other than Gross tonnage. Do you think it makes sense to replace "Brutto" with "Gross"? Thanks! Haus^Talk 19:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll drop a reply on the WP:SHIPS thread, in case someone else has wondered about this as well. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 10:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NCL ships sold - better source?

By any chance, do you have a better source available for the NCL sale of two ships to Louis? I think the Cruise Critic story is good enough in this case, but wanted to ask if you knew of a source with better coverage of it.

I found a mention on Lloyd's list; but it requires a login to view the full article. The only other one I could find was on Cruise Critic. While their news section isn't bad, they do tend to gloss over some details to make it more mass-market readabl (plus, I've read some requests to only use Cruise Critic news when no other source is available, due to CC allowing vendors to use distracting animated ads). I also try to avoid Cruise Business Online due to their claim of only retaining stories for one year, after which the ref links to those stories may fail. So, know of any other/better coverage? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I used At Sea with Doug Newman on the Norwegian Dream and Majesty articles—why I didn't update the NCL article at the same time is a good question. The source is in my experience a fairly reliable one, and at least in this case I've found it to be the most throrough one. An alternative would be to use the official Louis Cruise Lines press release (linked to in Newman's article). -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 14:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ship's most notable incarnation

The following was copied to Talk:CP Ships#Ship's most notable incarnation so that other editors can have an opportunity to add a constructive comments ... --Tenmei (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Please help me understand why your recent edit presents a better and more useful title than "SS Empress of Japan (1930)" -- not that I dispute that your edit is correct, not at all. In this query, I'm hoping you'll help me re-think the ramifications which play out in terms of other vessels in Canadian Pacific's "Empress fleet" -- see CP Ships#History.

In List of ocean liners, the only vessels without prefixes are the "Empress fleet;" and if RMS is the better choice for the Empress of Japan, then it follows that the other Canadian Pacific (CP) ships are best identified in a similar manner.

Unquestionably, the CP trans-Pacific fleet was created because the company gained the mail franchise, and each ship flew the Royal Mail pennant; however, the RMS article explains that, technically, a ship would use the prefix only while contracted to carry mail, and would revert at other times to a standard type designation such as "SS". The brief exchange at Talk:RMS suggests that this minor point should not be too quickly marginalized in terms of our discussion about the proper prefix for each of the Wikipedia articles about the "Empress fleet" ships.

I'm also persuaded that the exchange of views at Talk:RMS Empress of Japan (1930)#Name logic deserves our attention.

Yesterday, I changed RMS Empress of Australia (1922) to SS Empress of Australia (1922) because I'd been convinced that the Wikipedia articles actually do (or should) describe the vessel from launch to dismantling for scrap -- including the linked changes of name. If we construe the article in this way, there would be an appropriate place within one article which somehow links the article about a ship designed to be the Kaiser's toy with that ocean liner which became famous in the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923. Do you see my point?

The question becomes not so much one of right or wrong, but rather an issue of how best to construe each of the Wikipedia articles about steamships. For example, the maiden voyage of a famously unsinkable White Star vessel in 1912 was tragically cut short, and no one would suggest that SS Titanic is better than RMS Titanic. However, I would have thought the issues we need to parse would play out differently in terms of that single ship which was RMS Empress of Australia in 1922 ... and also RMS Empress of China in 1921 ... and, before that a German ship named Tirptiz in 1914 ... and before that was built as the Admiral von Tirpitz ....^[1]

You see that I have tried to parse the issues in a reasonable way, but maybe I'm missing something which has an over-riding importance.

In the same way that former Presidents of the United States are still called "Mr. President" after their terms of office have ended, for example, maybe it makes better sense to apply the RMS to articles about ships because the prefix represents the vessel at the apex of its career?

So, as I see it, the range of issues devolves into one of deciding how to proceed from this point. I look forward to reading your response to the rather open-ended set of questions I'm trying to suggest are relevant here.

In this context, please review John Wallace Thomas. The text now reads:

Born in the British Colony of Newfoundland, Captain Thomas commanded the 26,000-ton Empress of Scotland (originally named the SS Empress of Japan II) throughout the Second World War.

In terms of the range of issues I'm trying to bring out here, how would you re-write this sentence to adequately and appropriately reflect that "RMS" designation? --Tenmei (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't have the time to reply properly to you right now, so just brief pointers: During wartime the Empress of Japan / Scotland would be referred to with the SS prefix as she did not carry mail during war service. During the vast majority of her existence as Empress of Japan she was in commercial service as a mailship, therefore it is appropriate to refer to her under the RMS prefix rather than SS. By the naming convention, an article on a ship should be named after the most notable incarnation of the ship - if that incarnation was known with an RMS prefix, then the article should have one in it's name. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 16:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful feedback and explanation. No need to write more. Your succinct response resolves my lingering questions well enough. I'm going to copy this exchange at Talk:RMS Empress of Japan (1930)#Ship's most notable incarnation where it may prove useful to other editors. --Tenmei (talk) 12:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CP Ships

The following was copied to Talk:CP Ships#CP Ships so that other editors can have an opportunity to add a constructive comments ... --Tenmei (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Kjet -- Thanks again for the feedback. My tentative work-plan is laid out at CP Ships#Canadian Pacific Steamships. I see a number of advantages in disfavoring the launch date for purposes of disambiguation, but it will take a little bit of work to bring the "Empress fleet" ships into conformity with what I take to be a Wikipedia convention.

Now that you force me to parse the issues more carefully, I do see that it does make sense to emphasize the date when any ship actually comes into service (rather than merely the launch date). It looks as if this Wikipedia convention turns out to be helpful in resolving how to mitigate any confusion which results from the fact that there are three Canadian Pacific ships named Empress of China.

Please scan what I'm proposing to do; and if you have constructive comments, I'll welcome them.

(1) As for that questionable "Royal Mail Ship" section, I'm of two minds. On one hand, I might propose restoring two or three sentences in the introductory section (without creating a distinct "Royal Mail Ship" section) -- perhaps something like the following:

This Empress enjoyed the "RMS", meaning "Royal Mail Ship." This is the ship prefix still in use today by seagoing vessels which carry mail under contract by Royal Mail. Technically, a ship would use the prefix only while contracted to carry mail, and would revert at other times to a standard type designation such as "SS", meaning "Steam Ship" or "Steamer Ship." During wartime, for example, the RMS Empress of Japan would have been identified as the SS Empress of Japan.

On the other hand, each of the articles having to do with "Empress fleet" ships could be renamed "SS" rather than "RMS." There are good and sufficient reasons for keeping that RMS. However, if ships were merely distinguished by "SS," all other issues would become moot. I'm not arguing that "SS" is preferable, only that it does remain an option to be considered.

(2) As for that questionable use of numerals to distinguish vessels with the same name, your position is again correct.

In this Wikipedia context, we must bear in mind that the ship-naming conventions of the 21st century are different than those of the last century; but at the same time, we have no choice but to be mindful that Wikipedia users have been influenced by Cunard's advertising. Many, if not most users will have no trouble whatsoever in distinguishing "QEII" and "QM2," for example. In my view, at least one or two sentences are necessary to acknowledge today's shorthand way of identifying ships. That having been said, I propose using your own words as an in-line citation -- see CP Ships#Notes at n.2 -- perhaps something like the following:

A note on disambiguating ships with the same name on article texts: Although conventionally used today, unofficial names or sobriquets like RMS Empress of Japan II are not used here, since the ship's official name was simply Empress of Japan. Instead, the year the ship entered service is used to tell the ships apart when names are repeated (as in article names), hence RMS Empress of Japan (1891) and RMS Empress of Japan (1930), not RMS Empress of Japan and RMS Empress of Japan II.

This task is turning out to be a little more time-consuming than I'd originally anticipated; but there you have it. It is very clear that your feedback (and the modest "extra" work you encourage me to invest) have no object other than to burnish the quality of Wikipedia and to enhance its plausible usefulness.--Tenmei (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

^_^ Now you're making me feel bad for putting you through the extra trouble. If I can do anything to help, just mention it and I'll see what I can do. Then to pointers:

RMS: Personally I would perfer doing this along the lines of my edit to RMS Empress of Japan (1930), with the line "Due to being a part of Canadian Pacific's service carrying Royal Mail, the Empress of Japan carried the RMS (Royal Mail Ship) prefix in front of her name while in commercial service with Canadian Pacific." This should perhaps be expanded to include a second sentence explaining she carried the SS prefix while in troopship service. Whatever the final formatting, I would rather like this information to be incorporated into one of the other sections, rather than have it under it's own section.

RMS versus SS: ...I'm actually not quite sure if I udnerstood you correctly on this one. But presuming I did; in my experience the RMS prefix, if used, supersedes all others. For instance, no-one talk about GTS Queen Mary 2, even though she could also carry that prefix instead of RMS.

Distiguishing different ships with the same name: Since the year-of-construction-as-distiguisher -policy is a Wikipedia standard, I'm nore sure if it is truly nescessary to separately define it. In the case of the CP Ships fleet list, people will automatically see that there were several ships with that name, and in individual ship articles it might be more stylish to mention "Xth ship to bear the name" in the lead section or body text.

Relatedly to the previous, the list on CP Ships would perhaps be more informative if the ships were in chronological order instead of alphabetical? Also, I'm not sure about the term "Empress fleet", as it excludes the non-empresses. This is particularly problematic as RMS Empress of France (1928) and RMS Empress of Canada (1928) begun live as RMS Duchess of Bedford and RMS Duchess of Richmond (respectively) - as Empresses they should be included on the list, but their sisters RMS Duchess of Atholl and RMS Duchess of York would be excluded. Related to those ships, as a point on naming and notability, I'm not sure if the RMS Empress of France (1928) and RMS Empress of Canada (1928) should be referred to under those names - both enjoyed longer careers under their original names... although the conversation about the names of these ships should probably be carried out on the talk pages of the individual ships or the CP Ships article and not here.

That's it for now I guess. I'll head to bed and probably have more to say in the morning... -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 20:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Launch date vs. date of sea trials

Removed content duplicated from User talk:GraemeLeggett#Launch date vs. date of sea trials. Please keep conversation threads in one place. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 21:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)