Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
NA rated as NA-Class on the assessment scale
NA rated as NA-importance on the assessment scale
Shortcuts:
WT:SHIPS
WT:SHIP



Archive
Archives
  1. 2004 to 2005
  2. January 2006 to June 2006
  3. July 2006 to December 2006
  4. January 2007 to June 2007
  5. July 2007 to September 2007
  6. October 2007 to November 2007
  7. December 2007 to January 2008
  8. February 2008 to 18 March 2008
  9. 19 March 2008 -

Contents


[edit] Disambig pages trying to be more

I just completed a tag and assess run and came across a few articles which by all accounts should be disambig pages but aren't. There seems to be enough information to warrant individual stubs for each of the ships, but I just don't have the time to make it happen and sort through all the mess. Here is the list:

I would appreciate it if someone would have at this. -MBK004 03:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been working on the Stockholms with a plan of creating expanded articles for each ship and eventually turning Stockholm (Ships) into a redirect to Stockholm (disambiguation) (doing a separate ship disambiguation page seems a bit superfluous to me). I can sort that one out at least. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 09:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Stockholm (Ships) is now done. I've branched off the first ship into SS Potsdam (which was the original name), the second and third into MS Stockholm (1941) (they were essentially the same ship, so I felt it was pointless to create separate pages for both - most content would have had to be duplicated), the fourth to MS Stockholm (1948) (this was already done earlier), and changed Stockholm (Ships) into a redirect to Stockholm (disambiguation) as detailed above. And I couldn't resist expanding SS Potsdam slightly and SS Stockholm (1941) radically. Both also had military careers, so the people more interested in that side of things might want to take a look - Stockholm especially could use input from someone more experienced than me in that field. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 11:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Gripsholms are also done. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 16:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Oslofjords are also done. I chose to ignore the two last ships as there was only one source that mentioned them, with very vague information. The first three can be found at SS Oslofjord, MS Oslofjord (1938) and MS Oslofjord (1949), with a disambiguation at Oslofjord (disambiguation). -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 16:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Empress of Britains done — Bellhalla (talk) 12:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
And Empress of Canadas done — Bellhalla (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Just found another, right before this was to archive: Spirit of Tasmania if anyone would like to take care of this, I would appreciate it...-MBK004 01:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

And another one, Pride of Le Havre. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 17:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Pride of Le Havre is done. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
...not to be a pain in the butt, but that particular ex-Olau Hollandia was built in 1989, not 1981. I'll make some general fixes into the article, while I'm at it I'll also move it under the correct year. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 13:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Dang. I thought I got that right. Thanks for catching it. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
It's confusing with two very similar ships with the same name built for the same company just eight years apart. Also, I need a life. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 15:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's another one in progress - Miss England (Speedboat) - I wonder if we should catch it now, or let the author finish work on it and then split it? Benea (talk) 02:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe one of us should drop a note at his talk page (in the kindest of terms of course), noting that those should be separate articles? This would save trouble all around. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 08:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Can it not be me? I came across one of his articles entitled 'Captain George E.T. Eyston'. I moved it to the conventional George E. T. Eyston (as we don't include rank in article titles) and explained my thinking on the talk page. I'm fairly sure I have both convention and consensus on my side, but I've discovered that he's acted very strongly (and garnered accusations of incivility for it) at other attempts to move it. I have a nasty feeling it might kick off, and he might take a note on the Miss England issue the wrong way. Ho hum. Benea (talk) 09:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, that definately doesn't sound nice. I can drop him a note on Miss England (famous last words). On an unrelated note to that subject, an update on Spirit of Tasmania: I've branched off Spirit of Tasmania III into MS Mega Express Four, and the first, non-numbered Spirit of Tasmania has previously been combined into the article of MS Princess of Norway. That leaves just Spirit of Tasmania I and Spirit of Tasmania II to be taken care of. So we're half-way there ;). -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 10:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Miss England (Speedboat): I have left a (hopefully very diplomatical) note at User talk:Andy Dingley#Miss England (Speedboat) and naming conventions. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 10:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
As noted on my own talk page, I'd prefer it if you let the original creator finish the page, then split it. The problem is that I don't have enough material for three decent pages here, but hopefully do for one. If someone else were to come along later and add to it, then that could obviously change. In particular, I've almost nothing on III. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's another - Rainbow Warrior. This is an interesting one, there's a bit about the first ship, a lot on her sinking, and then a bit on the second. Interesting thing is, we already have an article about the Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior. I think the way to go is to have a Rainbow Warrior (1978) page for the first ship, and a Rainbow Warrior (1989) for the second. I think it would be OK to keep the 'sinking of...' article. And then spin off all the information to the relevant articles and keep 'Rainbow Warrior' as the disambiguation page. Any objections?

As to the Miss England (Speedboat), I think the user has done a great job putting enough in to qualify for articles on each individual boat, so I'd suggest breaking that up and keeping it as a dab page. I'd rather not do it myself though, I wouldn't want the user to think I was getting at him. Benea (talk) 08:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually hang fire on Miss England, the user appears to still be adding to it. Benea (talk) 08:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

On Spirit of Tasmania, User:Mbruce1 has also brought splitting the article up on the article's talk page (Talk:Spirit of Tasmania#Proposed disambiguation page), and he seems to be in process of splitting it further, so things are progressing on that front. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 11:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done the Rainbow Warrior and have pointed (hopefully) all the links to the appropriate articles. Benea (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I've found another: Innisfallen with a whopping five ships! After my Pride of Le Havre experience, I'll leave it for others. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
And yet another: NASA recovery ship, about two ships. (See, procrastinating on taxes, can be useful for something... ) — Bellhalla (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
And another: USCGC Greenbrier, two ships. Benea (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC) - Done, Benea (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Yet another: SS Orsova (two ships). I have left a note on the articles talk page as the original creator had also been wondering about that (no idea if he's still around). -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 11:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
SS Orsova is now done, with content split into SS Orsova (1909) and SS Orsova (1954). -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 09:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok I have just finished the articles MS Spirit of Tasmania I & MS Spirit of Tasmania II. I hope they are ok as my experience with references etc is limited. Over time I hope to add more info but I hope that they are sufficient for now. I have also turned the Spirit of Tasmania page in to a disambiguation, feel free to change it around if need be. so you can cross Spirit of Tasmania off the list now.:-) Mbruce1 (talk) 10:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Summary

Attempting to summarize the ones still needing attention:

And I've always been of the mindset that if one ship in particular doesn't have enough information that would exceed one paragraph, it might be ok to leave it on a disambig page until the article can be expanded. There are hundreds too many articles of one or two sentences out there with little likelihood of ever becoming larger. --Brad (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The Innisfallen does describe a series of ships, but the all served the same route (served on the Irish Sea route between Cork and Fishguard). I suggest that they should be kept together ClemMcGann (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Found yet another one: Krasin (icebreaker). It seems as though her sisters could also use some help with naming conventions, infoboxes, and copyediting as well. -MBK004 07:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a post to reset the bot archive period. --Brad (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Koninklijke Paketvaart-Maatschappij

Hi there. I just created Koninklijke Paketvaart-Maatschappij. It's very much stub. I'm not sure if this is of any interest to the Ships project. If so, do you stuff as I most probably won't be able to work on it in a hurry. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

instead of Koninklijke paketvaart mattaschappij. can we just call it KPM?--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 14:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another sub infobox

I have just found Template:U-Boat Infobox. Should this be converted to the Infobox ship template or are there parameters that aren't accepted in the Ship one? Thanks Woody (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is one of the most convoluted templates I have seen. It is comprised of:
Should we try and convert these? It won't be simple like the last set as they have lots of separate templates which all need amalgamated. Woody (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
If nothing else, they should all be consistently named, beginning with either U-Boat or U Boat. Beyond that, I think they all should be made to match the style of the Ship boxes. You can look at Unterseeboot 552, which uses all of the above, for how they all work together. The bigger question is do we need that level of detail in infoboxes about U boats? — Bellhalla (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
While you are looking at the U-boats. Could something be done about the term "victories". Consider Unterseeboot 38 (1938) shells an unarmed neutral fishing trawler ST Leukos killing all 11 crew. Could we not have a term other than "victories" for that? ClemMcGann (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The U-boat boxes above are a result of trying to integrate all the information on these submarines from Uboat.net. See their entry on U-51 for example. By contrast Unterseeboot 101 (1940) for example uses Infobox Ship Begin, and integrates (most) of the information in the box textually in the article. I think that this would be the way to go, we shouldn't be trying to create an identical mirror of Uboat.net on wikipedia. On the subject of 'victories', I notice that Uboat.net instead uses the term 'successes', which seems more neutral, and is still accurate. U-38 set out to sink the Leukos and was successful in that aim. But technically 'victories' is not inaccurate. In the battle between ST Leukos and U-38, U-38 was victorious. Benea (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that "successes" would be a bit more neutral. I also agree that the infobox should be a quick summary and this infobox is anything but that. We should try and integrate as much as possible into the text.
On another note, we have {{Submarine}} as well. I distinctly remember that it has a few parameters not yet available on the current ship infobox though I can't remember what they are. Woody (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The U boat templates need attention from more than one angle:
  • Content overlap with the Ship Infobox - no need for duplicated effort
  • reusing work already done - however while letting Ship infobox take the strain of build, specification etc, there is no reason why patrol, commanders, and sinkings can't stand and as the data is already templated it saves rewriting it so they shouldn't be just dumped
  • Style - I wouldn't be surpised that the red and the small type makes it was eye-watering to others as it does for me.
  • documentation - nuff said
GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually the colour and font size are realtively easily fixed. Done part of it already. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Template:Service record seems to be set up to incorporate this information anyway, see Unterseeboot 155 (1941) for an example of how it interacts with Infobox Ship Begin. It'd be a way of keeping the information tabulated and to hand, but losing some of the extraneous detail like the dates of the patrols. I'd suggest replacing Template:U-Boat Infobox and all its components with Template:Service record, and tweaking Template:Service record to use 'successes' rather than 'victories'. Benea (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Our goal should be to eliminate all infobox type templates until we have one main template that can cover everything. Infobox Ship Begin is an excellent template and should be our ultimate goal for all ship articles. Template:U-Boat Infobox should be replaced along with its siblings. {{Submarine}} is nothing but a duplicate of what Infobox Ship Begin can do already and should be replaced. Template:Service record seems to be more specific to submarines and works well with Infobox Ship Begin and should be part of the documentation of Infobox Ship Begin. --Brad (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I've converted the articles which used {{Submarine}}. —WWoods (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I've nominated {{Submarine}} and {{Submarine/doc}} for speedy deletion under T-3. --Brad (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
They've been nuked. Parsecboy (talk) 02:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a post to reset the bot archive period. --Brad (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CSS = Coast Survey Ship?

Three new articles were created: CSS Silliman, CSS Gedney, and CSS Bache. Seeing as CSS has been used for Confederate States Ship and not Coast Survey Ship, I redirected all three articles to the prefix USC&GS as was already done for the ships listed in U.S. National Geodetic Survey. Then I submitted all three redirects for speedy deletion as keeping the redirects with CSS may lead others to list them as or understand them to mean Confederate States Ship. The speedy deletion has been contested on all three and the question posed is if U.S. National Geodetic Survey ships have ever been referred to with the prefix CSS? --Brad (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I've admittedly not done a lot of looking, but I've always seen older ships with the "USC&GS" prefix. (Newer ones use "NOAAS"). I've never seen "CSS" used except for Confederate ships. — Bellhalla (talk)
Me neither, CSS is listed in McKenna's 'Dictionary of Nautical Literacy' as a prefix for just Confederate ships. CSS in the acronyms section of thefreedictionary.com produces a lot of results, one of which is Confederate States Ship, but Coast Survey Ship is not listed. This huge list of prefixes used by 'U.S. Navy and Coast Guard Ship and Aircraft' has no reference to CSS as being 'Coast Survey Ship'. DANFS similarly just uses it for Confederate States Ship. It's another invented prefix in other words (and shouldn't it be Coastal Survey Ship if it was going to be anything?). I can see the rationale for keeping the redirect, but in this case the fact that these ships were never termed as CSS, and the fact that CSS was used, and continues to be used in scholarly literature to refer to a very different type of craft in a different period of history, means that the risk of confusion outweighs the slight benefits of retaining the use of the prefix in a redirect. The first time I saw them I thought 'CSS, these are articles on Confederate States Ships'. Only when I looked more closely did I see they were something completely different. Benea (talk) 13:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pages CSS Silliman and CSS Gedney and CSS Bache were created around 04:30, 20 May 2008 by User:Jrp. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CSS for Coast Survey Ships?

Thank you for moving these articles, but I hope that you can provide an explanation of what I'm missing. The sources that I have for officers commanding the several ships that I created articles for all give the prefix as "CSS". I included a link to the Google Books pages from a book published in 1898 which included the CSS prefix. Is it that the CSS prefix was unofficial? Was it only used for a short period of time? (Such as at the time the book was published, prior to name standardization?) Or is there something else going on that I don't see? Thanks for your help. I want to make sure I name these articles correctly in the future. JRP (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: This was left on my talk page. I'm pasting it here and will direct the author to this topic. --Brad (talk) 02:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm basing this on a few sources, all from the 1890s. I don't find a huge number of references to CSS ships that aren't confederate, either. These came up while I was researching Uriel Sebree. Not knowing enough to question the CSS designation, I copied the names from the source materials and then created stubs with what limited information I had. (Which I was still gathering and hadn't quite finished yet.)
My gut says that CSS was either an unofficial but well-known designation or an official but briefly used designation. In either case, if your names are more correct, we should keep the articles there (since you know much more about this topic than I), but the redirects should stay... It could also be that these are "nick-names" for the ships in some way, perhaps "CSS" is a descriptive rather than literal designation... That just seems bizarre given the context of the first source. I hope a historian of the Coast Survey of this period may have the correct answer. JRP (talk) 02:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This Google Books search comes up with a number more references. http://books.google.com/books?lr=&q=CSS+bache&btnG=Search+Books JRP (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This can be a complicated explanation but let's try this:
  1. Prior to 1918-1920 there were no "official" United States Navy ship prefixes in use. Essentially anyone used whatever abbreviation they felt like using until the Secretary of the Navy passed rules on such prefixes and they were to apply retroactively. (I don't have the reference handy)
  2. All of your Google book references are prior to 1920 and at least one is from an obituary in a medical journal.
  3. For purposes of Wikipedia we try and adhere to "official" prefixes whenever possible but sometimes we have to improvise. USC&GS has been used in several ship articles from the DANFS which is an official USN publication. CSS Shipname has already been established on Wikipedia to mean Confederate States Ship and attempting to use CSS Shipname for Coast Survey Ship would only create confusion.
--Brad (talk) 05:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I get your explanation. The only problem I have with it is that this forces us to use a name for the ship which, as far as I can tell, it never actually had. I respect that CSS for both coast survey ships and confederate navy ships would cause confusion. That said, I can find no reference anywhere to USC&GS Gedney, for example. I assume the ship was out of service before standardization began. (Of course, I don't have infinite sources.)
So, I propose the following:
  • Articles remain at the names you gave them for standardization with DANFS and military history resources.
  • Note is added to articles that say that they are only knows as USC&GS in retrospect and that they were not known by that name in the period they were serving. (You won't find it painted on the hull, for example. What would have been there?)
  • Let's keep the CSS name in the lead as an alternate name the ship was known by. If any of these advance beyond a stub, it makes sense to explain the name confusion. Is there an article on the 1918 name standardization which we can link to?
  • Redirects be recreated from the CSS names, which were deleted. In articles which link to the names (of which there are exceptionally few, so it doesn't matter), it doesn't really matter which is used. (For Uriel Sebree, I'll drop the confusing prefix and just say "Coast survey Bache".)
Does this sound satisfactory? The dilemma is between simplicity and accuracy. I don't think this is any great debate, I just have an itch to find the right way to do this. JRP (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This isn't a negotiable issue. Our concern was with the redirect and the confusion with Confederate States Ship. If you want to recreate the redirects then go ahead but I'll just take them to redirects for deletion this time instead of speedy. --Brad (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Wait? Redirects are cheap. I don't understand the need to delete them. You can't make the universe consistent, just because you like it to be. We have documented evidence that the names were in use and official, therefore the least that we can do is create the redirects. JRP (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Have you found that these ship are using a CSS prefix though? Your google books results have been achieved by typing in things like ["c.s.s." and coast survey] and this has produced a result which is titled 'Congressional Serial Set', which seems to be the more likely explanation for the abbreviation C.S.S. I can't read these books, can anyone do so to confirm that these are actually calling these ships CSS such-and-such? Benea (talk) 02:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I've tweaked about with it, and I'm satisfied that contemporary sources are referring to them as CSS 'such and such'. The matter is then an editorial one, since we standardise our prefixes differently. We backdate prefixes, so that ships of the early English navy for example are referred to as HMS - even though this prefix did not appear until c. 1780, so what the ships themselves were called at the time is not in itself justification for using CSS. I don't have desperately strong opinions, I'm vaguely against the prefixes but not enough to kick up a fuss over a redirect. But I'd suggest that where ever the articles are linked to, the CSS prefix is NOT used, ie on the Seebee page, because the general reader will immediately think Confederate States Ship. Benea (talk) 02:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been searching also and no source uses the "CSS" prefix after 1900. (But I found one "USS Gedney" in there, which I believe is also a mistake.) Arguing over a one-line substub is silly, so I'm doing more research to get an actual article in there. The Gedney, for example, is actually the UCS&GC Thomas R. Gedney which sailed from 1875-1915. NOAA has a page here all about it. (Note that this is not the same ship as the USS Lake Gedney, which was commissioned in 1915 or so.) JRP (talk) 03:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I've done the Bache for you, she was actually USC&GS A. D. Bache though. They've been prodded for lacking notability by the way. Benea (talk) 03:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cruiser classes

I've been updating the article pages for the United States Navy cruiser classes with infoboxes and I need know if I'm getting them in the correct order (preceded by and succeeded by). I've stopped at New Orleans class cruiser (1931) due to the Portland class cruiser articles statement that the New Orleans class superseded the Portland class while the information I've found states the reverse.Shinerunner (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand, the Portlands were essentially modified Northamptons, while the New Orleans were a different design. However, they were built at the same time, and had intermixed hull numbers (i.e., New Orleans was 32, Portland was 33, Astoria was 34, and Indianapolis was 35). I would tend to agree that the New Orleans class were the subsequent class. Parsecboy (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lightship naming

While working on Rear Admiral Uriel Sebree's article, I stumbled across a story regarding a sunken lightvessel off Nantucket that I have included, but I am uncertain how to name the ship in the article. Contemporary sources just called it "Lightship No. 58". A Google search seems to indicate that its real name was "Nantucket Lightship LV58". Fine, I can use either and I suspect that the latter is more correct. BUT, two questions: Should the name be in italics: Lightship No. 58, or not? Or maybe Nantucket Lightship LV58? Is there a standard for naming these vessels already on Wikipedia which I should follow? JRP (talk) 12:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Current practice, as seen at Category:Lightships seems to favour the format 'Lightship foo'. There is a general article about Nantucket Lightships at Lightship Nantucket, and an article about a specific one at Nantucket (lightship) (which someone has proposed be merged into Lightship Nantucket). I'd suggest either writing your sunken lightship as a section at Lightship Nantucket, particularly if you don't have much information on her; or if you prefer to have it as a standalone article, perhaps Lightship Nantucket LV58, to distinguish it from the ship described at Nantucket (lightship), but to keep with existing precedent on titling lightship articles. If you were referring to her in an article, the LV58 is the bit you'd probably italicise, hence "the Nantucket lightship LV58..." or similar. (i.e. the same way we would say "the German battleship Bismarck...". I'm open to second opinions though. Benea (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
would you really put the LV in italics? ClemMcGann (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a fine line, but yes I would. The 'name' of the ship seems to be 'LV58', the 'Lightship Nantucket' appears to be the descriptor. Unterseeboot 1 is the name of a submarine, we render the abbreviated version as U-1. Similarly 'Japanese submarine I-1' tends to be Japanese submarine I-1 or just I-1. Benea (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Ummm, Weren't we using USLHT for ships that served with the United States Lighthouse Service? At least I've seen one or two articles using that prefix but maybe I'm confusing a Lighthouse Tender from a Lightvessel? --Brad (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The plot thickens. I'm not sure how things work on that side of the Atlantic, but in the UK Trinity House takes on the role of maintaining lightvessels (as they are usually called here). Trinity House tenders bear the prefix THV, but the lightvessels themselves do not appear to. Category:Lighthouse tenders of the United States has half a dozen ships prefixed with USLHT, but that prefix would not be appropriate in this instance as these are lightships not tenders. Benea (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

On this same topic, what should I call the Azalea in Wikipedia?[1]. USLHT Azalea as a lighthouse tender OR USS Azalea because she was in the Navy in WWI? Or is USLHT incorrect because she's pre-1910 and pre-Lighthouse Service. (She was under the Board, not the Service.) JRP (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The DANFS article for this ship is here. It seems this ship had more service with the Lighthouse Service than it did with the Navy. I would go with USLHT Azalea (1891) and then redirect USS Azalea (1891) to it. --Brad (talk) 09:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Montana class battleship up for FA

Montana class battleship is up for Featured Article here. --Brad (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Iowa class

I think someone here should nominate the Iowa class for a Wikipedia:Featured topics. The only thing that needs to be done is to raise the USS Iowa (BB-61) to good or featured status. Alaskan assassin (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I claim dibs on Iowas FA rewrite!!! :-) No offense to the others (both SHIPS and MILHIST), but I would like handle this one because it has been on my todo list since before Featured Topics were brought to my attention. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Um, I think USS Iowa turret explosion would also belong in the FT. That needs to be raised up as well. -MBK004 07:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
True, but if I recall correctly Cla68 (talk · contribs) claimed dibs on that article. It's on his to do list. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Attention

Aircraft carrier has been identified as a GA-class article in need of major improvements during a recent GA sweep. Anyone interested in help the article stay at GA class can check out the list of needed improvements at the bottom of the talk page. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] USNS Stockham

USNS Stockham should be moved to USNS GYSGT Fred W. Stockham (T-AK-3017) but that title is prevented from being created. Can someone look into this? --Brad (talk) 07:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I just moved the page; I'm not sure why it was telling you it was prevented from moving, because there wasn't a redirect or a salted redlink. Probably just a bug in the system. Parsecboy (talk) 11:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I looked for reasons why it wouldn't move either but found none. I was getting a message in big red letters that it was being prevented from creation. Thanks. --Brad (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bot changes to {{convert}}

Lightbot (talk · contribs) (run by Lightmouse (talk · contribs)) is changing the parameter "knot" to "kn" in template {{convert}}. As this affects a large number of ship articles, I thought I'd bring it to attention here. There is a discussion started here requesting that it stop. My personal opinion is that it changes an easily identifiable unit to a more obscure abbreviation. Also, the edits are probably clogging up everyone's watchlists with insignificant changes as they are mine. Any comments or opinions welcome. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ships by navy vs ships by country

The issue of lists/categories of ships by navy/country has been raised again at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Category question. Involved editors may wish to comment. Benea (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Format of ship names

While I've been making various fixes to the 'USS xxx' articles, I've noticed that the method of referring to other ship names is inconsistent. Sometimes the name will include the prefix and identifier: USS New Jersey (BB-62), sometimes just the prefix and name without the identifier: USS New Jersey, sometimes the identifier is shown but outside the link: USS New Jersey (BB-62), and there are other more eccentric variations.

Is there any consensus on a preferred style?. My own feeling is that the identifier should only be shown if there's any ambiguity about which ship of that name the article is referring to, so the standard style should be USS New Jersey on first reference and New Jersey on subsequent references, but I don't want to plunge in and make changes against an established consensus, if there is one. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There's been some debate about that, but as I understand it, the preferred WP:SHIPS and WP:MILHIST method is to have neither a prefix nor a suffix unless context requires it. See Referring to ships at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships). (Personally, I especially dislike the unlinked hull number in the third example.) — Bellhalla (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm with Bellhalla on this one, the unlinked hull numbers aren't that great looking. An example of when context would require nationality prefixes is Battle of North Cape, where ships from three different Allied navies operated together. However, it's generally sufficient to use them once, and then just the undisambiguated name for all further instances. Parsecboy (talk) 14:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification. Colonies Chris (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer to leave the designation outside the link unless I feel some specific need to include it — which is why I never use {{USS}}, etc. To my eye, the designation looks too heavy, relative to the italicized name, when it's highlighted by being linked, as well as being ALL-CAPS and upright.
Reading "USS New Jersey (BB-62)" vs. "USS New Jersey (BB-62)", I'm drawn to the "(BB-62)", when I really want to focus on the name "New Jersey".
—WWoods (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Certainly good reasons for your preference, but it still seems that the preferred way would be as New Jersey (unless you're trying to distinguish amongst other USS New Jerseys, that is). — Bellhalla (talk) 01:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AVR 661

AVR 661 is a "structure" at Calumet Harbor in the South Deering neighborhood of Chicago, Illinois, that is listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. A "structure", in NRHP-speak, could be a ship. But i don't find AVR as a current naval ship prefix. What could this be?

I will request a copy of the NRHP registration documents by postal mail, but it would help to know sooner to support a current DYK about List of RHPs in Chicago. doncram (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

According to the DANFS abbreviations list AVR can stand for "aircraft rescue vessel". Don't know if that's what this is or not, though — Bellhalla (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. We have now found some photos and mention of AVR boats as 63 foot ships similar to PT-boats, used for rescuing aircraft crew from downed planes. (Google searching on "avr pt boat" gets useful hits.) AVR boats were used in WWII and also in Korean War, according to some links and notes now showing in stub article AVR 661. Many were later used by Sea Scouts for training. This has killed my intended DYK phrase, essentially that the German Unterseeboot 505 was (i thought) the only ship listed on the National Register in Chicago, out of 296 entries, because i can't document that this AVR 661 is no longer there. Odd that Chicago, a major port and major city, has hardly any ships on NRHP and no museum ships besides the U-boat, as about 5% of all National Historic Landmarks are ships. Odd also that there seems to be no mention of AVRs as a class of ship / boat in wikipedia, too. doncram (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review for USS Wisconsin (BB-64) now open

The peer review for USS Wisconsin (BB-64) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! TomStar81 (Talk) 23:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Reposted from Milhist talk --Brad (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)