Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


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

Duplicate articles

SS City of Rio De Janeiro and City of Rio de Janeiro appear to be duplicate articles. Suggest the former is kept as it is longer, better referenced and name conforms to WP:NC-SHIP . Can I leave this for you to sort please? Mjroots (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

And add to those SS Arizona (1879) and SS Arizona. Benea (talk) 03:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Done those. Benea (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Make it standard policy to define shorthand

As Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Irish_Maritime#Please_explain_terms_like , Can the members of this project and sub projects agree to define the maritime shorthand used in ship title in the article its self . So the intro to USS Enterprise (CVN-65) The United States Ship Enterprise or USS Enterprise (CVN-65), formerly CVA(N)-65.... Gnevin (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Manual of Style calls for the article topic to be in bold within the first paragraph of the article so in your example USS Enterprise (CVN-65) is correct. I can see where those not familiar with ships may wonder what USS stands for but if you were to attempt that within the topic name it comes out to USS Enterprise (CVN-65) which I believe is a violation of the MoS as to wikilinks in bold. Also, USS leads to a disambiguation page defining to United States Ship which redirects to United States Navy. There is also Ship prefix which defines many other prefixes used for ships. This isn't an answer to your question obviously but shows that finding a solution to this is a bit more difficult. --Brad (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I have sympathy for the point made by Gnevin
would you condider the approach made in articles such as LÉ Aoife ? ClemMcGann (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Whats wrong with The United States Ship Enterprise or USS EnterpriseGnevin (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It's lengthy and awkward (nobody says "The United States Ship Enterprise"), the information is readily available elsewhere on Wikipedia (you can say to yourself "What the heck is this USS thing?", type "USS" into the search bar, and get your answer), and it would require changes to thousands upon thousands of articles for very little benefit. TomTheHand (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we should not spell out the meaning, and just use "USS". However, for locations within the article other than where bolded in the first paragraph, we could modify {{USS}} so that if an additional parameter of "lk=yes" "lk=on" is used, then the template will add a link to the definition of USS. All comparable templates could be similarly modified. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I shouldn't have to google just to find out what USS or LÉ is , so what if would require changes too alot of articles an AWB run could sort this out , i think i would be a huge benefit for non ship me people just as Dublin GAA explains what GAA means Gnevin (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It would be easy enough to implement an optional parameter, but I agree with TomTheHand that it's easy enough to find out what USS means. Barek, are you suggesting using {{USS}} within an article (but after the lead)? If I understood you correctly, wouldn't that generate a self-link in the article? — Bellhalla (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
True, good point. It could be useful on the first occurance on some lists, but not for within articles about specific ships. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
For my two cents - while putting a wikilink to the prefix in bold might violate the MoS, I think it's also the simplest, clearest and most visually pleasant way of dealing with this - I'd say this would be a case where we should WP:IGNORE the MoS and wikilink the prefixes. But that's obviously just me. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 10:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
This still needs to be sorted Gnevin (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The least intrusive way to do this is with a link, but that approach has problems. Chief among the many problems is that it doesn't do anything for someone reading a printout. The next least intrusive approach seems to be with a footnote. This approach seems to a) address the issue, b) be visually small, c) port across media, d) be codable into one or more templates, and e) not violate any MOS guidelines that I'm aware of. On the downside, there are many articles that don't have footnote sections and there are many articles that use their notes section exclusively for references. All in all, I'm not in love with the idea. Cheers. HausTalk 23:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see an overwhelming need to define the terms within the articles. However, if we did add it, then I think using an entry in a "See also" section that points to the definition is the method that would fit best with wiki practices. Linking from the bolded first instance is an issue with the WP:MOS; and I suspect that if we were to use a ref tag, we would have well-intentioned users removing the refs from articles, as a statement of fact within a ref tag is not a WP:RS for the statement (for this reason, I think we would need to find an avenue to discuss this with the broader wikipedia community if we were to use that method). The only method remaining that I can think of would be a "See also" section, which is already used for similar purposes elsewhere on the wiki. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Another problem with doing something like this on a wide scale is that there are cases when even spelling out the acronym is useless at best and misleading at worse. For example United States Naval Ship and Barko ng Republika ng Pilipinas. Cheers. HausTalk 23:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
See LÉ Aoife (P22) for how to deal with that Gnevin (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Lost = fate unknown*
*=except Bismarck

Currently there is a discussion underweigh over the fate of this ship as described in the infobox, whether it was sunk or lost. So far I've noticed that ships tend to end up under one or more of these categories; sunk, sold, scrapped, or lost. Some are saying that describing it as "sunk" implies the British actually sunk it or seem to think a ship being "sunk" precludes the possibility of it being scuttled. This must surely be a mistake since being scuttled is simply describing how a ship was sunk: Titanic sank after colliding with an iceberg, Monitor sank in a storm, Invincible was sunk by German shells, leading to the point that unless the box says Bismarck was sunk by British shellfire or something like it, saying a ship "sunk" only implies the ship lost buoyancy and sank leaving what caused its loss of buoyancy unspecified.

Whether I'm right or wrong an outside opinion from some experienced editors would be helpful as there is at least one other editor who agrees with me for slightly different reasons. Meaning that merely addressing my concern won't necessarily end the dispute. Anynobody 05:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, it is a mistake: sunk means it lost buoyancy! However, I don't really have a problem with lost, if it makes Nazi fanboys feel better; if it ends the dispute, I would go with that. And don't call me Shirley. TomTheHand (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been trying to look up a joke that I liked a lot, but I can't find it. It goes something like this:
If a Nazi captain shouts "Scuttle the ship!" before it sinks, it's a strategic victory. If he shouts "Scuttle the ship!" while he's still clinging to flotsam, it's an operational victory. If his son yells "Scuttle the ship!" from a plane flying over the battle site sixty years later, it's a tactical victory.
If anyone is offended by my making fun of Nazis, too bad ;-) TomTheHand (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Ambiguity probably comes in through the use of the word sunk. This implies usage along the lines of 'was sunk'. Instead, we could use 'sank,' which would remove all of that ambiguity. Martocticvs (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I would strongly object to the passive "sank". But in any case, it looks as though a compromise may finally have been reached. Gatoclass (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"HSK" Kormoran on main page

Just happened to notice this and I don't believe HSK is a genine prefix, I've suggested at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors that the prefix be removed given its controversial nature, but perhaps someone else would like to add their voice to the discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 09:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

MS Riverdance

Is this still Start Class, or can it be upgraded to B class. I've the feeling this article could go a lot higher, once they've actually finished the recovery and decided what to do with her. Then I won't have to keep adding to the article! Mjroots (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I read through it and assessed it as B-class. Nice work. Cheers. HausTalk 13:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
They've decided what to do with her, Riverdance is to be scrapped. Mjroots (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD on Future of the French Navy

Future of the French Navy has been nominated for deletion on the grounds that it is crystal-ball gazing. Interested editors are enouraged to participate in the AfD at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future of the French Navy --Nick Dowling (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

United States Merchant Marine Portal

Borrowing heavily from P:USN, I roughed out a United States Merchant Marine Portal this afternoon. Questions, comments, suggestions, and collaborators welcome. Cheers. HausTalk 00:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Another template needed?

We have templates for {{HMS}}, {{USS}}, {{SS}}, etc. But lack one for Royal Mail Ship which comprises some of the more famous civilian ships under our scope: RMS Queen Mary, RMS Titanic, etc. Me thinks there needs to be another template developed as before. -MBK004 19:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like {{RMS}} is already in use for another purpose, so that will need moved first. Has anyone considered merging all of these under something like {{ship}}? It could use a format like {{ship|RMS|Titanic}}, or {{ship|USS|Enterprise|CVN-65}} to be able to incorporate any ship prefix. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that is what {{warship}} is for Barek. -MBK004 19:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Except that many SS, MS and MV (not to mention all RMS) don't fall under warships, so something less warlike might be very useful for a bunch of ships. And speaking of needing more templates, I've also been thinking it would be nice to have templates for High Speed Craft ({{HSC}}) and Gas Turbine Ship ({{GTS}}). -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 23:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been busy this morning:
  • I've moved the former {{RMS}} to {{RMSband}} and converted all of its mainspace transclusions.
  • I've created a new WP:SHIPS template at {{RMS}} with a dab link to the recently moved template.
  • I've created {{GTS}}, {{HSC}}, and threw in {{USAT}} for good measure.
Any other requests? Bellhalla (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well done. I don't think there are anymore prefixes left except for HMHS, but the only ship I've seen using that is HMHS Britannic, so it would be a bit overkill to develop the template for only one ship. -MBK004 18:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

USAHS is another, but only has a few articles (mostly redirects). — Bellhalla (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
You're my new hero, thank you very much indeed. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 10:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added another shortcut template, {{sclass2}}. This is intended for ship classes that are named for a common theme, like Flower-class corvette, where the name of the class should be in roman text rather than italics. The corresponding template for ships named after a lead ship, {{sclass}}, is unchanged. (The optional parameters for {{sclass2}} are the same as for {{sclass}}.) — Bellhalla (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Survey ship into Research vessel

It has been proposed that Survey ship be merged into Research vessel. Currently both are listed as top-priority articles in our project. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"HSK" Kormoran

Could really use some help here; the article uses a made-up prefix and was just reverted back to that prefix. TomTheHand (talk) 12:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Infobox formatting issue in Firefox(?)

At the FAC for USS Bridgeport (AD-10), a reviewer brought up that one heading in the standard infobox—"Career (US Navy)"—crossed the white dividing line when viewed in Firefox. I checked in Firefox (not my usual browser), and both "Career (US Navy)" and "Career (Germany)" cross the line. Does this happen for anyone else that regularly uses Firefox, either in that article or others? (FWIW, I'm using a Mac, running OS X 10.5.2.) — Bellhalla (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It does happen to me when I look at it in Firefox. I will try to fix it, but also, ordinarily the country goes there. I would use "US" or "USA" in that box, though I do realize that the first career section indicates civilian German service while the second indicates military US service. TomTheHand (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
It has "US Navy" to distinguish from a "US Army" section of the Infobox farther down. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Oof, didn't scroll down quite far enough. Ok, will see what I can do. Wish me luck! TomTheHand (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm the one who made the comment, and I am using Firefox on Windows Vista. It looks like it's because the text is longer than the column. Since a "nowrap" tag is used for U.S. Navy and U.S. Army, it just crosses the line. The Germany one is not a problem for me - it reads "Career" and then "(Germany)" is on the next line. --Laser brain (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, that'd do it. Yeah, don't use nowrap. Instead, put a non-breaking space between U.S. and Navy or Army. I'll edit the article. TomTheHand (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, fixed. Some really innovative uses of the ship infobox on that article, by the way. Good job. TomTheHand (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
D'oh! I should have figured it was something I did... Thanks, for the fix. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I just made some formatting changes to the article, which I normally do on most articles I touch... and I am extremely sorry if any of them are horrible and were previously removed from the article with extreme prejudice! TomTheHand (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Nothing like that on any of the edits at all. I will say that I didn't know about the {{convert|7|ft|8|in}} syntax, which is why I had used {{Ft in to m}}. Always good to learn new tricks. Thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and one thing I noticed but was unwilling to touch was dual unit conversions, like conversions from knots to both km/h and mph. I usually avoid these because I think they look messy, but I do understand that they can be useful. TomTheHand (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

NRHP boxes in infobox

I know that there are several ships that are on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places, and as such, have the {{Infobox nrhp}} infobox in addition to the WP:SHIPS standard style box. What results is two boxes of differing widths, and can interfere—in one case I've seen, at least— with image location in the article. What I'd like to propose in these cases is that the NRHP box be placed inside the WP:SHIPS infobox (before the final "|}"). I've implemented this in USS Pampanito (SS-383), and I personally favor the result over the current usual implementation of 2 boxes. A bonus is that it requires no change in the use (or coding) of any of the existing templates. Any thought? — Bellhalla (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

My only issue is the way "USS PAMPANITO (submarine)" left-aligns instead of being centered, but perhaps if the NHRP template is incorporated into the ship infobox the title isn't even necessary. I've made this change; thoughts? TomTheHand (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it looks better without it, and since we know what the subject is, it's probably not necessary. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what point Tom is trying to make, but it looks fine to me. Gatoclass (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Gato, compare this version with Tom's version to see what he meant. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, okay, yeah, Tom's version definitely looks better :) Gatoclass (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The NRHP infobox is used to display the NRHP program name for a given historic place (building, structure, site, object, or historic district). This often is different than the current common name for the place. When an NRHP is further designated to be a National Historic Landmark, usual practice is to display the NHL program name, which may also differ. For compatibility to the rest of NRHP infoboxes, the NHL program name for the Pampanito should be shown, in my view. Is there some workaround to your programming problem so that it can be shown, centered as in NRHP infoboxes? The left-aligned name version does not look good, I agree. doncram (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Could the NRHP infobox be modified with an optional parameter that would center the title? maybe use "alignment=center"? Then if not used, the infobox defaults to its current style of left aligned. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I see your point, Doncram. Later this afternoon when I have some free time I will see if I can figure out how to center the text, unless someone else gets to it first. TomTheHand (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Reference Desk question

Someone has asked on the Miscellaneous Reference Desk about ship terminology, and I thought I'd come here and see if one of you salty dogs wants to pitch in. The questioner's English is not perfect, but he seems to be asking whether there are two words you can use to make the distinction between ships that are moved by sail power and ships that have engines, maybe something like "sailboat" and "powerboat" would be for boats. You can read the question for yourself here and decide how to answer. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I chimed in with "sailing vessel" -- can't think of a more poetic term for the life of me. Cheers. HausTalk 20:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


Excellent. That term does it for me, anyway. Thanks. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Featured articles

Congratulations to two members on their recent FAs: Bellhalla on USS Bridgeport (AD-10), and Saberwyn on HMAS Melbourne (R21)! Between WP:SHIPS and WP:MILHIST, for the last 6 months we have been turning out about 1 new FA every month. I hope we can continue this trend in producing articles recognized for their fine content.

I myself currently have a (co-written) ship article up for FA. The SS Christopher Columbus (at right) was the only passenger whaleback, built for the 1893 World's Fair. Whalebacks were awfully funny looking ships - the freighters even more so (see this one!) - and only one remains in existence today. Comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SS Christopher Columbus, and I'd be delighted if someone felt inclined to work on whaleback as well. Maralia (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, SS Christopher Columbus's FAC was just closed as promoted. We now have yet another FA! -MBK004 01:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone work with tables?

I've done something to Museum ship that has messed up the formatting of the table on that page. I'd like to preserve my changes and thus don't want to just revert them. Anybody willing to find out what I've done wrong? -MBK004 20:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I had the same trouble when I tried to introduce the templates into List of Victoria Cross recipients of the Royal Navy. I think there is an issue with the {{HMS}} templates. I thought it might have been a template limits problem but I checked the page source and it isn't. I am wondering what it is now. You might want to try WP:VPT. Woody (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
It's nothing obvious -- probably some weird bar character in the template. You can work around it by putting each column on a row by itself, as per this diff. Cheers. HausTalk 20:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch Haus. I'll get right on that. -MBK004 20:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I just fixed the table temporarily (hadn't seen anything but the first post here when I started). It's definitely the HMS template, and also apparently HMCS. I'll take a look at those later. Maralia (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Maralia. Also add HMAS to your list. It looks like those three are the culprits. -MBK004 20:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
{{HMS}}, {{HMCS}}, and {{HMAS}} all fixed now. There was a linebreak character that needed commenting out in the template code. Let me know if any are broken in some other way. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:United States Navy ships disposed of as targets

"Category:United States Navy ships disposed of as targets" was up for discussion (here) and apparently deleted. I'm kind of neutral on the category, personally, but was the discussion ever brought up here? I didn't immediately recognize any of the editors that participated in the decision to delete. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was a kind of interesting category myself, and probably would have voted keep if I'd known about the CFD. Gatoclass (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I feel pretty much the same as Bellhalla; I'm neutral on the category but a little annoyed that we didn't know about the CFD. TomTheHand (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing some newinfobox templates

A quick heads-up: since it's safe to assume that any article that has {{Infobox Ship}} needs an infobox upgrade, I'm removing the {{newinfobox}} templates from the talk pages of those articles. This serves two purposes: it gives us a better idea how many conversions need to be done on pages that don't have {{Infobox Ship}} and it reduces the chances of duplicated effort.

There's light at the end of the tunnel with respect to {{Infobox Ship}}: they should all be gone within a week or so. Cheers, HausTalk 15:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow you. How does removing the newinfobox tag from talk pages help you find the articles that need new infoboxes? Gatoclass (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the point is that we can just use the "what links here" for the Infobox ship ones, we don't need a redundant tag on the talkpage saying this; it just clutters up the talkpage. What we need to do is concentrate on the ones that have been subst'ed or written in plain html or use an even older infobox which is what the "newinfobox" tag should be used for. Woody (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Right, an article can be in this bucket or this bucket but now there aren't any that are in both. It turns out there were only about 150 in both. Cheers. HausTalk 17:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I assume you know what you're doing :)
Just out of interest, why not just copy the code from the infobox ship begin template to infobox ship and add back the deprecated fields from infobox ship? Wouldn't that be the simplest way to autoconvert all the deprecated infoboxes? Or is there some reason that can't be done? Gatoclass (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I basically just mentioned it cuz I figured it'd light up a few dozen watchlists. :) Converting from {{Infobox Ship}} to {{Infobox Ship Begin}} looks something like this. What makes it hairy is 1) putting everything in the right order, and 2) dealing with items that have several lines. Cheers. HausTalk 17:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Because the new infobox is three separate templates, it's not possible to just copy it over Infobox Ship, which is a single template, and have it work. TomTheHand (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict - now redundant to TomTheHand's post) The Infobox Ship template is a single self contained template, while Infobox Ship Begin is modular, using sub-templates to permit for multiple career sections or multiple General Characteristics sections (makes it easier to document changes if/when the ship is re-designed, re-built, or sold and re-flagged/re-named). Because of the modular style, a direct overlay from one template to the other won't work - the deprecated code must be modified to fit into the modular structure. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured if it had been that simple someone would have thought of it already. No harm asking though :) Gatoclass (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hovercraft

Do these come under the Ships Wikiproject, or would they be covered by the Aircraft Wikiproject? Mjroots (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think they'd be covered by Ships. They're not aircraft. TomTheHand (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I would have thought aircraft myself. They do fly, just a few feet above the ground. And they can fly over both water and land, which a ship can't do. Gatoclass (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd say the most sensible approach would be to put them under us rather than aircraft (or alternatively both). At least in commercial traffic hovercraft were essentially used as ships, and were usually operated by companies that also operated ships (I also think the Finnish navy operated a hovercraft, but I might be wrong about that). Plus ship websites such as Fakta om Fartyg and Simplon Postcards list hovercraft as part of their ship lists. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 16:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
As Kjet says, commercially, they're used as ships; militarily, they're used as landing craft. Their use over land is pretty limited because they require a pretty smooth surface. TomTheHand (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Hovercraft are included in the definition of water vessels. I'm not sure whether they are technically defined as aircraft, but I seem to recall the Navy speaking of LCACs as aircraft. There are certainly water vessels that are aircraft, for example, consider the USCG Rules of the Road definition: "The word "vessel" includes every description of water craft, including nondisplacement craft and seaplanes, used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water;"
In practical terms, if an aircraft-centric editor wants to add it to their project, I'd say why not? Cheers. HausTalk 17:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I certainly wouldn't ask someone from WP:AIR to buzz off :-) Their method of propulsion might be something aircraft-oriented users would be best able to contribute to, but I do think that we have some right and responsibility for making sure hovercraft articles are up to par because of how they're used. TomTheHand (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • As a long-time WP:AIR member, I've added the {{WPSHIPS}} tag to the Talk:Hovercraft page. I don't really see it as falling under WPAVIATION's or WPAIR's perview, but again it still might be somthing those projects might want to keep an eye on. - BillCJ (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
If most hovercraft operators have to get permission from an Air Traffic Controller then they're an aircraft. As Wikipedia prefers common usage guidance, I prefer the "ships" interpretation based upon how most hovercraft are used. -- SEWilco (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Another WP:AIRer here happy to let you guys have them :) --Rlandmann (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, during the 50s and 60s, UK hovercraft operated with Class B aircraft registrations. Looks like both projects is the correct thing to do, Mjroots (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

SEEING as though they are amphibios i think they should be ships.--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Victory

Since we are talking about infoboxes, and bearing in mind the discussion on the Bismark earlier, is it appropriate for U-boat infoboxes to proclaim victories? I have in mind Unterseeboot 38 (1938) "First sunk was the neutral Irish steam trawler SS Luekos on March 9, with a single shell, off Tory Island, all 11 crew were lost". How can sinking an unarmed neutral be a 'victory'? - ClemMcGann (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see your point. It's trending in the WP:NPOV direction, at best. The culprit is {{Service record}}. Perhaps the wording there should be modified? — Bellhalla (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Maritime law question

Where should I look to find information on the laws governing what privately owned vessels can be armed with? Jtrainor (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

THAT DEPENDS if you are looking for american laws i would try eiether the libray of congress or...a google search if that dosen't work you could talk to a navy recuriter --ANOMALY-117 (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox conversion: "Ship table" is gone

The last article-space reference to {{Ship table}} has been removed. Since it is protected, would an admin be so kind as to deep-six it? Cheers. HausTalk 00:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Parsecboy (talk) 02:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks much! HausTalk 09:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem, and good job on all those templates. About a day and a half ago, you said it would take a week, and now it's done :) Keep up the good work! Parsecboy (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh this stage of the project's not done yet: there's still about 800 {{Infobox Ship}} templates left, but they're coming along pretty quickly. They might be gone by tonight... HausTalk 13:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Cool, just let us know when you're done, and I or another admin here can delete the Infobox Ship template. Parsecboy (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Not that I think that the consensus would actually be to keep any of them, but shouldn't these templates be taken to TFD? I was the one who posted about being a little peeved that the CFD for Category:United States Navy ships disposed of as targets wasn't brought up here. It might be better to go through the formal process so that anyone with that on a watchlist can at least have their say. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
That seems reasonable to me; no objections. Parsecboy (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I would also agree that deletion should go through procedure. And as long as the nomination is mentioned here there won't be a lack of people disagreeing. --Brad (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Well, HMS Dragon was the 3,282nd and last of the {{Infobox Ship}} templates to be removed. Since it's protected, I can't put it up for TFD... so if a kindly adminwould be so kind, that'd be super. Cheers. HausTalk 01:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Y Done —WWoods (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Military submarine

{{Infobox Military Submarine}} has now been replaced and is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 3#Template:Infobox Military Submarine. Thanks. Woody (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

USS Hornet dilemma

This is a disambiguation problem. There were two Hornet's in service in 1805. The first one [1] has no date of launch or build to go on; just acquired or commission date. The second one [2] was launched in 1805. At USS Hornet, there was an attempt to solve the problem by creating USS Hornet (1805, sloop) and USS Hornet (1805, brig) however, Kralizec! moved USS Hornet (1805, brig) to USS Hornet (1805) citing WP:NC-SHIP but there is no convention that covers the problem of two ships with the same name and origins in the same year without hull numbers. The real question here is if we should disambiguate in these circumstances by ship type and using article naming such as (1805, brig) and (1805, sloop)? Note there is a similar plan at USS Washington. --Brad (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Are USS Hornet (sloop) and USS Hornet (brig) sufficiently unambiguous? My inclination would be to avoid a name like USS Hornet (1805, sloop) unless backed into a corner. Cheers. HausTalk 15:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC) I see that USS Hornet (sloop) is nowhere near unambiguous enough. Retracted. HausTalk 15:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know, but isn't that USS Washington dab page a bit overdone? Wasn't there a convention established that ship dab pages would only contain a minimum of info? Gatoclass (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
That conversation was here but I'm currently on US Navy ships, H. I predict that by August or September I should reach W. I cleaned USS Hornet earlier today which brings us here. --Brad (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think, if anything, the dabs for the two 1805 Hornets should be "1805 brig" and "1805 sloop" (with no commas) — Bellhalla (talk) 03:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping we could come up with a plan so it can be added to WP:NC-SHIP in case there is ever more of these situations. It is possible to determine the order in which the ships served so now I'm thinking (1805a) and (1805b) would work and avoid having to use (1776 lateen-rigged-galley) for the USS Washington's. --Brad (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Howabout a poll, as suggested at Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Ambiguity_persists. For the record, I think Bellhalla's "1805 sloop" beats "1805, sloop". Cheers. HausTalk 19:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah well, since USS Providence (1776 frigate) was just created I guess we'll stay with confusing and long article titles but yes, the commas shouldn't be there. Maybe we could even use USS Washington (1776 lateen-rigged-galley-made-of-oak-and-painted-pink-lost-in-the-capture-of-Manhattan) if need be. --Brad (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

SS Yale

merged uss greyhoud and the other ship don't remember what it is called..undo if you don't like it. its kinda crude but what do yall think? ANOMALY-117 (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC) (yes im Texan)

Deletion

so all in favor of deleting uss.greyhoud since it has been merged with ss yale?--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

As they appear to be the same ship - I would say convert the USS Grehound article to be a redirect to SS Yale. The SS Yale article still needs some cleanup to better merge the text (they currently read as two independant articles on one page, just need to work it into a single coherent article), I might have time this afternoon to work on that. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
wouldn't that create a disgambration page? --ANOMALY-117 (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
No, you cannot delete that page under the GFDL, the licence we all use for our content. I have redirected it and added the {{R from merge}} tag. Woody (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I have now gone ahead with a more refined merge of USS Greyhound (IX-106) and SS Yale. Anyone feel like doing the infobox for the three ships? Woody (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes versus navigation panels

Young Kyle (talk) has written two articles on fishing boats and put a ship infobox on one of them. I have been putting navigation panels, in the same place where ship infoboxes go, on most of the fishing articles. Usually this is not a problem. Then I came across Kyle's article, and put a panel there, so Kyle deleted it, and... well we have been having this discussion. And if you look at Kyle's article, you will currently find the navigation panel is below the infobox.

Okay, we have a battle for dominance - which is to prevail? I would like some discussion on this. Before kneejerking, as ship junkies (like me :)), in favour of the more familiar infobox, please first use the navigate panel to cruise some fishing topics.

My own sense is that it really needs to be either/or. It's untidy to have the navigation panel below the infobox, or vica versa. (There are also a lot of fishing boats in various classes not linked yet). As Kyle says himself, infoboxes are good, and so are navigation panels. Do we have to shoot for one and shoot the other, or is there another way out? --Geronimo20 (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

If the navigation panel were instead a navigational footer template, like the ones we use for ship classes, there wouldn't be any collisions in layout, and it could be consistently displayed in the same position on articles regardless of whether they have an infobox. Maralia (talk) 01:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Just for a little clarification, I did not personally add the infobox to that article, it was actually User:Brianhe (see [3]), though I certainly support its use. --Kyle(talk) 02:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Concur with Maralia -- a horizontal nav box makes the problem go away. HausTalk 03:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's the same thing at all. I reckon casual users, and many not so casual users, would not be aware that such a thing was there at all. And there is a big difference between scrolling down to the bottom and then maybe opening a hidden topic index. It doesn't have the convenience and open utility of a well constructed panel at the top right. --Geronimo20 (talk) 03:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I can't see a case for prescribing a panel over an infobox; infoboxes contain information about the actual subject of the article - eminently more relevant than links to similar articles. Maralia (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree, though I don't go along with the eminently more relevant bit. Good navigation is just as important as good information presentation, in my view. In fact it's just another part of good information presentation. However, infoboxes are well established with ships - they got there first. I agree that should prevail. I wanted to have this discussion in case I'm missing something. --Geronimo20 (talk) 04:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
What about trying to include some navigation into the infobox such as on the Boeing airplane articles (see Boeing 747)? I don't know how exactly it might work, but it seems like it might be somehow possible and would certainly solve the dilema. It's just an idea.--Kyle(talk) 04:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Or a collapsed navigation panel that sits on top of the infobox with a Show button. --Geronimo20 (talk) 04:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a pretty wide consensus on the common layout on ship articles of an infobox on the right and nav footers (if any) at the bottom. Nav panels are usually reserved for linking together related topics of a general nature. (There's a great example at Psychology.) Also, the nav panel in question, {{fishing boat topics}}, seems to be superfluous to the nav footer template {{fishing industry}} (which Geronimo20 also created). — Bellhalla (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That "fishing industry" navbox at the bottom of the article is total overkill for a ship article in my opinion. It just shouldn't be there.

Take the "other boats" box and put it at the bottom in place of the "fishing industry" navbox and it will be just about right IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This is partially the point I'm addressing Gatoclass. You are presenting a point of view that is very reasonable from the standpoint of WikiProject Ships. But it doesn't look so good from the standpoint of WikiProject Fishing. WikiProject Ships does not "own" the articles on fishing boats (at least not any more than WikiProject Fishing does). The design and operational control of fishing boats is increasing becoming standardised under FAO international regulations, pretty much as naval design and operational control came under the admiralty. These boats are an integral part of the fishing industry. There are, by the way, about four million fishing vessels world wide, 40,000 over 25 metres. --Geronimo20 (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Not sure I even see the relevance of the Other boats template, personally... surely there are more than just a handful of other fishing boats that either do, or can at some stage have articles? For such a generalised grouping, the category would be the place to look for other fishing boats - unless they are related by some common attribute such as class or operator... Martocticvs (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, all but the one South Korean boat in the panel are featured in the Discovery Channel show Deadliest Catch. Just 10 more days to the new season... :) — Bellhalla (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
This was actually my initial reasoning behind removing the panel. While I like the added exposure the box provides, it felt like there must be more boats that should be included on the panel. I immediately recognized some of the boats from Deadliest Catch (awesome show), but then there was the South Korean boat which did not seem to be connected to the others and the sail boat-- I especially don't see a connection there. No offense to Geronimo20, but there is something about his template that makes things seem over simplified. However, I would still like some sort of navigation on the pages. Moving the box to the bottom of the page seems to be the best option now, but I think somehow incorporating navigation into the infobox would be the best long term solution.--Kyle(talk) 20:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox for Lithuanian warship Prezidentas Smetona

Hello, I just wrote the article and I need help putting in the infobox - I know nothing about the ships so I am afraid I will misuse so terms. Thank you, Renata (talk) 02:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Image:Wiki-thanks.png Thank you! Renata (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

 ?

anybody miss me or no ? i should be on and of untill june then i'll be out of school and i can spend my boring summer days haveing fun here.question...

the navy i hear is building a new fleet. but when it comes to particular class it will keep all ships in the same class that are for example say the new warship they are build is it the ign or the igx or somethin like that but eaither way the ship class should cut down to two or three diffrent ship types but there could be many in each class. so what will we do now? plus this could create big disgamburation pages...ANOMALY-117 (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

math

hey this is redundent but uh.. some people might not know what 27knots is in relation to speed or what a fathom (i do know what these are) is etc... or words such as beam, bulkhead,etc.. so i was proposing we put a glossery subpage on the project page or something... i just realized that they could go look it up on wikipedia but still..ANOMALY-117 (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This might help: Glossary_of_nautical_terms. Cheers. HausTalk 16:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
(blond question) is it connected to the project page?
if not can i put it their in the infobox thing..?ANOMALY-117 (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
It's also possible to work the {{convert}} template into the infoboxes to help translate some measures into terms that the user will know. For example:
  • {{convert|27|kn|km/h|lk=on|sing=on}} displays as: 27-knot (50 km/h)
  • {{convert|25000|fathom|km|lk=on|abbr=on}} displays as: 25,000 fathoms (46 km)
I've used the knots conversion in several infoboxes, as it seems to help provide additional information for users unfamiliar with the term. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
great :> ANOMALY-117 (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
25,000 fathoms!! Even the Mariana Trench is only 11 km (6,000 fathoms) deep!
—WWoods (talk) 06:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
When you get that deep, you find beasts lurking. I wouldn't recommend it at all. HausTalk 10:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

nice :) ANOMALY-117 (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

HMCS Haida (G63)

Can someone take a look at the HMCS Haida (G63)? The initial bot-conversion of the infobox had problems with the "sensors" and "armament" sections because the original infobox had tables inserted that don't appear to work under the new template. I've restored the new template, but for now I've dropped those sections, and they need to be added back into the infobox. I'm leaving for work soon, so hopefully someone else can straighten this one out. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Got it. HausTalk 14:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"the great white fleet"

Do we have a page with the list of ships and what the "great white fleet" was?

They were coal driven right? and it got to expenseve to finish the curise and they also repainted them is that correct?..ANOMALY-117 (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, at Great White Fleet - all human knowledge is here. Benea (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

List of NHL ships and shipwrecks

There seem to be 129 ships and shipwrecks that are designated National Historic Landmarks of the U.S. I'm not sure what this list-article wants to be, exactly, but you're invited to help it become that. doncram (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Armed Merchant Ships

I request input on what appears to be a poorly organized subject -- arming of civilian vessels for military purposes. I consider the Q-ship and Naval trawler articles to be well defined subcategories of the subject. I suggest two (or three) additional subcategories.

The first would be the concept of defensively arming merchant ships. Conceptually this might include self-protection against pirates; but the British concept of Defensively Equipped Merchant Ships (DEMS) to counter early 20th century submarines is potentially a separate subject. Present articles on the subject include United States Navy Armed Guard and Armed Merchantmen. The first deals with a specific manpower organization rather than the concept; and the latter has what I consider inappropriate redirects of what I would propose as a second category.

The second would be the conversion of large civilian ships to Auxilliary cruisers with a naval crew. 20th century examples of this concept followed two approaches depending on the country's relative strength of conventional warships. The Royal Navy placed cruiser-caliber guns on fast liners to create Armed Merchant Cruisers for patrol duties and convoy escort. Germany placed similar guns on fast freighters to create Hilfskreuzers for disguised raiding of enemy commerce. Wikipedia presently includes a comprehensive group of articles on individual Hilfskreuzers using the English translation Auxilliary Cruiser.

I suggest substantial modification of the present Armed Merchantmen and Merchant raider articles moving appropriate parts into categories: Naval trawler Q-ship something like Defensively Equipped Merchant Ships and something like Auxilliary cruiser. I would value discussion and alternative suggestions. Thewellman (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I fully understand. When you talk about 'categories' I assume you are talking about articles? The two terms have different meanings on wikipedia. What specifically are the 'inappropriate redirects' in Armed Merchantmen? What specific information would you want to move in and out of these articles? Benea (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Please forgive my unfamiliarity with the nomenclature of Wikipedia. Terminology (naval or Wikipedian) is the focus of my confusion. I perceive significant subsets of Armed Merchantmen as Auxilliary Cruiser (large ship, military crew, several big guns), Defensively Equipped Merchant Ships (DEMS) (large ship, civilian crew, one or few medium guns), Naval Trawler (small ship, military crew, one or few medium guns), Q-ship (small ship, military crew, specialized ASW weaponry and tactics), and possibly another category for ships carrying military aircraft. The Armed Merchantmen article appears intended to cover the Auxilliary Cruiser subset, but the introductory paragraph inappropriately dismisses the more numerous DEMS subset while a later paragraph recognizes it's CAM and MAC aircraft equivalent.
The potentially redundant Merchant raider article may have arisen because the title and lead paragraph of the Armed merchantmen article was interpreted as a different subject. I would prefer a title like Auxilliary Cruiser or Armed Merchant Cruiser with prompt description and links to Naval Trawler, Q-ship, DEMS, and aircraft analogs in the introductory paragraph. Alternatively, the existing title and redirects might be better understood with earlier introductory emphasis on the Auxilliary Cruiser and Armed Merchant Cruiser terminology. Thewellman (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of alternative suggestions, I created a new Armed merchant ship article intended as a listing of military merchant ship conversion articles. I also created the Defensively Equipped Merchant Ships article and removed my previous additions to Merchant raider and Armed merchantmen to place that information in more appropriately focused articles. Thewellman (talk) 06:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree that a cleanup is required as there is currently considerable overlap and confusion between several different articles. My understanding is that merchant ships were armed for either defensive or offensive purposes, however some of these articles mix the concepts, making them confusing to the reader. My suggestion therefore is to consolidate these into two broad article types: Merchant raider (offensive) and Armed merchantman (defensive), with specific ship types and examples (e.g. East Indiaman, Auxilliary Cruiser) included as sections in one article or the other. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Please keep in mind as you're reorganizing that many/most current merchant ships have armaments ranging from pistols to small-arms magazines to mounted machine guns. OPNAVINST 3591.1E applies to lots of U.S. merchant seamen inside and outside of MSC. It's now routine for a merchant ship to have a small-arms mag similar in size and contents to a cruiser/destroyer. HausTalk 21:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Major reorganisation of these articles is needed, I think. IMO "armed merchantman" is too ambiguous, as it can mean both freighters and "raiders". The "-man" also sounds archaic to most people now, I think and sits very oddly with the tradition (that we observe) of ships being feminine.

I think auxiliary cruiser is an effective title which accurately describes the intent and purpose of the raiding vessels.

"Defensively Equipped Merchant Ships" was a purely UK concept, it seems to me. FWIW, "defensively equipped" seems redundant — virtually all merchant ships are armed in wartime, unless they are hospital ships etc Grant | Talk 08:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I prefer "Merchant Raider" for the class name to "Auxiliary cruizer", which is a sub-type. (Not all raiders were cruisers - e.g. SMS Seeadler). Also, the word "raider" is widely used and also conveys the offensive role. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what distinction you are drawing between Seeadler and other auxiliary cruisers. If a naval vessel is a cruiser, that description refers to its role, not the size or propulsion of that vessel. See Cruiser, which states that: "The term "cruiser" or "cruizer" was first commonly used in the 17th century to refer to an independent warship." IMO "merchant raider" is vague and less formal, whereas "auxiliary cruiser" accurately conveys the role and capabilities of this broad class of ships. Grant | Talk 14:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The originally mentioned "civilian vessels" term carries several important implications. Due to various legal distinctions between civilian vessels, military vessels, and state acts of war, there should be a clear line drawn between civilian vessels and military vessels. Camouflage of a vessel which is being operated by the military does not affect the vessel being a military vessel. A fishing vessel which is owned by the military is still a military vessel even if unarmed. A civilian vessel which is armed by its owner or crew is taking action as a civilian, unless acting under government orders. Exceptions should be clearly noted. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wilco, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. The issue here is the lumping together of (1) vessels used for troop/materiel transport (and armed for defensive purposes) and (2) warships which have been converted from civilian ships so that they can be disguised as merchant vessels (i.e the ships known colloquially as "raiders"). Grant | Talk 14:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Prod placed on List of naval commanders

List of naval commanders has been prodded. Calling attention here and at milhist so another one doesn't get deleted without our knowledge. I found it while looking for Esek Hopkins. --Brad (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

ok im watching it.ANOMALY-117 (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of naval commanders. Woody (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
why delete it? its better then makeing a page for each commander.ANOMALY-117 (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The point about the WP:AFD is to come to a consensus on whether to delete. Your opinion on that page would be welcome. Woody (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Halsey's Typhoon

Does anyone have this book? The full title is "Halsey's Typhoon: The True Story of a Fighting Admiral, an Epic Storm, and an Untold Rescue". There's some info I'd like to check. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Part of it is online at Google books. HausTalk 13:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Unfortunately, they don't seem to have made any of the contents available. Gatoclass (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Odd -- I'm seeing every page. What exactly are you looking for? HausTalk 16:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I own a copy. I haven't got around to reading it, but I'd be glad to check on something for you. Also, see if there is something of use here: User:MBK004/Library. -MBK004 18:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that's quite a collection!
Basically, I'd just like to confirm, if possible, that (a) the inquiry following the typhoon was held on the USS Cascade (AD-16); and (b) that Herman Wouk did indeed use the Cascade inquiry as the inspiration for his fiction novel The Caine Mutiny. Gatoclass (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
p.3 "...surveyed the wardroom of the destroyer tender USS Cascade... This, however was no court martial, merely a court of inquiry." p. 269: "The court... convened in the pilothouse of the destroyer tender USS Cascade to hear his testimony." p.286 "by far the most famous ship to survive Hurricane Cobra never existed. Following World War II, former Pacific Theater naval officer Herman Wouk immortalized the destroyer-minesweeper USS Caine in his..." Hope that helps. HausTalk 14:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Ker-blam! You're a legend Haus, thanks heaps for that.
Wish I knew why I can't browse the book myself though. Gatoclass (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
What with this and the NHC website, Gato, I think the internets hate you ;) — Bellhalla (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
There might be something to that, seems that when I hide my IP I can suddenly read the book, see below :) Gatoclass (talk) 04:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Try going to I Can Hide and enter books.google.com. Then search for Halsey's Tycoon again and it should be viewable as a limited preview. Harlsbottom (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey! It worked. That's weird, why does using a hidden IP allow me to read the book? Gatoclass (talk) 04:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

ADOBe reader 6.0 and use e-booksANOMALY-117 (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

weird

my task bar at the top with the "my talk, my prefrences..etc" is jumping to the left to the other side of the page every time my mouse goes over it.. any advice its freakin me out.ANOMALY-117 (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Try the Help desk or the Technical Village Pump. Tis not really a Ships issue. Woody (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

True but.... any way the problem has sorted itself out some so...ANOMALY-117 (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

refrence to nhl thing

here is a unmade page that needs to be made ..{{http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baltimore_%28tug%29&action=edit&redlink=1}} ANOMALY-117 (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC) maybe haus could do it i mean he has done a ton of stuff on some of the ship articles i moniter as it is... he's acutally really good! ANOMALY-117 (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

actually there are like ten or twenty pages that need to be made.--20:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Ships by navy

In Category:Ships by navy there are two naming styles for sub-categories: "Ships of XYZ Navy" and "XYZ Navy ships". Is there currently a consensus on how these should be styled? It's about 2 to 1 in favor of XYZ Navy ships right now (25 to 12, out of 37). It would be nice to have some consistency. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) doesn't make it explicit, but I think "Ships of XYZ Navy" is most in line with the logic of the conventions. The conventions refer to "of country" rather than "of navy" categories, but I think the same logic applies. TomTheHand (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I would tend to agree. Taking a look at Category:Ships by country all of them are styled as "Ships of XYZ". — Bellhalla (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Converting captain to a dab page?

I've opened a discussion on the Captain article's talk page about converting that article to a dab page. Although tangential to ships, it seems like there may be overlapping interest. Cheers. HausTalk 17:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Page naming problems: o/a, p/p, w/l

I've run into the following ship-related pages that seem to break naming conventions is the same manner that our "m/v" pages did: o/a, p/p, w/l. Any feelings? HausTalk 23:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need an article for the abbreviation of Waterline? W/L can safely be merged, p/p could be renamed to Length between perpendiculars. O/a can probably be moved to o.a. Does that seem reasonable? Parsecboy (talk) 00:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Or Hull_(watercraft)#Metrics. It's all there. Kablammo (talk) 01:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
That's even better; p/p should just be redirected to the section to which you linked. O/a will still need to be moved, because it has other meanings than the nautical term. W/L can still be redirected to Waterline. Parsecboy (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Y Done HausTalk 20:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me, nice work, Haus. Parsecboy (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

French navboxes

Hi all - just looking for thoughts on {{French Navy Vehicle}} now showing up on French Navy ship articles. Isn't this what Category:Active naval ships of France and its subcats are for? --Rlandmann (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem generally with the idea of a template in addition to a category. (Look at typical ship class articles within the project, which often have both.) I do think that template in particular could benefit from better design. For example, are the various colors supposed to represent anything in particular? Also, the arrangement of colors seems to mimic the look of a tabbed interface (but not that functionality). — Bellhalla (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree - no objections to the template existing; but I do think it would be better if it were converted to a standard {{navbox}} format so it fit-in better with the other navboxes it's above/below within articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The creator User:Toubabmaster is a native French speaker who mentions that he's en-0 on his user-page. Is anybody fluent? Je suis rustique. HausTalk 23:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Ugh. One look at that template and I've a headache. All it needs is some blinking text and frost and snow in the corners and we could put our presents under it next Christmas. Err, well.. It should be more inline with {{navbox}} --Brad (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I posted a suggested replacement on his talk page. HausTalk 15:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
It looks good, with one issue that I see: I don't have time to look, but I seem to recall there being objections to images in navbox title bars. I honestly can't recall where it was discussed, or if it's policy or a guideline, so don't take this as absolute determination to remove it. It's just a comment relying on my sketchy memory of the issue. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Good catch, Barek. I fiddled with the image for a bit, but it still looked like crap, so I removed it. :) HausTalk 15:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I see that your suggestion was accepted. Much better now.. whew. --Brad (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Unknown ship no picture.svg

Does the project have a need for this image: ? If not, please delete. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, I didn't even know it existed. We'll put this to good use. -MBK004 17:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I sense this might be a good time to a ring in again with the suggestion that we have a default "No Image Available" image if the image field is left blank in {{Infobox Ship Begin}}. HausTalk 17:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that is exactly how we should use this. Making it default would be a lot easier than manually adding it to all instances where we are lacking an image. -MBK004 17:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
FYI: There's a recent discussion started at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders which may directly impact the use of this or any other placeholder images in infoboxes. That discussion is actually about images for persons in biography articles, but there may be relevance, we should verify the scope of that discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, there are good reasons not to delete the image, since it's used on other WP projects. Besides, it's at Commons, anyway. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Our current No photo available seems to imply that a photo was searched for and one couldn't be found; therefore it might discourage someone from searching for one. I really think the mystery ship above would be a more productive and appealing to use in articles without photos and as a default infobox photo. --Brad (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

FA-class nomination of USS Bridgeport (AD-10)

The FA-class nomination for USS Bridgeport (AD-10) has been open for a (long!) while. More feedback is appreciated. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

As a follow up, USS Bridgeport was promoted to FA on 25 March. Thanks to all who took the time to review and/or copyedit. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

FA-class nomination of USS Siboney (ID-2999)

The FA-class nomination for USS Siboney (ID-2999) is open. All feedback is appreciated. — Bellhalla (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

To follow up, USS Siboney was promoted to FA on 11 April. Thanks to all who took the time to review and/or copyedit. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Opinions wanted on United States Army ship article merge

Brad101 (talk) and I discussed a merger of List of United States Army hospital ships and List of United States Army transport ships into a single article now placed at List of ships of the United States Army. How does everyone like that name versus the more succinct List of United States Army ships? All thoughts or suggestions welcome. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As phrases using the language of English, I like the more concise one. However, as an article title, I think List of ships of the United States Army is the best choice for MOS reasons Tom has pointed out in threads above. HausTalk 13:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Tom was talking about categories, I thought. Does that same consensus apply to articles? And would we then need to move List of United States Navy ships and all of its subpages to List of ships of the United States Navy, as well? — Bellhalla (talk) 14:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken, that's the topic under discussion here, right? HausTalk 14:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
My mistake. I was looking here. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
For me this all started with the topic posted here which then moved on to here. Keeping that in mind I've been trying to work on various list names when the opportunity arises. As I mentioned in the naming convention thread, the format of the list name is the least of the problems I see with ship lists. When I proposed List of United States Army ships, I had actually confused the naming convention once again which is why I returned to post about the name change. Part of this is my fault because I assumed that everyone had followed the conversation on the naming conventions page. --Brad (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I guess for me it comes down to the application of common sense. A overly strict reading of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics) would have us call any of these lists as "List of ships of the Foowegian Navy", but even higher up the page is says to treat with "common sense and the occasional exception". To me "List of Foowegian Navy ships" make more sense and is more natural than "List of ships of the Foowegian Navy". To look at a specific example: List of United States Navy ships has been at that name—moved, incidentally, from List of ships of the United States Navy—since December 2005 with no discussion since that time (that I could find) objecting to it; an implicit consensus, if you will.
FWIW, I'm all in favor of categories being "Ships of Foobia" or "Ships of the Foowegian Navy" rather than "Fowegian ships" or "Foowegian Navy ships". — Bellhalla (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with List of United States Army ships being more sensible than what I actually named the article and I'm not advocating the renaming of all the A-Z lists either. I would rather have seen more comments about this issue the first time it was brought up and I believe the issue should be solved once and for all. After seeing the naming convention applied to articles, I'd agree that its not the best thing to do. --Brad (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

{{cite DANFS}} now available

Template {{cite DANFS}} is now available for use in ship articles that need to cite information from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (DANFS). It primarily serves as a way to standardize references to DANFS in articles. Parameters in this template are similar to other citation templates. This template, however, does not replace the need for the template {{DANFS}} when public domain text is incorporated into an article. ({{DANFS}} provides the necessary public domain attribution.)

There's also a short form available for use with a Notes-and-Reference style of documentation. (USS Huron (ID-1408) article uses the template in this manner.) All comments and suggestions welcome. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Image placement with long infoboxes

According to WP:MOS#Images we're supposed to avoid sandwiching text between two images facing each other. Some editors, by extension, include infoboxes in the image category, which can make for some boring blocks of text if ship has a complicated history, and a complicated infobox to accompany. I was trying to come up with a solution to have right-aligned images in text that is (or probably will be) next to an infobox. So I came up with the idea (hare-brained, perhaps?) of making the whole article a "table" with the infobox in its own column and the rest of the article—text and images—in a left column. I've mocked up a sample of what this could look like at User:Bellhalla/USS Siboney (table style); you can compare to the original at USS Siboney (ID-2999).

Some pros and cons:

Pros
  • allows right aligned images next to infoboxes
  • relatively simple to implement (only 5 lines of formatting code)
  • html notes, <!-- -->, can be placed to explain the different layout
Cons
  • space under the infobox unusable
  • infobox templates are not in the place expected by experienced editors
  • more complicated than usual formatting may discourage contributions from newer editors

I know this isn't an everyday situation, and I'm not trying to propose this as a universal, one-size-fits-all solution, but wanted to get feedback on the possibility of using this under the right circumstances. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

My primary objection is already listed in the con side above ... the unused space under the infobox makes the article look sloppy, resembles a formatting error ... it also makes the article longer to scroll down. On a side note (but this one is easily fixable), the background color used in the table is pure white, while the natural background color in an article is some off-white shade - so it stands out on better monitors that are able to differentiate the tones of those sections. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Strictly on article appearance alone, the table idea is not good though it isn't quite as bad as that French ship footer discussed above. If some editors are intent on claiming the infobox is an image then your table solution may convince them otherwise. --Brad (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That's quite a coincidence. Just today someone moved the little badge that displays on the left hand side of HMS Tabard (P342) (and similar submarines) into the infobox, claiming that it might unduly squash the text and that since there was a place for a badge in the table, it would be better suited there. I disagree that it's an aesthetic improvement (it is very small) and my smaller than average monitor doesn't pinch the text in anyway. The field in the infobox has always seemed to me to be better for a textual description of the badge, eg. at HMS Arrow (H42), to go with the textual descriptions of everything else. The appearance of a badge halfway down it was rather odd in my eyes. I also felt that it added a little to a the body of short article and decreased an already comparatively large infobox (one of Belhalla's opening points). I wouldn't do it with a bigger image, or an image thumb, but in this case I find the little badge displaying there makes for quite a visually pleasing start to the article. I wonder if I could get any opinions on this though? Benea (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I recently tripped over an article with a badge on the left and thought to myself "My, that looks snazzy." On the other hand, as people get more familiar with {{Infobox Ship Begin}}, it seems manifest destiny that the thought of moving badges into the infobox is going to occur to them.
WRT the table issue, you could possibly tweak the table (or, alternatively a div scheme) to minimize the amount of blank space under the infobox. However, people use a wide variety of browsers, a wide variety of skins, a wide variety of fonts, and a wide variety of font sizes. My experience is that when you try to outsmart your layout language, you're headed for tears. Cheers. HausTalk 21:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

All other things aside, it's very poor form to use a table element for this purpose. Tables are for tabulated information rather than page structure, so if this is something that we might want to pursue further, it should be accomplished using div tags. Martocticvs (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ships by navy category rename proposal

Twenty-five navy ship categories have been proposed for renaming as follows:

Category:Royal Bahamas Defence Force ships to Category:Ships of the Royal Bahamas Defence Force
Category:Royal Australian Navy ships to Category:Ships of the Royal Australian Navy
Category:Brazilian Navy ships to Category:Ships of the Brazilian Navy
Category:Bulgarian Navy ships to Category:Ships of the Bulgarian Navy
Category:Royal Canadian Navy ships to Category:Ships of the Royal Canadian Navy
Category:Canadian Forces ships to Category:Ships of the Canadian Forces
Category:French Navy ships to Category:Ships of the French Navy
Category:German Imperial Navy ships to Category:Ships of the German Imperial Navy
Category:Indian Navy ships to Category:Ships of the Indian Navy
Category:Irish Naval Service ships to Category:Ships of the Irish Naval Service
Category:Republic of Korea Navy ships to Category:Ships of the Republic of Korea Navy
Category:Korean People's Navy ships to Category:Ships of the Korean People's Navy
Category:Regia Marina ships to Category:Ships of the Regia Marina
Category:Republic of China Navy ships to Category:Ships of the Republic of China Navy
Category:Republic of Singapore Navy ships to Category:Ships of the Republic of Singapore Navy
Category:Republic of Vietnam Navy ships to Category:Ships of the Republic of Vietnam Navy
Category:Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships to Category:Ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary
Category:Royal Navy ships to Category:Ships of the Royal Navy
Category:Soviet Navy ships to Category:Ships of the Soviet Navy
Category:Sri Lanka Navy ships to Category:Ships of the Sri Lanka Navy
Category:United States Army ships to Category:Ships of the United States Army
Category:United States Navy ships to Category:Ships of the United States Navy
Category:Venezuelan Navy ships to Category:Ships of the Venezuelan Navy
Category:People's Liberation Army Navy ships to Category:Ships of the People's Liberation Army Navy
Category:Republic of the Philippines Navy ships to Category:Ships of the Republic of the Philippines Navy

If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added my support for the change but isn't this naming convention counter to what is being discussed above re lists? For example: Category:Ships of the United States Navy would seem to go along with List of ships of the United States Navy and not Category:United States Navy ships and List of United States Navy ships. --Brad (talk) 02:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, maybe you're on to something. How about Category:Ships of the navy of the United States instead?  ;)
Seriously, Category:Ships of the United States Navy, for example, fits with the parent category of Category:Ships by navy and fits in with the other "Ships by…" categories, as in Category:Ships of the United States, Category:Passenger ships of the United States, Category:Naval ships of the United States, and so on. I'm not sure I see your connection on how one category naming style favors a particular list naming style, though. — Bellhalla (talk) 02:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It's still about the (object) (location) naming convention. While the category renames above will now follow the convention, the same convention for lists of ships makes the article title awkward. List of United States Navy ships means (location) (object) and not (object) (location). Since the convention when applied to lists becomes awkward this is where we have the controversy. --Brad (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
My view of the lists is that it's a list of (objects), "United States Army ships" being the objects. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
As a precedent (of sorts) you can look at the Grammy Awards. The article that lists the Grammy Award categories (not the WP-style categories, but the differing competitions) is entitled List of Grammy Award categories—and not, say, List of categories of Grammy Awards—while the various Wikipedia categories are listed as Category:Grammy Awards for jazz, Category:Grammy Awards for country music, etc., rather than Category:Jazz Grammy Awards, etc. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Where I'm going with all this conversation is to change the naming convention for lists @ WP:NC-SHIP and I appreciate your staying with my questioning :) When I have some spare minutes I shall post there. --Brad (talk) 06:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Using feminine pronouns when referring to ships

The issue of using feminine pronouns when referring to ships, is being discussed at Titanic. Is there a manual of style guideline discussing this at WP? Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 04:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This comes up periodically, here are some links: Wikipedia:MILMOS#Pronouns and Gender-specific pronoun#Ships and countries, or you can take a look at some of the prior discussions Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 74#Military History Manual of Style amendment (one of the most recent) and WT:Manual of Style/Archive (ships as "she") (one of the oldest). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Should we add a WP:SHIPS guideline for this?

As the guideline at WP:MILMOS#Pronouns is specifically for military ships, I suggest that we add a mention at WP:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines that mentions that in order to maintain guideline consistency for all ships, this project adopts the pronoun usage identified at WP:MILMOS#Pronouns for all ship articles. This would help provide a more direct guideline to reference for ships such as the Titanic, or even modern cruise ships. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I think the WP:MILMOS#Pronouns section could be copied part and parcel to just above the "Units and number formatting" subsection in WP:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines. HausTalk 19:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree with you both. For the sake of uniformity, I think it should be adopted. Woody (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed from here as well. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 19:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Add my approval to the group. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I tossed it in there provisionally. HausTalk 23:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Structure of the Ship article

The ship article is in pretty bad shape, but gets about 50,000 hits a month. I'm wondering if we could brainstorm a little and come to some consensus on what the structure of the article should be.

Right now, the whole article is about 20,000 characters. About 6,500 of that is in 2 lists. About 10,000 characters is on propulsion, which seems kind of lopsided to me. The current structure is:

  • 1 Nomenclature
  • 2 Measuring ships
  • 3 Propulsion
    • 3.1 Pre-mechanisation
    • 3.2 Reciprocating steam engines
    • 3.3 Steam turbines
      • 3.3.1 LNG carriers
      • 3.3.2 Nuclear-powered steam turbines
    • 3.4 Reciprocating diesel engines
    • 3.5 Gas turbines
  • 4 Group terminology
  • 5 Some types of ships and boats
  • 6 Some historical types of ships and boats
  • 7 See also
  • 8 External links

The French wikipedia has a FA-quality article Bateau. There's a little twist in that French language doesn't distinguish as clearly between a boat and a ship as English does. Anyway, the article is about 80,000 characters and their structure is, more or less:

   * 1 Terminology
   * 2 History
         o 2.1 Prehistory and Antiquity
         o 2.2 Through the Renaissance
         o 2.3 Specialization and modernization
         o 2.4 Today
   * 3 Architecture
         o 3.1 The hull
         o 3.2 Propulsion systems
         o 3.3 Steering systems
         o 3.4 Holds, compartments, and the superstructure
         o 3.5 Equipment
   * 4 Functioning
         o 4.1 Hydrostatics
         o 4.2 Hydrodynamics
         o 4.3 Structure
   * 5 Life of a ship
         o 5.1 Design
         o 5.2 Construction
         o 5.3 Repair and conversion
         o 5.4 Scrapping
   * 6 Uses and classiication
         o 6.1 Merchant ships
         o 6.2 Military vessels
         o 6.3 Fishing vessles
         o 6.4 Pleasure boats
         o 6.5 Sporting boats
         o 6.6 River boats
         o 6.7 Other
   * 7 Some notable boats
         o 7.1 Wrecks and rescues
         o 7.2 Technical characteristics
         o 7.3 Human exploits and exploration
         o 7.4 Imaginary or historical boats
   * 8 Around boats
         o 8.1 Life at sea
         o 8.2 Symbolism
         o 8.3 Marine archaeology
         o 8.4 Arts & culture
         o 8.5 Poetry of boats
   * 9 Sources
         o 9.1 Références
         o 9.2 Notes
   * 10 See also


So, (a) is anybody else particularly interested in this article, and (b) any thoughts on what the structure should be before we dust off the wreckin' ball? Cheers. HausTalk 20:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

To perhaps help move things forward, there's a cybertranslation of the whole article at User:Haus/5.

Controversy over Battle between HMAS Sydney and German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran again

After the issues we had over the naming of the article in the first place, it has been again moved, this time to Battle between HMAS Sydney and Kormoran. At first with no explanation, and after I reverted it, with the excuse that it was a shorter title. There are a number of reasons why I don't think this is an improvement, but I'd like to know if I'm interpreting guidelines, etc. correctly. Any thoughts welcome at the talkpage. Benea (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

And now I've cocked it up completely. Sigh, can an admin sort the title out asap? And maybe I'll go to bed before I can do anymore damage. Benea (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I think Battle between HMAS Sydney and German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran was the consensus/MOS title that was settled and is the right one. The move was probably as a result of mention of the article's lengthy title at WP:Requested moves (within another move request, here, in the section"Incomplete and contested proposals"). — Bellhalla (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, indeed I did mention the title there, as an example of a long title that is justifiably long. The current title is the consensus-agreed-upon title, so that consensus should have been overturned before any move were to be made. Parsecboy (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

F/V prefixes redux

Well, Xterra1 (talk · contribs) just moved FV Northwestern back to F/V Northwestern. I thought we had decided to move all these pages for technical reasons and eliminate the /? Could someone explain this to the editor and take care of this move. -MBK004 18:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note, but anyone else that can add things is welcome. Now I've got to revert the move. -MBK004 18:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability concerns with fishing vessels

I just noticed that someone has tagged FV Northwestern for possibly not meeting the notability requirements. I think we need to come up with something to establish the notability of such vessels. I say this because not all of the vessels that are featured in Deadliest Catch have articles. -MBK004 22:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Future tag

A user has removed the {{future}} tag from CVN-80, HMS Queen Elizabeth (CVF), and HMS Prince of Wales (CVF), along with a host of articles from other projects. Do we have any guidelines for or against the use of the template? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of one, and think it may be best to develop a guideline for articles on future ships. Also, have you tried to talk to the user in question? -MBK004 01:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I haven't, and I'm not planning on it. I looked at his talk page, and someone else has tried to discuss the issue, but doesn't appear to be making any headway. For personal reasons, I'm cutting back on involving myself with single-user crusades like this, hence my posting here. - BillCJ (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  • WP:AIR uses {{Future aircraft}}; perhaps we could adapt it as Template:Future ship, and at least have a consensus for its use on ship pages. - BillCJ (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    • That is a great idea! I had a look at that talk page as well, and I'm guessing that even consensus here may not be enough. -MBK004 02:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I've made {{Future ship}}. All suggestions for better wording, categories, etc., are welcome. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

History of Full Rigged Ships

Some shipsters may want to comment on this AFD. Gatoclass (talk) 09:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

HMS Cardiff (D108)

HMS Cardiff (D108) is up for an A-Class review with the Milhist project. The review can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Cardiff (D108). It has been open a while with limited comments. Anybody feel like reviewing please? Thanks. Woody (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:SHIPMOS

I noticed that WP:MILMOS is tagged at the top with {{style-guideline}} and included in Category:Wikipedia style guidelines. Would it be appropriate to do the same with Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines? Or should the ship guidelines be reviewed and expanded before receiving MOS status? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It took a while to get the MILMOS integrated into the MOS. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 67#Project style guide and MoS. Generally, opinions should be sought from the Village pump (policy) and WP:MOS on whether there is consensus in calling it a style guide. Woody (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hydroairy boat up for deletion

I know nothing about the Hydroairy boat article other than it is up for deletion. Just a heads up in case anyone wants to contribute to the discussion of improve the article. — Bellhalla (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

FA-Class nomination of USS Orizaba (ID-1536)

The FA-class nomination for USS Orizaba (ID-1536) is open. All feedback is appreciated. — Bellhalla (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for USS Comfort (AH-3)

An A-Class review for USS Comfort (AH-3) is open at WikiProject Military History. All editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! — Bellhalla (talk) 02:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox error

I've found two articles with infoboxes without any information. Since I'm too lazy to fill them in, I'll just let anyone who wants to tackle them: USS Sierra (AD-18) and USS Yosemite (AD-19). -MBK004 07:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Unfortunately, I screwed up on the Sierra 's ship ID when I uploaded the image, so I will have to get that moved, but I can't be bothered right now. Gatoclass (talk) 11:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's done now too, thanks to a little help from Haus. Gatoclass (talk) 11:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Brutto Register Tonnage

I've seen this term on enough articles that I was thinking about writing an article on it. A quick google search makes me think "Brutto" is just Swedish/Danish for "Gross", much as "Netto" seems to mean "Net." I can't quite read the sv:Bruttotonnage but that certainly seems to be the GT formula on that page. Does anybody know for sure? Cheers. HausTalk 19:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Brutto Register Tonnage is the term used for Gross Register Tonnage in the Scandinavian languages and Finnish (also German?). Gross Tonnage in turn in simply Brutto Tonnage, but it uses the same abbreviation as English (GT), whereas Brutto Register Tonnage is abbreviated BRT. In some recent documentations I've also seen BRT used as an equilent (sp?) for Gross Tonnage (possibly due to no "native" abbreviation existing for GT), but this in incorrect. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 10:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ships by cruise line

Is this change only being considered for the Military related vessels, or should it also be carried into renaming categories for cruise lines, such as renaming:

Category:Carnival Cruise Lines to Category:Ships of Carnival Cruise Lines
Category:Norwegian Cruise Line to Category:Ships of Norwegian Cruise Line
Category:Celebrity Cruises to Category:Ships of Celebrity Cruises
... etc
To be honest, there's a lot of inconsistency just within the naming of the commercial cruise line categories - so I was wondering if this renaming should be used to help bring those within a larger ship categorization standard - or if re-organizing the cruise ship categories should be a later project of its own. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
When I made the nom, I was just looking at the ships by navy cats. I would agree that the cruise ship categories should be styled as you have them, but I think it would be better to create them as sub-cats of the existing cats (Category:Ships of Carnival Cruise Lines would be a sub-cat of Category:Carnival Cruise Lines, Category:Cruise ships and also a sub-cat of Category:Ships by company or something else, perhaps.) I mention this because most of the cruise line cats seem to be parented to Category:Shipping companies rather than to some sort of "Ships by…" cat. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I was bold and did what I proposed with a smaller cruise line. See Category:Azamara Cruises and Category:Ships of Azamara Cruises. If this is satisfactory, I'll be happy to implement the changes for the other cruise lines. And if the consensus is to just rename the existing cats instead, I'll clean up the mess :) — Bellhalla (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
That seems a good solution. Helps standardize the naming to be consistant with the proposed military category changes, and improves the organization of the related cruise line categories at the same time.
Note: I've also modified the proposed category changes above to match how each cruise line names itself (originally, I had proposed they all end in "Cruise Line" ... but some have official names that end in "Cruises" while others use "Cruise Lines" ... so probably best to stick with their corporate name. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
In retrospect, I've got a feeling this would maybe leave us with a lot of categories (like Category:Azamara Cruises, for example) that have one article (Azamara Cruises) and one sub-cat (Category:Ships of Azamara Cruises). — Bellhalla (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)I've completed the changes discussed above for all the cruise line categories that contained ships. All are of the format of "Ships of Cruise Line" form except for Category:Ships of the Holland America Line (use of "the" in referring to the line seems to be most common). — Bellhalla (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I do have one question: I noticed that some of the "Ships of" categories are in both category:Cruise ships and category:Ships by cruise line, while others are only in category:Ships by cruise line. To me, I think that only the "Ships by cruise line" category is needed, but I wanted to see if there's agreement before I make the change. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the "Ships of…" categories being only in Category:Ships by cruise line. I pondered that while I was working on these, but didn't want the task to snowball into adding this, that, and the other thing. I do, however, think that each individual ship should remain in Category:Cruise ships regardless of whether it's in a "Ships of XYZ Cruise Line" category. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the change. It seemed a cleaner structure to me to only have the parent cat in the "Cruise ships" category, not all the subcats.
I agree that the individual cruise ship articles should remain in the "Cruise ships" category - unless a more formal category hierarchy structure is agreed upon at some point later. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I somehow managed to miss this conversation until yesterday (when I had no no time to reply) so sorry for coming in late—especially because I'm going to get slightly difficult on you. ^_~ While Category:Ships by cruise line looks good on paper, the format is going to cause problems when extrapolated into other types. Category:Ships by ferry line sounds ok (though I don't think I've ever seen the term "ferry line" used anywhere), but Category:Ships by ocean liner line certainly doesn't, nor does ships Category:Ships by container ship line, etc. etc. Additionally "line" is a somewhat ambiguous term—it can also mean "route", which might result in confusion (as an example, I've removed a few ports from Category:Cruise lines in the past—the original author having thought they are a part of a ship's line). So, I would propose changing the format to "Ship type by operator", giving us the more sensible-sounding Category:Cruise ships by operator, Category:Ferries by operator, Category:Ocean liners by operator, etc (of course presuming this would be in keeping with the MOS).
Apart from that, I think creating separate categories for "company" and "ships by company" is somewhat superfluous—as noted by Bellhalla above, this will leave us with a lot of cats that include only one article and the subcat. And there will be many more cases like that if we start using the same formatting for ferries and other commercial ships types outside the cruise business. But I did manage to miss the beginning of this thing and it does put us better in keeping with the cat naming convention, so... -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 15:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no objection to changing the category to "Cruise ships by operator" - I was just thinking such categories would be more in-line with the structure of the military ship groupings, but I have no strong attachment to any particular naming.
For the small category issues, I think the simplest solution is to eliminate the categories named after the cruise operators (ie: get rid of Category:Norwegian Cruise Line, Category:Carnival Cruise Lines, etc. Instead of those, the templates within those cats can go into a "Cruise operator templates" category, and the individual Cruise operator articles are already in the Category:Cruise lines. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not terribly keen on spreading articles related to one company to several unrelated categories, it's simply more practical to have all of them—be they templates, ship articles or company articles—in the same cat or it's subcats. So I'd definately prefer the current system, even with a lot of small cats, over spreading the articles to the ships by operator cats, crusie lines cat and templates cat. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 18:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Admin help needed for a requested move

Can some nice, friendly admin please move Pacific Dawn (cruise ship) to Pacific Dawn (ship)? The latter is currently a redirect that points to the former, and there is no other type of Pacific Dawn ship to disambiguate against. Thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the latter had been a duplicate article with a history behind it before it got turned into a redirect. Both merged now under the former. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge from history of Full Rigged Ships

see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Full Rigged Ships --victor falk 13:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

List of current/commissioned US Navy ship merger

We presently have Current United States Navy ships and List of United States Navy ships in commission. Both lists are suffering a bit from needing updating and while I can see the difference of a commissioned ship versus one that is in service, I think it would be a better idea to merge the lists. It would also be a good opportunity to figure out a proper name for the list. List of current ships of the United States Navy seems like it would be more inline with naming convention. I marked these for merger over a month ago and there have been no comments so far thus bringing it for conversation here. --Brad (talk) 04:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the list has subs, maybe something like List of current United States Navy vessels? HausTalk 09:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Haus's proposed title seems fine to me. Parsecboy (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Brad's title is more in line with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics), which specifies titling articles (object) of (country). Though this is a navy rather than a country it seems to me that the same logic applies. When other, similar articles are created, all "List of current ships of (navy)" articles will be next to each other alphabetically, which I think is the most useful sort order. I do prefer "vessels", though, since many commissioned vessels are more accurately referred to as "boats" or "craft". TomTheHand (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
If we go that route then most other lists of ships will have to be changed to list of vessels. Mostly in mind are List of United States Navy ships and all the A-Z pages under it, since subs are on each page. --Brad (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking further into this it's apparent that List of United States Navy ships in commission is heavily tied to List of United States Navy ships and all of the corresponding A-Z lists. The least painful way to do this would be to merge Current United States Navy ships into List of United States Navy ships in commission and then rename the article accordingly. --Brad (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Table solution

Another issue I found was that List of United States Navy ships in commission is alphabetical and Current United States Navy ships is listed by ship type with ship classes as subheadings. Both are good ways to cross-reference for those who might be looking for a ship but only have one piece of the information at hand. Having two lists is a bulky way to go as you have two lists that need updating and watching etc. I thought a table solution would be in order that allows us to cross-reference in 4 ways on one page. I made an experimental table at Current United States Navy ships#Table where you can see how this would work. The table headings template is at {{United States Navy ship table headings}} where we can edit the columns. Currently there is an issue with table headings on the far right. I wasn't sure exactly how to turn it off so some help would be appreciated. Obviously we can add more columns if needed but right now there are 4 different ways to cross-reference. --Brad (talk) 04:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The extra "!!" at the end of {{United States Navy ship table headings}} was the culprit, and it's now been removed. — Bellhalla (talk) 05:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the table, I'm not so sure the link to the ship in the second column is necessary. I like the hull number in a separate column, but some readers might expect its link to go to an explanation or something else. — Bellhalla (talk) 05:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I would agree as well. The hull number will always follow the ship name so there isn't much reason to have dual links. The other question is how this table might look and function after there are 250+ ships entered. The idea is to replace the entire page with the table by migrating the ships listed above it into the table. Having 250+ ships in one table would be difficult to edit. We could have several tables with 50 ships each or another combination like that. --Brad (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
In general, one list is strongly preferable to multiple shorter lists, if u actually want to look up anything other than on the first column. There are 500 or more ships listed in List of Liberty ships: A-F. Not sure of my estimate, it is not a numbered list. It has 7 sortable columns though. Liberty ships were simply too numerous to fit in one sortable list, so there are four of them now (fewer than there were before an AfD about them). doncram (talk) 02:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The inspiration in this case actually came from the Liberty ship lists but it's likely that the Liberty ship lists will rarely need ships added or removed. The list of current ships will need regular editing as ships are activated and deactivated. My thoughts were with the novice editor trying to negotiate a large table. --Brad (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you may be trying to be considerate, but I can't see anything difficult for a novice or anyone else to add a new ship into the right position in an alphabetical list, even one where the alphabetical order is upon first "significant" word. See the numerous state-specific lists of National Historic Landmarks, e.g. List of National Historic Landmarks in South Carolina, organized by first significant word with a leading number column. The information in the two lists List of United States Navy ships in commission and Current United States Navy ships could easily fit in one sortable list. The navigation tools to jump to ships starting with A, ships starting with B etc. are superfluous, and are just clutter in my view. I helped out in simplifying/combining the Liberty ship lists. This list of current ships seems easy to just put in one, and that's the obvious solution, in my view. Just do it! :) doncram (talk) 05:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know (and, frankly, haven't taken the time to find out) how many ships are being discussed for this table, but I hope for ease-of-use that it is significantly fewer than the number than the Liberty ship articles. I feel that I have about an average speed, memory, etc., computer, and the sortable lists on the LS pages take a long time to sort.
By the way, I would hardly call alphabetic nav aids clutter, but I guess it depends on the size of the list you're talking about. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting how you mention the length of time it takes to sort the Liberty ship tables and it was the reason I was wondering if multiple smaller tables would solve that problem. There are about 275 current ships so I was thinking 100 + or - a few per table. We'll see how things go once I start. --Brad (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I was concerned about the Liberty ship tables again after the above comments. After revisiting them and trying a change or two, I think that the problem with their slow loading is their repeated use of the "dts2" template. The dts2 template is a 30-or-so line template that takes a while to operate and inserts a hidden field of a certain size, as one approach to permit date sorting. I created List of Liberty ships: A-F/Temp which does not call the dts2 template, but rather uses another date format that is directly sortable. I think loads a lot faster than List of Liberty ships: A-F. The table includes 722 ships, and is sortable (in either version) by two date columns. The version using dts2 has 1,440 calls to that template. If this is okay, I'll switch the new version out to replace the old, and I could do the same for the other 3 liberty ship tables. doncram (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the proposed solution, but the date sorting in List of Liberty ships: A-F/Temp doesn't work for my date preference style of "Day Month Year". The reason {{dts2}} was created (and the reason it was used in this instance) is because date preferences really screw up date sorting in tables. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
AAAaaaarggh. My date preference was set at "16:12, 15 January 2001" which works for sorting the Temp version. But I see that date preference "16:12, January 15, 2001" does not. Aargh. doncram (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) There is a table under construction @ Current United States Navy ships/Temp and discussions taking place on the talk page there. Another list I found: List of active U.S. Navy ships, sorted by homeport has also been merged into the game. --Brad (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

uss bush

i think a new aircraft carrier is due to be comishend this month..ANOMALY-117 (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The USS George H. W. Bush (CVN-77) is not scheduled to be commissioned until 10 January 2009 according to the official website. Benea (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
hmm.....my book on aircraft carriers says it is due this month...it was probaly pushed back ..how odd almost a year behind schedule tsk..tsk..tsk...well thats the us navy for ya. ANOMALY-117 (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The Shitty Kitty will be decommissioned this year with the GHWB taking its place after 47 years of service. The Kitty is older than I am believe it or not. --Brad (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

ya hopefully they will turn the kitty into a museam rather then blow it into pecies or worse scrapped..ANOMALY-117 (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK article list?

Is there any interest in keeping a running list somewhere in the project space of WP:SHIPS DYK articles? It seems like it might be a nice brag-piece for the project, much as the FA list. There's a list of the 237 that I could find for the time being at User:Haus/sand. Cheers. HausTalk 22:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Late comment, but, yeah, I think that would be an appropriate list to maintain for the project. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I popped a section on WP:SHIPS as one possible layout. If anybody has a better design idea, please feel free to change as you see fit. HausTalk 23:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
One nitpick, all names of the ships need to be italicized. I'm quite busy at the moment and not able to do it, I normally would, use the shortcut templates to expedite. -MBK004 23:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I think I set a record for consecutive typos, but I managed to italicize my way through the list. It wasn't clear whether disambiguation stuff should stay or go, so I left it in since it's easier to remove than put back in. Cheers. HausTalk 01:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll take a look in a couple of hours and fix anything that needs it. -MBK004 01:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1982

I added this entry a while back -

Date Operator Ship Class Cause Location Notes
December 31 Flag of Panama Panama MS Johanna Hartland Point, Devon. Shipwrecked at Hartland Point, Devon.

But it has been deleted as unreferenced. The incident must have made the local papers at the time, is there anyone who can provide a reference for this? If enough info can be found, maybe even an article can be written about the ship. Does anyone know the IMO Number of the ship? (disussion copied at Devon Wikiproject) Mjroots (talk) 09:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You are correct - there was such a shipwreck. there is a mention at the end of this newspaper article [4] and bits of it can be seen in this tourist video [5]. Good Luck ClemMcGann (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that's a start as it confirms the year and location. I'll wait for a response from the editor who deleted it before re-adding it to the list. Mjroots (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The entry is back (in part) in the article, please see the talk page for discussion about references for removed info. Mjroots (talk) 09:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Possible IMO number of 5172779, but a search only gives this result. Mjroots (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Queen of the Netherlands (ship)

The Queen of the Netherlands (ship) article is up for deletion. All interested editors may comment at the article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

delete if you wish but i might rinstate it when im done editing it in my sandboxc to make it more lengththy and to where it dosn't become a candite for deletion agian...i shall be posting a link to the box shortly or you can look on my page but i have to make the link there first too..ANOMALY-117 (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

D/S Ships

I tripped over a few of these this morning and am getting around to fixing them. Here's a widget I put together to look for names with F/V, M/V, and D/S. Cheeers. HausTalk 15:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible slashed vessel names

The prefix C/S is also in use (Cruise Ship). Mjroots (talk) 07:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

C articles added to the widget from Haus (talk · contribs). Also, the one C/S ship has now been moved. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Categorization proposal

I've made a proposal in regard to use of sub-cats of Category:Ships by navy on the Categorization talk page and welcome any feedback there. — Bellhalla (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Still looking for some feedback on some proposed categorization changes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Categorization — Bellhalla (talk) 11:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders

This debate may impact Image:No Photo Available.svg so you may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders.Genisock2 (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If I'm reading this huge flying spaghetti monster of a conversation correctly, the use of placeholder images is now forbidden. HausTalk 14:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure? It appears that their use has been agreed as controversial (note that the discussion centred on the placeholder versions used in biographical articles) but I haven't seen an injunction either forbidding their use, either by disallowing their addition to articles or by encouraging their removal from existing ones. It appears that work is now underway to see if a better alternative can be developed. But perhaps we should hang fire before declaring them forbidden? Benea (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I was about to say the same thing; it doesn't appear that a consensus has been formed to remove place holders. We should probably just sit tight until something firmer emerges. Parsecboy (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I think most of us here at ships, myself included, like placeholder images, so I'm not suggesting we start removing them. The reason I brought it up was that I've already gotten sandbagged by people removing placeholders. As far as I can tell, and I'm not sure at all, Proposal 1:Placeholder images should not be used at all on the main page of articles has passed. HausTalk 15:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
That specific resolution appears to have been numerically passed, but the decision seems to not be endorsed by consensus as expressed in the main discussion. The decision will either be endorsed there as being a policy, or a guideline, or it will be rejected, or else close as no consensus. That stage does not seem to have been reached, anyone removing placeholders and quoting the discussion is jumping the gun. Benea (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

USS Murphy

I'm watching "Sunken Warships" on the History Channel at the moment. Subject of the programme is USS Murphy, sunk in 1943 by a German U-boat. The info in the article on USS Murphy is completely at odds with the programme. Were there two USS Murphys, or is most of the history in the article incorrect? Mjroots (talk) 07:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems that it was incorrect information in the trailer to the programme. Mjroots (talk) 08:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Links to Current US Navy Ships

I've cleared the only article linking to: {{Links to Current US Navy Ships}} and believe this template could be deleted under the housekeeping rule though I'm willing to nominate and do the process as well. --Brad (talk) 01:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Nick Dowling (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Coast Guard Lighthouse Tender "Fir"

I ran across this article, and if makes me suggest tht Lighthouse Tenders, and perhaps the Fir, would be the subject of a good article. It's way off the beaten path for me, and I certainly have no expertise. So I'm passing on this link. http://www.nps.gov/history/maritime/nhl/fir.htm Maybe someone will pick it up and carry the ball. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC) Stan

FYI, there is in fact a STUB article entitled Lighthouse tender. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Stan
There's a Coast Guard history page at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/history/webcutters/Fir_1940.html It's public domain, so help yourself.
—WWoods (talk) 06:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Both of the references mentioned were already included in USCGC Fir (WLM-212), an article which could be further developed though. Also an expanded article about the lighthouse tenders as a group could be helpful. doncram (talk) 03:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Lists of shipwrecks etc.

An IP editor persists in adding unreferenced entries to various disaster lists, including the shipwreck and maritime incidents lists. I know that a bit of searching would probably produce references, but I've got better things to do than clean up after IP's who can't be bothered to provide the references in the first place.

What's the best way to deal with these - tag or delete as unreferenced? Mjroots (talk) 11:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Dubious looking unsourced material should be removed. --Nick Dowling (talk) 11:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

HMS Triton

I cannot reconcile this info with that on an external website. I have raised it on the talk page. Is there an expert on ships of 1740-1745 who can help please? Kittybrewster ☎ 15:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've responded (though by no means an expert). It seems to be a rather glaring error in the external website you quote. Benea (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
i'll help with what i can and i have lots of books but wwll is more of my area but even with wwll ships im still not very good but still i will do what i can ANOMALY-117 (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, but the matter has been cleared up anyway. Benea (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
?ohwell.ANOMALY-117 (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Ship Class - Infobox Class - Infobox Ship Class/doc

{{Infobox Ship Class}} has been cleared of articles using such; and {{Infobox Class}} is a redirect now no longer needed. I also found {{Infobox Ship Class/doc}} which seems no longer needed as well. Can someone look these over before I nominate for deletion in case I missed something? Once again Haus (talk · contribs) was the main force behind converting the boxes. I just did some sweeping up. --Brad (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

We might want to leave a note on some of the talkpages of the users who have sandboxes still using the old infobox. Other than that, good to go. Woody (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I have done so and also removed another new use of the template. I think Infobox Class has to go to redirects for deletion? If you're more familiar with the process would you be so kind as to nominate? --Brad (talk) 07:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Another one bites the dust. Deleted under the Housekeeping criteria of speedy deletion. Woody (talk) 09:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Yep, done. Nice work to everyone concerned with the conversions and notifications. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) {{Infobox vessel type}} is up for deletion at TFD — the discussion is here. Cheers. HausTalk 15:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget {{Infobox vessel type/doc}} that went along with it. --Brad (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Project page layout?

I started to wonder what the project page would look like in a box layout and put a rough sketch up at User:Haus/4. Any feelings on whether a redesign like this is worth pursuing and polishing? HausTalk 14:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks good, but perhaps some rearrangement of the sections. I might bump the admins list to the bottom of its stack, for example. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
the location of the scrollbars make it hard to scroll down the page itself you might want to rearandge those boxes.ANOMALY-117 (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
My only gripe is that it's wider than my monitor (my laptop has a 14" screen), so I have to scroll over to see all of it. Can you make it a bit narrower? I would agree with Bellhalla re: the admin list position; I'd prefer to flip it with the tasks box. Anyways, that's my 2¢. Parsecboy (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
On a 17" monitor @ 1024 x 768 there are several boxes that are giving the <--> scroll bar which at this resolution makes them just large enough to require the scroll. It's somewhat annoying but I can see there isn't much room to expand without making the other boxes do the same. --Brad (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

CfD on Category:Ship disambiguation

I was just informed [6] that Cat:Ship disambiguation has been nominated for merge and deletion into Cat:Disambig-Class Ships articles as part of a proposal that would also have all of the ship disambiguation pages redefined from {{shipindex}} to {{disambig}}. Those interested in the debate may join in at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 2#Category:Ship disambiguation. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

More input is really needed to this proposal by ships members. Poor turnout so far. --Brad (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This CfD closed as Keep on 9 May. --Brad (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

MV Island Sky

The MV Island Sky stub article is up for deletion. Island Sky is a ferry currently under construction. Comments are welcome at the article's entry at the Articles for deletion page. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review request for Bulk carrier

I plan to list bulk carrier for A-class review here at WP:SHIPS within a couple of days, and would really appreciate feedback prior to doing so. The article was listed as a GA a year ago and later failed at FAC. Since then, I've whittled down on the FAC feedback to a handful of remaining issues which I expect to resolve in the next couple of days. Also, Maralia has been kind enough to work her magic on the article, which has been a pleasure to watch. Cheers. HausTalk 02:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The A-class review of Bulk carrier is open at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Assessment/Bulk carrier. As this article doesn't fall into any other project spaces, I'd ask WP:SHIPS editors to please consider taking the time to comment on the article. Thanks. HausTalk 15:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
If someone could close the A-class review for bulk carrier, I'd appreciate it — it's time for me to go drive the tanker for a few months. Catch y'all on the flip side. HausTalk 10:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Commercial ship disambiguation by which year?

This cropped up as a part of an ongoing conversation between myself, Tenmei and GraemeLeggett, and I feel this should be brought to the attention to a larger group of people, so...

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Disambiguating ships with the same name states that ships without pennant numbers should be primarily dabbed by their launch year. However, a large number of articles (possibly even a majority, I haven't actually checked) on commercial ships use the service entry date instead—this is such a wide-spread practice that I actually thought it was the convention until today. This being the case I thought the matter should be brought up for discussion—while I'm not for upsetting the convention, I do feel that dabbing by service entry date is more intuitive and practical (plus it would be in keeping with system used in widely used sources such as William H. Miller's The Pictorial Encyclopedia of Ocean Liners and the Fakta om Fartyg website).

...and I decided to post this here instead of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) as this'll probably attract a greater number of readers. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 08:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The convention we've been following on the naval ships where this situation has cropped up is to add the year at which the ship entered service with that particular navy. For example HMS Berwick (1775) and French ship Berwick (1795) are the same ship. She was launched for Royal Navy service in 1775, but then you have the problem that if you were going to write an article on her French career, she wasn't French ship Berwick in 1775, so the sensible thing is to do that by year of entry into French service. To apply this to civilian ships, RMS Empress of Australia (1919) is something I have a problem with. She was not RMS Empress of Australia until 1922. She was launched in 1913, named SS Tirpitz in 1919 and RMS Empress of China in 1921. I would suggest the practice should be:
  • Title by most well known/notable name and prefix - so 'RMS Empress of Australia'
  • If this was the name she was launched under, dab by that - so if she had been launched in 1919 as RMS Empress of Australia, title as 'RMS Empress of Australia (1919)'
  • If not, title by the name she enters service under this name - so 'RMS Empress of Australia (1922)' with redirects from 'SS Tirpitz (1919)' and 'RMS Empress of China (1921)' Benea (talk) 09:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
So, am I understanding correctly that the convention that has been followed on naval ships has in fact also been following the entry into service date? If that is the case, an update to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) would definately be in order.
Dabbing subsequent incarnations of the same ships by entry into service under that name could be good, but it could also potentially be extremely confusing. Using my favourite example, by this practice the different names of MS Wasa Queen would become MS Bore Star (1975), MS Silja Star (1980), MS Orient Express (1986), MS Club Sea (1986), MS Eurosun (1987), MS Orient Sun (1991) and MS Wasa Queen (1992)—personally I would find it clearer and more practical using the original year of construction in all cases, which would make it clear the ship in question in all cases is the same ship. I admit this could be potentially misleading though... but I do think that is a problem in the other proposal as well. And, again, dabbing all incarnations by the year the ship was originally completed would again follow the system used by Miller and the FoF site. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 11:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
So now I'm confused... I thought it was always the entry of service and/or launch date for the ship. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
But they are completely different dates. And the naming convention page states the launch date, if known, takes precedence (sp?) over entry in service date—which seems to be the opposite of what people have been using. Unless I misunderstood something (which is highly likely, I'm trying to do far too many thing at the same time right now). -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 12:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, the launch date takes precedence. So HMS Berwick is at 1775, the year of her launch, rather than at her year of commissioning. But when the article is titled French ship Berwick, I think it would be misleading to dab it by 1775, as it would imply she had been a French ship since 1775, rather than 1795 as is the case. There is confusion in this system I admit, in that it forces people to choose a year of entry rather than using a launch date in every case. Another con is that you imply the ship is not as old as it actually is. Perhaps with a change between navies where two articles can be the norm, it is appropriate to distinguish this major shift in career by titling by entry into service, but when a commercial ship changes its name, its usually just because a different company has bought it, or a name goes out of fashion and a new one is chosen for some reason, ie no major career change. In this case launch year may be best, I don't really mind. Benea (talk) 12:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, ships should be under the name they are best known under. Typically this will either be their name on launch or current/most recent name. There will be exception where a ship was launched under one name, had an accident under another name and the carried further names. A possible solution to disabiguate between ships in the event of a name clash would be "SS Smiff (1899)" for the vessel launched in that year, and "SS Smiff (renamed 1920)" for the vessel renamed in honour of the first SS Smiff. Another way to disambiguate is the careful use of MV and MS - MS Celtic Star and MV Celtic Star for example. Mjroots (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
An article on a ship should certainly be named after the most notable name of the ship—but you usually also have redirect from the possible other names, so in almost every article there is the need for at least one dab with some name. I'm not too keen on usage of MS and MV to disambiguate between two otherwise identically named ships. The usage of those differs between countries and languages, and depending on practices the same ship can be referred to by either title depending on the source (case point: DFDS have at least in the past referred to their ships with an MV prefix in English-language material and MS prefix in the Scandinavian languages). As a result confusion resulting from this practice can be too large compared to the benifit. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 21:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the first entry-- for merchant ships disambiguating by service entry date is not only more intuitive, it is easier.
At Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Disambiguating_ships_with_the_same_name it is stated:

. . . use the ship's year of launching if known — like human birthdays, every ship has one — . . .

This is wrong. Many merchant ships are not launched at all; they are built in graving docks and floated out. (Also see comments of marine architect Jmvolc re old commercial ship template.) We will not have launch dates for ships that are not in fact launched, and float-out dates are not generally available. All we will have is service entry dates. Whereas navy ships typically are named at launch, cruise ships have naming ceremonies on delivery or acceptance.
We should keep the present practice for navy ships and use service entry date for merchant vessels. Kablammo (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that any method of putting a ship in the water counts as 'launching', whether the ship slides down into the water or the water wells up under the ship. And the shipyards must keep track, although their records may not be available.
—WWoods (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
We should not call for "launch" dates for ships which are not launched (according to at least one marine architect-Wikipedian), nor apply our interpretations of the term. Nor should we allow familiarity with naval customs to carry over to merchant ships. The purpose of the old commercial vessel template was to eliminate that bias in the old naval-oriented ship template which was incorrectly used for merchant ships-- calling for displacement, launch date, etc. That is why that old commercial vessel template called for service entry date, because that is known. (And to confuse the issue further-- dozens of Wikipedia articles on cruise ships have taken "launch dates" from cruisecritic.com, which incorrectly uses service entry date as the launch date, perhaps under the supposition that is when the service was launched.)
To the narrower issue of disambiguation: To continue to use launch dates for older vessels where that date is known, and service entry dates where launch dates are unknown, is inconsistent. As we will always know service entry dates (or something close, like acceptance or maiden voyage), and will rarely know launch dates (and I'ved tried to search for them), let's use the consistent measurement. This does not affect naval ships, but merchant ships only. Kablammo (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Well it does affect naval ships in some cases, as there are occasions where no launch date for a ship is known, only a date of acquisition, or a period of time in which she was in service. Or when a naval ship was acquired after a period of civilian service, or changed between navies. This is Wikiproject Ships after all and we should try to strive for consistency across all ship articles so far as possible. Therefore I would be opposed to applying one standard for commercial vessels and one for naval vessels. We have so far disambiguated by launch dates where known and entry of service dates if this is unknown. It would be consistent to keep to this on which ever ship we are dealing with. Benea (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to beat this to death, but an appeal to exceptions should not justify an ill-fitting rule which will lead to problems, for the reasons mentioned above. We do not demand, for the sake of consistency with naval ships, a displacement measure for merchant ships (which perhaps is as hard to find as float-out dates). As Kjet mentioned above, the standard in real life for merchant ships appears to be date of entry into service. The fact that a handful of merchant ships may later be taken into military service as auxillaries does not alter that fact. Nor would there be any requirement to rummage around for "launch" dates once an RMS or USS is added. If Wikipedia is to reflect real life, we should use the common measures used in real life. Kablammo (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Well yes in a way I agree. But the problems that seem to be being raised are that:

  • The launch date for merchant ships is often unknown - the launch date for military ships are sometimes unknown, in which case we go by an entry into service date.
  • The entry of service date often changes because of service with different companies - the same happens with military ships, where the same ship can be captured and renamed, then recaptured and renamed.
  • The standard for military ships isn't set either. Launch dates and commission dates are often used interchangeably.

I really wasn't appealing that exceptions prove the rule, but rather that there hasn't been a problem raised so far that is unique to commercial ships. Navy ships can have them too. So I still don't see the need to treat them differently. How is this rule ill-fitting, other than that sources are hard to find? If you can't find a launch date, use an entry into service date. I hope you don't see this as naval vs commercial. I have written dozens of articles on commercial ships as well as navy ones so I really am sympathetic, and I know that they many are in a dismal state. But I don't see this as an excuse for splitting an existing convention. Benea (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And the more I look into it, the more I wonder (and desperately hope) we are arguing at cross purposes. If the article is titled RMS Empress of Australia, then I am in favour of disambiguating it by the year that she entered service as RMS Empress of Australia (1923) NOT the year of launch (1913 - under no name!). I am also in favour of titling a navy ship by these very conventions - so HMS Berwick when she was launched as HMS Berwick, ie 1775, BUT French ship Berwick by the year that she entered service as French ship Berwick, ie 1795. Hence my support for articles titled HMS Berwick (1775) and French ship Berwick (1795), and my opposition to articles titled RMS Empress of Australia (1919) - which I think should be titled as RMS Empress of Australia (1923) - the year that she entered service. Benea (talk) 22:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Estonian Navy ships - EML or ENS?

A quick question, hoping that someone might know more about this than me... We currently have a number of Estonian Navy ships, titled at ENS Admiral Cowan (M313) for example. The Estonian Navy itself (according to their official website) instead uses the prefix EML. I wonder (and indeed strongly suspect) if the 'ENS' is someone's attempt at a translation of this prefix - i.e. Estonian Navy Ship Foo. This in turn would seem to go against our 'don't use invented prefixes' guideline, which is why we have ARA Patagonia (B-1) (i.e. 'Armada de la República Argentina') - and not a translation to something like ANS Patagonia (i.e. Argentinian Navy Ship). If this is the case and the 'ENS' is a translation and not the actual prefix used, I think we should use EML Admiral Cowan (M313) instead of ENS Admiral Cowan (M313). So:

  • Is EML the actual prefix?
  • If so, should the Estonian ship articles be renamed?

ttfn, Benea (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I took a quick look-see, and as far as I can tell, that's how the Estonian Navy translates it. I clicked the little UK-flag, and the ship prefix seems to have become "ENS." See, for example, http://www.mil.ee/index_eng.php?s=merevagi. HausTalk 20:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes I'd noticed that, which is why this is not quite a clear cut case. It makes me suspicious that the Estonian Navy are, along with helpfully interpreting their site for English readers, have also interpreted their ship prefix. The Estonian Navy is called the 'Merevagi', but in the English version of the website, it is simply 'Estonian Navy'. Similarly it seems they would prefix their ships EML, but when called upon to describe them for English readers they use ENS. My question is whether we use the Estonian prefix or the English translation of it. We have precedents both ways, such as using 'ARA' - 'Armada de la República Argentina' instead of 'ANS' - 'Argentinian Navy Ship'; but also using 'HNoMS' - 'His Norwegian Majesty's Ship' instead of 'KNM' - 'Kongelig Norske Marine'. I'm just wondering which way we should go on this particular example. Benea (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
They have a prefix in

their official language site (and an English translation counts as little known) so use that, or take the "Estonian frigate XXXX" route. I favour a move and let the redirect pick up any confusion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • ENS stands for EML which is in Estonian. ENS means Estonian Navy Ship (Eesti Mereväe Laev in Estonian). As this is an English Wikipedia therefore I created the navy ships pages with the ENS. EML is propper to use on Estonian Wikipedia.

Karabinier (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand the Estonian wikipedia uses HMS for Illustrious and not an Estonian translation. I don't think we should be creating our own abbreviations.GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Well both ways ENS or EML is fine with me cos it aint the most important thing-detail about the Estonian Navy ships ;). Karabinier (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
That seems settled then. Another example I thought of was ships like SMS Emden (1906), where SMS stands for the German 'Seiner Majestät Schiff' - which would translate as 'His Majesty's Ship'. But rather than using HMS Emden, we retain the untranslated version of the prefix. I'll move them to "EML Foo" when I've a bit more time, unless anyone else wants to get started before me. Benea (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, all the ships in Category:Naval ships of Estonia have been moved to use the EML prefix, with the exception of ENS Admiral Cowan (M313), where a redirect with history is blocking the move to EML Admiral Cowan (M313). Can an admin make the move please? Much obliged, Benea (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Parsecboy (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)