![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Hi all, the A-Class review for SMS Von der Tann is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy ( talk) 00:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for SS Panaman is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! — Bellhalla ( talk) 20:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have free access to
The Times archive? It recently switched to a pay site after a long (and wonderful) free preview period. I'm interested in two articles that mention the ship
SS Empire Simba which was scuttled off the UK in August September 1945 with chemical weapons aboard. Searching for "Empire Simba" (in quotes) at the archive brings up two articles: one from 7 September 1945, and one from 7 September 1970 (which seems to be in a "25 years ago today" type feature). I'm interested in details of Empire Simba's cargo, if available, like types of weapons, quantity, chemicals, etc. Also, were there others scuttled under similar circumstances? If the articles are short, an e-mailed screenshot would be fantastic, otherwise a summary (plus page number!) will be more than sufficient. Thanks in advance. —
Bellhalla (
talk)
14:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Wow. That was fast. E-mail sent. — Bellhalla ( talk) 14:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I've done some major work to the content and images of this article and would like to get a review and suggestions for further expansion/improvements. Thanks! Shinerunner ( talk) 10:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
The article has had a review for Good Article nomination and I've begun making the suggested changes. If anyone would like to review/contribute, it would be appreciated. Shinerunner ( talk) 11:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for USS West Bridge (ID-2888) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! — Bellhalla ( talk) 20:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
If an article says a ship was "laid down" on a specific day, what specifically happened on that day?
Thanks, Wanderer57 ( talk) 05:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Commons:Category:Keel laying has a couple images of some keel laying ceremonies. I've seen some first weld/first cut images, but I can't find them right now. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 16:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Anyone have a clue as to why Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Assessment#Current_status is not updating while the scale on our main project page is? -- Brad ( talk) 20:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello all...
An image used in the Boat building article, specifically Image:Boatconstruction.JPG, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.
You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.-- Jordan 1972 ( talk) 01:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
USS Constitution needs red link fill-ins for quite a few Royal Navy ships. Unlike the convenience of DANFS, I've not a clue as to where information on the ships can be obtained easily. The following ships need articles:
In all cases I've tried to pinpoint the (year) of the ship by using the disambig pages when they exist. Now that I've listed them all, this seems almost overwhelming :) -- Brad ( talk) 19:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
In response to the discussion in Archive 10 (section 79)
on putting U boat designations in italics
[1]
I’ve had a look at about a dozen books from the library for this;
I hope that is of use. Xyl 54 ( talk) 13:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Even though it's only peripherally related to WP:SHIPS, some editors may find the discussion of naming styles for World War II convoy articles of interest. — Bellhalla ( talk) 15:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
There have been some updates made to Template:WikiProject Ships today. Some improvements that had been discussed on the template's talk page should now be functioning.
b1
, B1
, B-1
, b-1
instead of having to type B-Class-1
, for example), the template will now assess as the proper class regardless of the parameter style. (Previously, it would only return a B-Class if the parameters were spelled out in full, B-Class-1=yes
, etc.)B-Class-3
, B-Class-4
, and B-Class-5
are set to "yes", the template will assess as C-Class regardless of whether B-Class-1
and B-Class-2
are set to "yes", "no" or undefined, but if all five are "yes", it will, of course, assess as B-Class.nested
or small
parameters, the template will now properly accept variations on "yes", like "y", "Y", etc.— Bellhalla ( talk) 20:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Does anybody have good statistics or a good reference for the current number of maval vessels worldwide? These numbers, from the ship article, look like they could have come from Janes Fighting Ships, but I'm having a bear of a time trying to find a reference for them.
In 2002, there were 1,240 warships operating in the world, not counting small vessels such as patrol boats. The United States accounted for 3 million tons worth of these vessels, Russia 1.35 million tons, the United Kingdom 504,660 tons and China 402,830 tons.
By comparison, page 16 of this document gives some similar-ish numbers for 2004/2005.
Thanks, Haus Talk 03:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for SS Iowan is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! — Bellhalla ( talk) 20:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for MS West Honaker is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Bellhalla ( talk) 11:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I have proposed a change of title for all U-boat pages from "Unterseeboot...", as at present, to "German submarine...", for a variety of reasons (listed here and here), viz:
The discussion is HERE. (Posted also at WT:MILHIST as suggested). Xyl 54 ( talk) 12:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
This article was created recently as the ship article for Komagata Maru incident, which I just re-titled from Komagata Maru as that's what that article is about. I'm not certain about ship designations, but if I'm not mistaken the "SS" and "Maru" are mutually redundant; "Maru" is the Japanese equivalent of SS, HMS, MV etc - isn't that the case? Didn't want to make the change - "SS" is a common addition to shipnames that shouldn't get it; as I understand it it's primarily a US designation though it did show up on CPR shipanmes (e.g. SS Abyssinia. Skookum1 ( talk) 14:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
(Outdent for slightly less confusion) MV can stand for both "motor vessel" as well as "merchant vessel" - there seems to be two schools for this. But as it can refer to both, IMHO it should not be used for steamships to avoid confusion. There also seems to be regional variances on MV vs. MS—MV seems to be widely-used in (British) English-speaking countries, but I've never seen it used for example in Finnish or the Scandinavian languages. Some companies (for instance DFDS and Tallink) use MV in english-language material but MS in other languages.
Also, I was under the impression that "TSS" stands for "turbine steamship", not "twin screw ship"? — Kjet ( talk · contribs) 20:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
First off, apologies if this has already been discussed—I could no find anything related to this topic by a quick search.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Assessment#Importance assessment has a clear guideline on how to assess articles on ship types, ship classes, individual ships, and ships that were never completed. However, it does not have a guideline on how to assess ship operators (navies and shipping companies). At the moment the assessment of such articles range between low and high, so a common guideline for this would be highly needed. If a concensus for such has been reached before then the rest of my post can be more-or-less ignored and theinformation should be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Assessment. But if not, I'd like to use this chance to start a discussion on the topic:
In my opinion ship operators should be rated higher than individual ships, following this rationale from the Assessment page: "[the assessment is an] attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic". At least in the case of commercial ships, a person is far more likely to be looking for information on a shipping company (say Carnival Cruise Line) than any of their individual ships. A person actually interested in the individual ships (such as most of us) might look up an individual ship, but a casual visitor looking for information, for instance looking up on different cruise options (don't snicker, I've used wiki for this), is far more likely to look up the company page. Additionally an article on a navy or shipping company covers several ships (often several ship classes)—by the logic that an article on a ship class is more important than one on an individual ship, an article on a ship operator should also be more important than an article on an individual ship.
Thoughts? — Kjet ( talk · contribs) 16:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I want to know if I'm the only one having a problem with Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/New articles. The page is showing the last article as being from Sept 30 but if you go to User:AlexNewArtBot/ShipsLog the article listing there seems to be updating daily as the new article page should be. I've dumped the cache on my browser but it hasn't made any difference. -- Brad ( talk) 01:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
An article within the scope of the project, Japanese minelayer Itsukushima, has been nominated for deletion. Interested editors may wish to comment at the discussion here. Benea ( talk) 10:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The category Ships by place of construction has been nominated for deletion. All interested editors are invited to participate in the discussion here. — Bellhalla ( talk) 14:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
A new change to the software (I'm assuming) means that every time a disambiguation page is opened for editing, a little banner appears at the top reminding you of the guidelines for these sorts of pages. The trouble is, it's appearing on our ship index pages, such as HMS Agamemnon. When these are opened, they sternly declare 'This is not an article; it is a disambiguation page.' Which is unfortunately completely untrue. There are already issues with well-intentioned editors 'cleaning up' these set index pages along the much stricter disambiguation page guidelines, and I worry that this is going to add to the problem. Can anything be done, I wonder, to stop these banners appearing on pages tagged with Template:shipindex? Benea ( talk) 15:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
IM back ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 20:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I found these articles about crane ships that are part of the United States Navy ready reserve. Should the prefix USNS or USS be used instead of SS? Shinerunner ( talk) 01:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The FAC for SMS Von der Tann is now open. All editors are invited to participate. Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 16:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- either the archive issued on CD a few years ago or the publication itself in a reference library.
I'm looking for a copy of an article printed in the 1930s.
Thanks. -- Petecarney ( talk) 15:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a proposal to move List of U-boats to List of German U-boats All interested editors are welcome to participate in the discussion. — Bellhalla ( talk) 17:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Many of the articles that are about US Coast Guard vessels include the pronoun "she" when referring to the vessel throughout the article. According to the US Coast Guard at this website: http://www.uscg.mil/mag/style.asp , this is considered improper. Coast Guard vessels should be referred to by their name or by the pronoun "it". Interestingly, the US Navy still finds the pronoun "she" as being proper. I would propose that we go through all of the US Coast Guard vessel pages and edit them to edit out the pronoun "she". Thoughts? Pmarkham ( talk) 21:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for USS Constitution is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -- Brad ( talk) 23:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
User:Middim13, who has been a previous subject of discussion over POV pushing and edit warring on subjects such as Electric Boat and Arthur Leopold Busch, has returned, this time to the Royal Navy article, and related subjects such History of the Royal Navy. I got suspicious when edit summaries such as ' Much of these transactions were done in secrecy so the information about this subject is not altogether clear. Distorted events taking place at Isaac Rice's Electric Boat Company.' and ' Date keel was laid. This information is true, accurrate, correct and un-biased. The truth will not "always be Kosher" or what they want us to believe! Carry on people of integrity.' began to appear. First of all he's copied and pasted it onto both the above articles, where at most it would seem to warrant an appearance on the 'History' article. But despite claiming to me that it is all 100% factual, he has not provided sources. WP:VER does not seem to have sunk in. More over he declares his intention to edit war until his version is accepted. I wonder if those more experienced and knowledgeable about US submarine history could take a look. Benea ( talk) 23:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
With this edit, Middim has announced that he is "done with ships". I guess he took my suggestion to step back and find another topic to edit to heart in light of all the events that have transpired with his editing of ship-related articles. - MBK 004 22:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion at ANI proposing a topic or community ban. Please see WP:ANI##Topic_or_community_ban_needed. - MBK 004 02:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed some inconsistencies in whether or not decommissioned vessels are listed on pages that list vessels of specific classes or types. For example, on the USCG Seagoing Buoy Tender page we list the currently commissioned vessels as well as the vessels of that type that have been decommissioned. In contrast, on the USCG medium endurance cutter page, a previous edit removed all of the vessels of that type that are now decommissioned and left only the commissioned vessels. What is your opinion? Should the vessel type pages include decommission vessels or not? My opinion is that they should include both commissioned and decommissioned vessels -- but I'm also the new guy here! Thanks! Pmarkham ( talk) 04:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
A proposal to merge US Brig Niagara (museum ship) into USS Niagara (1813) is under discussion here. A background in philosophy would be an advantage. :) Benea ( talk) 21:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I want to make a task force project that covers all areas about the RMS Titanic called, "WikiProject: RMS Titanic Task Force". Toonami Reactor ( talk) 20:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Did it. Check it out. Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/RMS Titanic TaskForce. Toonami Reactor ( talk) 22:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I see. Well, what happens happens. If it will end up in the MfD, then that's ok. If that happens, then maby Ill take Brad101's advice. Toonami Reactor ( talk) 02:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I made a subpage of my user page that has the project on it. User:Toonami Reactor/Wikipedia:WikiProjectRMS Titanic Brad, is this what it would look like? Toonami Reactor ( talk) 02:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for SS Mauna Loa is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! — Bellhalla ( talk) 04:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for SS Black Osprey is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! — Bellhalla ( talk) 04:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
This is a bot-generated list of FAs that need some type of cleanup. Battleship and Ironclad warship are listed; there may be others that are relevant to this project. Kablammo ( talk) 02:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Imperial Japanese Navy needs help too. I should stop looking for problems. -- Brad ( talk) 17:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Wisconsin had a peer review earlier this year in lew of an FAR, suggestions from that peer review have not been implemented in there entirety yet. If anyone would like to add to the PR suggestions on the talk page I would be happy to adress the concerns when I get a moment. TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
In updating these articles to the current infobox and I need some help with the eariler submarine classes. For example, I've found that there is an article for V-boat submarines that has it's own ship class infobox while the Cachalot class submarine (part of the V class submarines) also has a ship class infobox. The same type of problem exists with the United States H class submarine article and Holland 602 type submarine aritcle. I'm trying to link them with preceded by and succeded by in the infoboxes and I want to get the order and article links correct. Shinerunner ( talk) 11:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if an admin could move a couple of pages, specifically:
As they're currently sitting on titles that should be ship list pages, but the history in the redirects prevent a normal move. Ta muchly, ttfn, Benea ( talk) 16:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Alaska class battlecruiser is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 17:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I have just updated the {{ shipindex}} template to use the {{ dmbox}} meta-template for its layout. The dmbox has the option to use a right side image. Personally I don't have a preference on this but I know from the other mboxes like {{ ambox}} that in many cases the users preferred to use the right side image instead of putting two images on the left side.
1: This is how {{ shipindex}} looks now:
2: And this is how {{ shipindex}} could look instead:
Both ways look good to me. But I thought you guys would like to have a say, now that you have the choice.
-- David Göthberg ( talk) 12:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
On our Main Page there is a list of admins who are part of this project but when I compare them to the list of active members, many are not listed as such. Some admins on that list I've never even seen post here on the talk page. Maybe this should be clarified? -- Brad ( talk) 17:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I cleaned the list up to reflect current members only. If some that were removed wish to make corrections they can. -- Brad ( talk) 17:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed that the japanese Shimushu, Etoforu and Mikuru classes are named in their respective articles as "coastal defense ship". this is an error as those ships were escort vessels similar in role to the allied escort destroyers or frigates (they protected convoys etc). the Japanese called them Kaibokan which i believe means something like sea protection vessels. i therefore suggest renaming the following articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shimushu_class
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etorofu_class_coastal_defense_ship
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikura_class_coastal_defense_ship
i would do it myself but i'm new on wiki and i have no idea how to do it. Loosmark ( talk) 19:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I started a list of schooners a while back-- divided into those which are currently active and currently kaput-- and recently it's started looking kind of pretty. I'm in the process of adding references, expanding the lead section, and, gradually, writing articles for the redlinks, but I'd like some outside opinions. For the sake of my own vanity, I'm wondering if there's some featured list potential here; I'm doubtful, since the list is certainly not complete, but I'm working on it. Meanwhile, I'm looking for opinions on a few specific points.
Those are just my current sticking points. Of course I'd be ecstatic if anyone else wanted to work on the list with me, or offer other tips. -- Fullobeans ( talk) 08:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
You could also keep the flags in the table by dropping the size to 20px and put them in the same column as the homeport. Shinerunner ( talk) 15:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Moved from Reference Desk
While writing
Central Waterfront, Seattle, Washington I had occasion to mention the Northland Steamship Company. We don't have an article. I don't know much about it. A quick web search doesn't even make clear whether there were one or two companies with this name. I suspect the one in the Alaska trade may have been unrelated to a company of the same name operating on the Great Lakes.
Does anyone know more about this? If so, could I prevail upon you to write at least a stub at Northland Steamship Company (or to disambiguate and write two stubs if they are two different companies)? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 20:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
End - moved from Reference Desk
Zumwalt class destroyer was in a bit of a mess - people had added political stuff in four different sections, and the old diff just felt a bit disjointed. I've reordered it, and updated the article with some of the recent events, the debate about ABM capability and so on. And I've given it a bit of a clean, converting refs to {{ cite}} templates and so on. It can't be that far off GA now, it just needs some different eyeballs on it and a bit of polishing - references for a few of the specs, a bit of tightening of the text, that sort of thing. It would be a good one to GA, since it's a ship that's in the news at the moment. Enjoy.... 82.3.242.144 ( talk) 01:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I've created lists of all US and UK-related ship articles so anyone can utilize the 'related changes' function to monitor changes to US and UK ship articles. I would've liked to have a single list for all ship articles, but there are far too many for that to be feasible. If there is interest in lists for other subsets of ship articles, let me know. You can access the new recent changes links at:
Hopefully these lists will make it easier to watch 'our' articles for vandalism. Since they use a special pages function, you can't add them to your watchlist, so you might want to bookmark them or save a link to them on your userpage. It would be great if everyone would get in the habit of checking the recent changes links in addition to their own watchlists, so we can cast a broader net for vandalism.
I have updated {{ Ships sidebar}} to include the new recent changes links. Now that we have the new cleanup listing, the old Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Tasks and {{ Ships tasks}} are largely obsolete, so I have reorganized the "Things you can do" section of the sidebar template, as well. Maralia ( talk) 04:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
A great idea! But let's not keep it to ourselves. How about letting other WP's know, like WP:TWP and WP:AVIATION for a start. Mjroots ( talk) 06:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Tribal class destroyer (1936) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 04:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't sure where to categorize this into, currently it just has Category:Ships. I didn't see a barks subcat in Ships by type.... Skookum1 ( talk) 15:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I've been doing a little work on the footer template {{ Flower class corvette}}. Can anyone with a reference verify what the correct pennant number for the modified Flower-class corvette HMS Candytuft was? (This is a different ship than HMS Candytuft (K09), an unmodified Flower-class corvette.) The second Candytuft was transferred to the Royal Canadian Navy as HMCS Long Branch (K487). Uboat.net, usually pretty reliable, lists Candytuft with the pennant number K484, but Long Branch with K487. Most of the other Flower-class corvettes transferred between navies (except those to the U.S. Navy) seem to have kept the same pennant number. Is this a case of a source being wrong or did it have two differing pennant numbers? — Bellhalla ( talk) 16:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
(outdent)So, does anyone know about the pennant number? I created redirects for both names and both pennant numbers in case someone comes here looking under either number. — Bellhalla ( talk) 17:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for USS Nevada (BB-36) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 20:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
There are various lists of ship launches and shipwrecks. I'm sure these are underpopulated though. Every ship should be linked from the list of the year it was launched, and all shipwrecks should be linked from the list for that year (a shipwreck doesn't necessarily mean a loss). There are also lists of ship decomissionings too.
These lists all follow the format "List of ship (event) in (year)". Mjroots ( talk) 20:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Just ran across the NASA recovery ship today. Is it just me, or does this look like it should be a civilian version of the class or type articles we use with military ships? -- Kralizec! ( talk) 14:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I have been working my way through the U-boat set index pages to update the links to the new naming styles (per a discussion recently held at WP:NC-SHIPS). Most of the set index pages are like German submarine U-90 that list all the subs numbered 90 (whatever the series or Wikipedia naming style). In the case of the number 134, however, there was only one boat of that number commissioned, the sub whose article is currently at German submarine U-134 (1941). I think that since there were no other commissioned subs with the number 134, that the WWII sub should just be at German submarine U-134 with no disambiguation. Currently that page is set up as a set index page and includes redlinks to the two uncompleted WWI U-boats that would have been numbered 134. My question: should we have an index/disambiguation page in a case like this where the other subs are only marginally notable (if at all)? — Bellhalla ( talk) 17:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The articles Japanese cruiser Yodo and Japanese cruiser Mogami (1908), obviously, classify these two ships as cruisers. But the Yodo class is classified by the IJN themselves as aviso, or dispatch vessel; lighter than cruisers. I think these articles should be renamed appropriately but I realize that neither "aviso" nor "dispatch vessel" are classifications commonly used in English, so I'd like to ask for a suggestion.
Also, both of these vessels are prefixed with "IJN" at the beginning of the article. IJN is of course a tag invented by Anglophone writers. I wonder if there's been a consensus for the usage of this prefix in Wikipedia. It seems that at the present some ships are prefixed IJN and some aren't. o ( talk) 15:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I've just come across this article: Princess Kaguya (cruise ship), the current AFD is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Kaguya (cruise ship). The concept looks promising but I'm not sure if this article should be saved? - MBK 004 04:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for RMS Titanic is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 12:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
There were two ships named Mahratta in service with the Brocklebank Line. One was launched in 1892 and the other in 1917. Both foundered on the Goodwin Sands 30 years apart, and within a mile of each other. I'm having trouble creating a meaningful article on the second Mahratta as I can't find much info apart from this, which I think may fail WP:RS. Can I use this source or are we going to be left with a very short stub article? Mjroots ( talk) 10:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm pleased to announce that USS Constitution was promoted to Featured status. Congratulations to Brad101 and everyone that pitched in to help with the article, and thank you to those who participated in the peer review, A-class review, and FAC.
TomStar81 and I have been in touch via email, and he pointed out that February 22 will be the 100th anniversary of the conclusion of the Great White Fleet's trip around the world. He had been planning to work on the article, with the goal of Today's featured article on the centennial. Are there a couple people out there willing to take this on, with my help? Maralia ( talk) 21:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
These submarines are inconsistently named. Should they be under K-141, Kursk or RFS ? - Kittybrewster ☎ 15:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Please move page to be consistent with other Russian submarines from Russian submarine K-141 Kursk to K-141 Kursk. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
SS Titan (2012), an article concerning a proposed ship, has been nominated for deletion here. Interested editors may wish to comment. Benea ( talk) 00:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I created this article yesterday. Now I find that the news refers to it sometimes with the prefix MT and other times with MV. What's the appropriate naming convention? -- Rosiestep ( talk) 20:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC) alor
The peer review for Japanese World War II destroyers is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 04:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
This oil tanker was just hijacked off the coast of Somalia and so may be of interest to this project. Also there's a discussion on Talk:Sirius Star about whether or not the proper pronouns were neuter or feminine. Input from members of this project would be of assistance. JoshuaZ ( talk) 22:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The Ministry of War Transport owned many ships during World War II. These all had names prefixed Empire. I've discovered a list on them all online, and using that have started working on a list for Wikipedia. The basic info I have collated contains enough information to enable searches to obtain information to create articles on individual ships. I've put the Empire A— ships on a subpage. Anyone who would like to create individual ship articles from the list is welcome to do so. If you are creating an article on a particular ship, please wikilink the name so that it shows up red, and add an edit note to say who is working on the article. Once created, the link will then turn blue. Mjroots ( talk) 16:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
With the additions of HMS Mahratta (G23) and SM U-4 (Austria-Hungary) today, WikiProject Ships now has 300 DYK articles listed on our DYK page. (There may be others not on the list, so if you know of any ship DYKs not listed, please add them.) Keep up the good work, everyone! — Bellhalla ( talk) 13:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
American President Lines
Attack Squadron 46 (United States Navy) Casco class monitor Chester - Hadlyme Ferry Concordia (ship 1696) Factory ship Flyer (steamboat) German submarine U-38 (1938) German submarine U-656 Gondola (steam yacht) Haimun Harry Price (Royal Navy) Herring Buss HMNZS Te Mana (F111) HMS Ontario (1780) HNoMS Honningsvåg HNoMS Kjell Ikazuchi class destroyer Japanese destroyer Matsu (Type D) John Kempthorne (Royal Navy officer) K-1000 battleship Lone Tree Ferry Lynchburg Ferry Lytton (sternwheeler) MF Storegut Millersburg Ferry Monohansett (steamboat) MV Ascension MV Baffin Strait (T-AK-W9519) MV Virginian (T-AK 9205) Nobby (boat) Order of battle for Convoy SC 7 Princess Royal (sloop) SC-21 (United States) Shirakumo class destroyer Sir John Moore, 1st Baronet SS Cheviot SS Pan Kraft SS Pfalz United States lightship LV-58 USS Hawaii (CB-3) USS Sandpiper (AM-51) Valley View Ferry Vorpostenboot
(outdent)All added, except for five already there (but two of those had older names which were corrected). These additions put the number at 355 now. Wow! Almost a 20% expansion in three days ;) — Bellhalla ( talk) 12:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I've been checking online and have been unable to verify the information on the article page. Does anyone have an alternate source that could be referenced for the Iosif Stalin and the Vyacheslav Molotov ? Shinerunner ( talk) 17:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Kjet! I've added those links to the article as well. Shinerunner ( talk) 17:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
In response to the discussion above, I have made a proposal to move several Russian and Soviet submarine articles to match the naming style outlined at WP:NC-SHIPS. Details may be found here. All comments are welcome. — Bellhalla ( talk) 19:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Australian military history task force#Cerberus class battleship?, I am asking for views regarding the name and content of the following articles: Cerberus class battleship, HMVS Cerberus, HMS Magdala (1870), and HMS Abyssinia (1870), as well as the template {{ Cerberus class battleship}}
Based on various Australian naval history texts, I have found nothing that connects HMVS Cerberus and the concept of battleships beyond the fact that the ship's armoured hull, gun turrets, and superstructure were advances in naval architecture that were then utilised in the proto-battleships and battleships of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. However, I admit out front that I have not looked deeply into content on Magdala or Abyssinia, as I have little to no access to British or Indian naval histories, and what I have found on either side of the argument is limited to websites of dubious reliability. Based on this, I believe that naming the ships as "Battleships" is a gross exaggeration of their capabilities, design, and role, and am seeking to rename the main article to Cerberus class monitor and edit the articles appropriately.
If anyone has any observations or comments, please raise them here or at the Australian MILHIST task force link above. -- saberwyn 07:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
The National Archives of Australia has (in the last few days) declassified and released a large number of documents relating to the sinking of the Sydney. Although already rated GA, this new information should be thoroughly digested and included. We should work towards making this the FA for 22 November 2009, the 75th anniversary of her launch. 203.7.140.3 ( talk) 04:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
List of aircraft carriers by country
i suggest deleting seaplane carriers from this list or making a separated list for them. opinions? Loosmark ( talk) 15:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
ok i can try to explain. an aircraft carrier by definition is a ship with a FLIGHT DECK and which can LAUNCH and RECOVER aircraft. this is how most dictionary define the type for example:
http://dictionary.die.net/aircraft%20carrier "a large warship that carries planes and has a long flat deck for take-offs and landings [syn: carrier, flattop, attack aircraft carrier]"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/aircraft+carrier "a large naval vessel designed as a mobile air base, having a long flat deck on which aircraft can take off and land at sea."
i'm aware that at the time early seaplane tenders and carriers were sometimes called aircraft carrier but they are not aircraft carriers under the modern understanding of the word. furthermore whats worse at the moment the list has many merchant ships converted to seaplanders which basicaly only had a derrick to lower a seaplane down. or very small seaplane carriers i have for example never heard of the german vessel "Hans Rolshoven" (which is on the list described as a "light tug type seaplane tender") so i went to check her data: 985 tons. not exactly "a large warship" don't you agree? i believe that people who check this list are interested to see the list of aircraft carriers in the modern understanding of the world. Loosmark ( talk) 18:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
If any editors have some spare time i think theres an article that needs a major revamp. Ship Commissioning appears to be the only article on wikipedia about what a Commissioned Ship is. I was expecting to find an article along the lines of Commissioned Ship but there is nothing. It seems odd that there is no major article on this subject, considering how many lists of Commissioned ships there are and the fact commission dates appear on every ship page. Could someone please take a look at this problem if they have the time, either to try and improve the Ship Commissioning article or create a new page called Commissioned Ship. Even if it was just a stub, i think it would be worthy of an article, im just shocked there isnt one already. Thanks BritishWatcher ( talk) 03:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I've proposed renaming Category:Bangladesh Navy Ship to Category:Ships of the Bangladesh Navy, in line with our more standard conventions as seen at Category:Ships by navy. The discussion is here, interested editors are welcome to comment. Benea ( talk) 18:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Can an admin rename M/V Biscaglia to MV Biscaglia? Haus Talk 22:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Based on the above discussion, I have requested a move of Template:Warship to Template:Ship on the requested moves page, here. — Bellhalla ( talk) 19:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I noticed several uses of templates to link to ships such as the {{ USS}} ( USS example) or {{ MV}} ( MV example). Which is nice but some of the abbreviations are already in use such as {{ FV}} ( failed verification). I am creating a {{ Ship}} that will handle all ship classes. -- Cat chi? 12:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
{{warship|FV|Northwestern}}
produces
FV Northwestern. Yes, it looks silly in the edit window to see a fishing boat called a "warship" but it does work. —
Bellhalla (
talk)
18:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC){{ship|SS|Ohioan|1914|2}}
produces
Ohioan —
Bellhalla (
talk)
18:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC){{ship}}
as a meta-template, similar to the way {{
Cite DANFS}} uses {{
Cite web}}, but I do not support wholesale removal of existing uses of current shortcuts, per Martocticvs. Several of the existing shortcut templates, however, have extra options that would need to be considered, such as the optional slash for {{
MV}} and {{
MS}}, and the optional sub parameter for {{
SMS}}. —
Bellhalla (
talk)
18:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Wow, you all move like greased lightening! (Teach me to take a weekend off!) Nice work everyone on quickly hashing this out and coming up with a good consensus decision! -- Kralizec! ( talk) 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Please join the discussion here: Template_talk:DANFS#Problem_with_category_inclusion — G716 < T· C> 02:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
A new article, needs a bit of work to bash into shape though. Mjroots ( talk) 08:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I ran across this stub Provence II (shipwreck) and wanted to know if it should be renamed? Shinerunner ( talk) 23:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The Naval Historical Center has officially changed names to Naval History & Heritage Command according to the main page of the website. I suppose there are some templates in use that will need to be updated. -- Brad ( talk) 18:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for SM U-5 (Austria-Hungary) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 22:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for USS Liberty incident is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 22:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Empire State V. Can anyone spot what is wrong here? Infobox won't align, text is messed around and uncat tag is into the infobox. I've spent 15 minutes on this already. -- Brad ( talk) 22:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Many of the ships in the Stone Fleet list have articles with the USS prefix. A quick spot check of DANFS (looked at Marcia, Margaret Scott, Peter Demill and Robin Hood) yields no evidence that they were ever commissioned into the US Navy. See also Category:United States Navy Stone Fleet ships. I think unless a citable source can be found to show they were commissioned, the articles need to be renamed (or more likely just absorbed into the Stone Fleet article). Any civil war naval buffs have a source or want to straighten this out? -- J Clear ( talk) 02:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Is this article using the correct ship prefix? I thought that it would be RV or MV. Shinerunner ( talk) 14:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Move to MV Polarstern completed. Also, thanks Haus and Kjet for guessing the current value of my 401K plan! Shinerunner ( talk) 16:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I raised a question a while back at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Assessment in regard to the importance of uncompleted ship classes and got no responses, so I thought I'd bring it to a wider audience. What should the importance assessment be for an uncompleted ship class? The importance scale suggests that uncompleted ships should assessed as "Low", but there is no comparable suggestion for an uncompleted ship class. The way I see it there are two approaches suggested by the importance scale:
I bring this up because uncompleted ship class articles seem to have widely varying importance ratings, ranging from "High" for Montana-class battleship, to "Low" for U-52-class submarine. Any suggestions for what the guideline should be? — Bellhalla ( talk) 17:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
The preceded by/followed by links in the US BB class are messed up around the South Dakota class Wezelboy ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC).
The A-Class review for Lexington class battlecruiser is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 22:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
There are two ship articles at FAC that could benefit from additional input. The nomination for SS Dakotan is here, and the nomination for SS Washingtonian is here. Both have been open for some time. — Bellhalla ( talk) 22:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I reassessed this to B class today. Does it have the potential to go to GA class? Mjroots ( talk) 18:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Bizzare question time, can anyone identify the ship in this photo please? cheers muchly Khu kri 16:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
While working on improving the article USS Alexandria (SSN-757), I found that other articles about warships, both surface and submarine, often included a section listing commanding officers.
I sampled the articles by doing the following two searches:
I found that there is a lack of consistency in naming, placement and format of such lists. Here's what I found
# Section naming. Warship articles, whether surface of submarine, should name sections that list Commanding Officers as Commanding Officers, not List of Commanding Officers . This seems to be the most common naming convention
If anyone has comments and/or other views, please let me know. For the current article I am working on improving,
USS Alexandria (SSN-757), I will implement the list of COs using the recommended style noted above. If there is consensus, I'll work through the list of submarines and move/rename/redo the lists of Commanding Officers, if any.--
Joe Sperrazza (
talk) 02:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, --
Joe Sperrazza (
talk)
18:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
A Chief of Naval Operations' instruction (OPNAVINST 5750.12J) requires all commissioned ships in the Navy to submit an annual Command Operations Report, formerly known as the Command History Report. This report covers the operational and administrative actions of the command for each calendar year. To provide the crew of the current commissioned ships with a better understanding of its history, and in concert with the histories in the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, the annual history/command operational reports are posted for reference purposes.
...Please note the reports listed here are only for current commissioned ships....
THIS IS A LONG RANGE PROGRAM TO SCAN AND POST THESE REPORTS. AT THIS TIME THE "A" through "L" SHIP'S LISTS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED AND AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW. SPECIFIC HISTORY REPORTS FOR L, M, N, O, P, R, S, T, V, AND W SHIPS HAVE BEEN POSTED.
Ship History/Command Operations Reports
Thank you, again, all that provided their comments. I believe consensus was reached as follows:
This issue was not explicitly addressed by any of the comments. However, interpolating from the comments received, I propose to take the following actions, unless someone objects:
Cheers, -- Joe Sperrazza ( talk) 02:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The list needs to be expanded based on the info from International Maritime Organization. There are a number pf PDFs from the IMO at http://www.imo.org/Circulars/mainframe.asp?topic_id=334
Mind that the IMO info is for piracy world wide. Article is confined only to "Somali pirates".
-- Cat chi? 13:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Template:DANFS talk has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — G716 < T· C> 03:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Since {{ warship}} now redirects to {{ ship}}, is there any objection to following the same process we used when consolidating our infobox templates, namely:
Cheers. Haus Talk 00:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I've expanded the MS Hans Hedtoft article, but a German reader is needed to extract further material from this source and a Danish reader to extract further material from this source. Mjroots ( talk) 09:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I ripped the B-Class FAQ from milhist and updated/adapted it for Ships. I think I covered the main idea of B-Class for this project but alterations are welcome @ Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Assessment/B-class FAQ. -- Brad ( talk) 17:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for SMS Moltke (1910) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 20:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Over my time editing articles relating to the Royal Australian Navy (RAN), particulary articles relating to the ships thereof, I have become frustrated and confused with the system of categories used to categorise ship articles.
I would like to suggest a reorganisation of the category tree: Category:Naval ships of Australia at the top, with four subcategories; Category:Active naval ships of Australia, Category:Ships of Australian Colonial navies (possibly renamed), Category:Ships of the Royal Australian Navy, and Category:Australian naval ship stubs. The "Ships of the RAN" category would be kept empty of individual ship articles, which will be categorised into subcategories based on type (destroyer, cruiser, submarine, etc) and/or role (training ship, survey ship, etc).
Part of this reorganisation will require the creation of several subcategories based on type/role, the standardisation of category names for the same type/role (we have some that are "Type of the Royal Australian Navy", some "Type of Australia", and some "Royal Australian Navy type") and the removal of overly-specific subcategories, such as Category:Battlecruisers of Australia, (which only contains and only will contain the article HMAS Australia (1911)) or Category:Cold War aircraft carriers of Australia, (which with the exception of HMAS Albatross is identical to Category:Royal Australian Navy aircraft carriers and Category:Aircraft carriers of Australia).
I've drawn up a rough layout at User:Saberwyn/The Grand RAN/New category structure. This page also contains a breakdown of the type/role subcategories that are currently in use, need to be created, and need to have names standardised; a list of "Odd categories out" that I feel need to be merged, have their contents split out into other categories, or don't know what to do with. Some examples of how the new category structure will be applied to various RAN ship articles is provided.
Any thoughts or input would be greatly appreciated. Particularly, I would like to know if the subcategories should be standardised at "of Australia" or "of the Royal Australian Navy". -- saberwyn 11:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm well under-way with the recategorisation, and based on this think that the easiest way to solve the Navy/Nation issue is to ensure that all military ships are classified under their operating force, not their operation nation. These 'navy' categories would be subcategories of the "Naval ships of foo" cat. Thoughts? -- saberwyn 22:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for USS Iowa turret explosion is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 22:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
With 36 FAs, 18 featured pictures, and 245-ish DYKs, we certainly have enough material to support a pretty rich portal. I'm curious if a ships portal along the lines of P:USN/ P:USMM were to spring into existence, would anybody else be interested in working on it?
Big tasks in initial setup would include:
Getting the skeleton in place would be a matter of a few hours of work. OTOH, creating the capsules would probably take 18-36 hours, and I don't know how long it would take to transcribe the DYKs...
Cheers. Haus Talk 15:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
As I've never really worked on an article with a view to pushing it up towards the higher end of the assessment scale, I thought I'd just ask for some opinions on whether HMS Agamemnon (1781) is ready to be put up for GA assessment? Martocticvs ( talk) 16:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
If a previous ship (or previous ships) have been awarded battle honours, are those battle honors "owned" by a subsequent ship with that name? If so, is it appropriate to display them in the infobox of the latest ship with that name? Mjroots ( talk) 05:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
History | |
---|---|
Name | HMAS Sydney V |
Honours and awards | list error: <br /> list (
help) Battle Honours inherited: Emdem 1914 CALABRIA 1940 SPADA 1940 MEDITERRANEAN 1940 Kormoran 1941 KOREA 1951-52 VIETNAM 1965-72 KUWAIT 1991 Battle Honours earned: FOOBAR 20** Barfoo 20** Awards earned: Meritorious Unit Citation? |
Notes | Taken from: image at [7] and [8] |
(od) Is it just me, or is the infobox appearing at the bottom of this talk page for everyone? Mjroots ( talk) 22:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Are you allowed to assess your own articles? Given the new template where you just answer a bunch of questions and get an automatic assessment, I can't see why not, and it saves someone else the trouble of doing so, but I'd like to know if there is an established convention here. Gatoclass ( talk) 09:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
(od)As this issue affects all articles across Wikipedia, I've raised it here. Mjroots ( talk) 12:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for not responding to the many replies earlier. The "R.F." and "E.F." were in the stats for a DANFS article, specifically,
this one.
Gatoclass (
talk)
13:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Anybody know which HMS Arabis this is? It can't be this one and it doesn't seem that this one fits the bill either. Was there a third? Mjroots ( talk) 10:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Anyone know how to extract an image from a google book file? I have been able to DL entire books from google, but I don't know how to separate the images from the text. Gatoclass ( talk) 03:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
(outdent)Not sure about what Mjroots has said, but it's generally PD 75 70 years after the death of the creator.
IANAL, but here are some common examples:
Let's say Jane Smith makes a drawing 140 years ago, in 1868.
These guidelines are for images or works that were not done "for hire" (e.g. as an employee of a company), with the caveat that works published pre-1923 are always PD in the US. There are always complications and intricacies of copyright that are best left to lawyers, but if you follow these guidelines, you are generally pretty safe. — Bellhalla ( talk) 13:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
(e) Presumption as to Author’s Death.— After a period of 95 years from the year of first publication of a work, or a period of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first, any person who obtains from the Copyright Office a certified report that the records provided by subsection (d) disclose nothing to indicate that the author of the work is living, or died less than 70 years before, is entitled to the benefits of a presumption that the author has been dead for at least 70 years. Reliance in good faith upon this presumption shall be a complete defense to any action for infringement under this title.
(od) Let's look at a theoretical case. Photo taken in 1868, author unknown. As far as I can tell, copyright if the photograph was unpublished would have expired 75 years after creation in the USA = 1943. The photo was published in a book that was published in 1974. As the photo was already in the public domain by then, no new copyright could be created, thus the photo remained copyright expired and is available for anyone to use for whatever purpose they wish to use it for. Correct me if this is not the case. Mjroots ( talk) 20:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Hi all, the A-Class review for SMS Von der Tann is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy ( talk) 00:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for SS Panaman is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! — Bellhalla ( talk) 20:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have free access to
The Times archive? It recently switched to a pay site after a long (and wonderful) free preview period. I'm interested in two articles that mention the ship
SS Empire Simba which was scuttled off the UK in August September 1945 with chemical weapons aboard. Searching for "Empire Simba" (in quotes) at the archive brings up two articles: one from 7 September 1945, and one from 7 September 1970 (which seems to be in a "25 years ago today" type feature). I'm interested in details of Empire Simba's cargo, if available, like types of weapons, quantity, chemicals, etc. Also, were there others scuttled under similar circumstances? If the articles are short, an e-mailed screenshot would be fantastic, otherwise a summary (plus page number!) will be more than sufficient. Thanks in advance. —
Bellhalla (
talk)
14:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Wow. That was fast. E-mail sent. — Bellhalla ( talk) 14:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I've done some major work to the content and images of this article and would like to get a review and suggestions for further expansion/improvements. Thanks! Shinerunner ( talk) 10:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
The article has had a review for Good Article nomination and I've begun making the suggested changes. If anyone would like to review/contribute, it would be appreciated. Shinerunner ( talk) 11:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for USS West Bridge (ID-2888) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! — Bellhalla ( talk) 20:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
If an article says a ship was "laid down" on a specific day, what specifically happened on that day?
Thanks, Wanderer57 ( talk) 05:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Commons:Category:Keel laying has a couple images of some keel laying ceremonies. I've seen some first weld/first cut images, but I can't find them right now. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 16:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Anyone have a clue as to why Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Assessment#Current_status is not updating while the scale on our main project page is? -- Brad ( talk) 20:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello all...
An image used in the Boat building article, specifically Image:Boatconstruction.JPG, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.
You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.-- Jordan 1972 ( talk) 01:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
USS Constitution needs red link fill-ins for quite a few Royal Navy ships. Unlike the convenience of DANFS, I've not a clue as to where information on the ships can be obtained easily. The following ships need articles:
In all cases I've tried to pinpoint the (year) of the ship by using the disambig pages when they exist. Now that I've listed them all, this seems almost overwhelming :) -- Brad ( talk) 19:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
In response to the discussion in Archive 10 (section 79)
on putting U boat designations in italics
[1]
I’ve had a look at about a dozen books from the library for this;
I hope that is of use. Xyl 54 ( talk) 13:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Even though it's only peripherally related to WP:SHIPS, some editors may find the discussion of naming styles for World War II convoy articles of interest. — Bellhalla ( talk) 15:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
There have been some updates made to Template:WikiProject Ships today. Some improvements that had been discussed on the template's talk page should now be functioning.
b1
, B1
, B-1
, b-1
instead of having to type B-Class-1
, for example), the template will now assess as the proper class regardless of the parameter style. (Previously, it would only return a B-Class if the parameters were spelled out in full, B-Class-1=yes
, etc.)B-Class-3
, B-Class-4
, and B-Class-5
are set to "yes", the template will assess as C-Class regardless of whether B-Class-1
and B-Class-2
are set to "yes", "no" or undefined, but if all five are "yes", it will, of course, assess as B-Class.nested
or small
parameters, the template will now properly accept variations on "yes", like "y", "Y", etc.— Bellhalla ( talk) 20:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Does anybody have good statistics or a good reference for the current number of maval vessels worldwide? These numbers, from the ship article, look like they could have come from Janes Fighting Ships, but I'm having a bear of a time trying to find a reference for them.
In 2002, there were 1,240 warships operating in the world, not counting small vessels such as patrol boats. The United States accounted for 3 million tons worth of these vessels, Russia 1.35 million tons, the United Kingdom 504,660 tons and China 402,830 tons.
By comparison, page 16 of this document gives some similar-ish numbers for 2004/2005.
Thanks, Haus Talk 03:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for SS Iowan is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! — Bellhalla ( talk) 20:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for MS West Honaker is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Bellhalla ( talk) 11:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I have proposed a change of title for all U-boat pages from "Unterseeboot...", as at present, to "German submarine...", for a variety of reasons (listed here and here), viz:
The discussion is HERE. (Posted also at WT:MILHIST as suggested). Xyl 54 ( talk) 12:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
This article was created recently as the ship article for Komagata Maru incident, which I just re-titled from Komagata Maru as that's what that article is about. I'm not certain about ship designations, but if I'm not mistaken the "SS" and "Maru" are mutually redundant; "Maru" is the Japanese equivalent of SS, HMS, MV etc - isn't that the case? Didn't want to make the change - "SS" is a common addition to shipnames that shouldn't get it; as I understand it it's primarily a US designation though it did show up on CPR shipanmes (e.g. SS Abyssinia. Skookum1 ( talk) 14:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
(Outdent for slightly less confusion) MV can stand for both "motor vessel" as well as "merchant vessel" - there seems to be two schools for this. But as it can refer to both, IMHO it should not be used for steamships to avoid confusion. There also seems to be regional variances on MV vs. MS—MV seems to be widely-used in (British) English-speaking countries, but I've never seen it used for example in Finnish or the Scandinavian languages. Some companies (for instance DFDS and Tallink) use MV in english-language material but MS in other languages.
Also, I was under the impression that "TSS" stands for "turbine steamship", not "twin screw ship"? — Kjet ( talk · contribs) 20:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
First off, apologies if this has already been discussed—I could no find anything related to this topic by a quick search.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Assessment#Importance assessment has a clear guideline on how to assess articles on ship types, ship classes, individual ships, and ships that were never completed. However, it does not have a guideline on how to assess ship operators (navies and shipping companies). At the moment the assessment of such articles range between low and high, so a common guideline for this would be highly needed. If a concensus for such has been reached before then the rest of my post can be more-or-less ignored and theinformation should be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Assessment. But if not, I'd like to use this chance to start a discussion on the topic:
In my opinion ship operators should be rated higher than individual ships, following this rationale from the Assessment page: "[the assessment is an] attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic". At least in the case of commercial ships, a person is far more likely to be looking for information on a shipping company (say Carnival Cruise Line) than any of their individual ships. A person actually interested in the individual ships (such as most of us) might look up an individual ship, but a casual visitor looking for information, for instance looking up on different cruise options (don't snicker, I've used wiki for this), is far more likely to look up the company page. Additionally an article on a navy or shipping company covers several ships (often several ship classes)—by the logic that an article on a ship class is more important than one on an individual ship, an article on a ship operator should also be more important than an article on an individual ship.
Thoughts? — Kjet ( talk · contribs) 16:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I want to know if I'm the only one having a problem with Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/New articles. The page is showing the last article as being from Sept 30 but if you go to User:AlexNewArtBot/ShipsLog the article listing there seems to be updating daily as the new article page should be. I've dumped the cache on my browser but it hasn't made any difference. -- Brad ( talk) 01:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
An article within the scope of the project, Japanese minelayer Itsukushima, has been nominated for deletion. Interested editors may wish to comment at the discussion here. Benea ( talk) 10:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The category Ships by place of construction has been nominated for deletion. All interested editors are invited to participate in the discussion here. — Bellhalla ( talk) 14:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
A new change to the software (I'm assuming) means that every time a disambiguation page is opened for editing, a little banner appears at the top reminding you of the guidelines for these sorts of pages. The trouble is, it's appearing on our ship index pages, such as HMS Agamemnon. When these are opened, they sternly declare 'This is not an article; it is a disambiguation page.' Which is unfortunately completely untrue. There are already issues with well-intentioned editors 'cleaning up' these set index pages along the much stricter disambiguation page guidelines, and I worry that this is going to add to the problem. Can anything be done, I wonder, to stop these banners appearing on pages tagged with Template:shipindex? Benea ( talk) 15:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
IM back ANOMALY-117 ( talk) 20:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I found these articles about crane ships that are part of the United States Navy ready reserve. Should the prefix USNS or USS be used instead of SS? Shinerunner ( talk) 01:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The FAC for SMS Von der Tann is now open. All editors are invited to participate. Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 16:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- either the archive issued on CD a few years ago or the publication itself in a reference library.
I'm looking for a copy of an article printed in the 1930s.
Thanks. -- Petecarney ( talk) 15:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a proposal to move List of U-boats to List of German U-boats All interested editors are welcome to participate in the discussion. — Bellhalla ( talk) 17:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Many of the articles that are about US Coast Guard vessels include the pronoun "she" when referring to the vessel throughout the article. According to the US Coast Guard at this website: http://www.uscg.mil/mag/style.asp , this is considered improper. Coast Guard vessels should be referred to by their name or by the pronoun "it". Interestingly, the US Navy still finds the pronoun "she" as being proper. I would propose that we go through all of the US Coast Guard vessel pages and edit them to edit out the pronoun "she". Thoughts? Pmarkham ( talk) 21:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for USS Constitution is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -- Brad ( talk) 23:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
User:Middim13, who has been a previous subject of discussion over POV pushing and edit warring on subjects such as Electric Boat and Arthur Leopold Busch, has returned, this time to the Royal Navy article, and related subjects such History of the Royal Navy. I got suspicious when edit summaries such as ' Much of these transactions were done in secrecy so the information about this subject is not altogether clear. Distorted events taking place at Isaac Rice's Electric Boat Company.' and ' Date keel was laid. This information is true, accurrate, correct and un-biased. The truth will not "always be Kosher" or what they want us to believe! Carry on people of integrity.' began to appear. First of all he's copied and pasted it onto both the above articles, where at most it would seem to warrant an appearance on the 'History' article. But despite claiming to me that it is all 100% factual, he has not provided sources. WP:VER does not seem to have sunk in. More over he declares his intention to edit war until his version is accepted. I wonder if those more experienced and knowledgeable about US submarine history could take a look. Benea ( talk) 23:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
With this edit, Middim has announced that he is "done with ships". I guess he took my suggestion to step back and find another topic to edit to heart in light of all the events that have transpired with his editing of ship-related articles. - MBK 004 22:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion at ANI proposing a topic or community ban. Please see WP:ANI##Topic_or_community_ban_needed. - MBK 004 02:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed some inconsistencies in whether or not decommissioned vessels are listed on pages that list vessels of specific classes or types. For example, on the USCG Seagoing Buoy Tender page we list the currently commissioned vessels as well as the vessels of that type that have been decommissioned. In contrast, on the USCG medium endurance cutter page, a previous edit removed all of the vessels of that type that are now decommissioned and left only the commissioned vessels. What is your opinion? Should the vessel type pages include decommission vessels or not? My opinion is that they should include both commissioned and decommissioned vessels -- but I'm also the new guy here! Thanks! Pmarkham ( talk) 04:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
A proposal to merge US Brig Niagara (museum ship) into USS Niagara (1813) is under discussion here. A background in philosophy would be an advantage. :) Benea ( talk) 21:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I want to make a task force project that covers all areas about the RMS Titanic called, "WikiProject: RMS Titanic Task Force". Toonami Reactor ( talk) 20:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Did it. Check it out. Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/RMS Titanic TaskForce. Toonami Reactor ( talk) 22:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I see. Well, what happens happens. If it will end up in the MfD, then that's ok. If that happens, then maby Ill take Brad101's advice. Toonami Reactor ( talk) 02:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I made a subpage of my user page that has the project on it. User:Toonami Reactor/Wikipedia:WikiProjectRMS Titanic Brad, is this what it would look like? Toonami Reactor ( talk) 02:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for SS Mauna Loa is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! — Bellhalla ( talk) 04:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for SS Black Osprey is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! — Bellhalla ( talk) 04:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
This is a bot-generated list of FAs that need some type of cleanup. Battleship and Ironclad warship are listed; there may be others that are relevant to this project. Kablammo ( talk) 02:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Imperial Japanese Navy needs help too. I should stop looking for problems. -- Brad ( talk) 17:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Wisconsin had a peer review earlier this year in lew of an FAR, suggestions from that peer review have not been implemented in there entirety yet. If anyone would like to add to the PR suggestions on the talk page I would be happy to adress the concerns when I get a moment. TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
In updating these articles to the current infobox and I need some help with the eariler submarine classes. For example, I've found that there is an article for V-boat submarines that has it's own ship class infobox while the Cachalot class submarine (part of the V class submarines) also has a ship class infobox. The same type of problem exists with the United States H class submarine article and Holland 602 type submarine aritcle. I'm trying to link them with preceded by and succeded by in the infoboxes and I want to get the order and article links correct. Shinerunner ( talk) 11:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if an admin could move a couple of pages, specifically:
As they're currently sitting on titles that should be ship list pages, but the history in the redirects prevent a normal move. Ta muchly, ttfn, Benea ( talk) 16:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Alaska class battlecruiser is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 17:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I have just updated the {{ shipindex}} template to use the {{ dmbox}} meta-template for its layout. The dmbox has the option to use a right side image. Personally I don't have a preference on this but I know from the other mboxes like {{ ambox}} that in many cases the users preferred to use the right side image instead of putting two images on the left side.
1: This is how {{ shipindex}} looks now:
2: And this is how {{ shipindex}} could look instead:
Both ways look good to me. But I thought you guys would like to have a say, now that you have the choice.
-- David Göthberg ( talk) 12:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
On our Main Page there is a list of admins who are part of this project but when I compare them to the list of active members, many are not listed as such. Some admins on that list I've never even seen post here on the talk page. Maybe this should be clarified? -- Brad ( talk) 17:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I cleaned the list up to reflect current members only. If some that were removed wish to make corrections they can. -- Brad ( talk) 17:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed that the japanese Shimushu, Etoforu and Mikuru classes are named in their respective articles as "coastal defense ship". this is an error as those ships were escort vessels similar in role to the allied escort destroyers or frigates (they protected convoys etc). the Japanese called them Kaibokan which i believe means something like sea protection vessels. i therefore suggest renaming the following articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shimushu_class
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etorofu_class_coastal_defense_ship
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikura_class_coastal_defense_ship
i would do it myself but i'm new on wiki and i have no idea how to do it. Loosmark ( talk) 19:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I started a list of schooners a while back-- divided into those which are currently active and currently kaput-- and recently it's started looking kind of pretty. I'm in the process of adding references, expanding the lead section, and, gradually, writing articles for the redlinks, but I'd like some outside opinions. For the sake of my own vanity, I'm wondering if there's some featured list potential here; I'm doubtful, since the list is certainly not complete, but I'm working on it. Meanwhile, I'm looking for opinions on a few specific points.
Those are just my current sticking points. Of course I'd be ecstatic if anyone else wanted to work on the list with me, or offer other tips. -- Fullobeans ( talk) 08:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
You could also keep the flags in the table by dropping the size to 20px and put them in the same column as the homeport. Shinerunner ( talk) 15:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Moved from Reference Desk
While writing
Central Waterfront, Seattle, Washington I had occasion to mention the Northland Steamship Company. We don't have an article. I don't know much about it. A quick web search doesn't even make clear whether there were one or two companies with this name. I suspect the one in the Alaska trade may have been unrelated to a company of the same name operating on the Great Lakes.
Does anyone know more about this? If so, could I prevail upon you to write at least a stub at Northland Steamship Company (or to disambiguate and write two stubs if they are two different companies)? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 20:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
End - moved from Reference Desk
Zumwalt class destroyer was in a bit of a mess - people had added political stuff in four different sections, and the old diff just felt a bit disjointed. I've reordered it, and updated the article with some of the recent events, the debate about ABM capability and so on. And I've given it a bit of a clean, converting refs to {{ cite}} templates and so on. It can't be that far off GA now, it just needs some different eyeballs on it and a bit of polishing - references for a few of the specs, a bit of tightening of the text, that sort of thing. It would be a good one to GA, since it's a ship that's in the news at the moment. Enjoy.... 82.3.242.144 ( talk) 01:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I've created lists of all US and UK-related ship articles so anyone can utilize the 'related changes' function to monitor changes to US and UK ship articles. I would've liked to have a single list for all ship articles, but there are far too many for that to be feasible. If there is interest in lists for other subsets of ship articles, let me know. You can access the new recent changes links at:
Hopefully these lists will make it easier to watch 'our' articles for vandalism. Since they use a special pages function, you can't add them to your watchlist, so you might want to bookmark them or save a link to them on your userpage. It would be great if everyone would get in the habit of checking the recent changes links in addition to their own watchlists, so we can cast a broader net for vandalism.
I have updated {{ Ships sidebar}} to include the new recent changes links. Now that we have the new cleanup listing, the old Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Tasks and {{ Ships tasks}} are largely obsolete, so I have reorganized the "Things you can do" section of the sidebar template, as well. Maralia ( talk) 04:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
A great idea! But let's not keep it to ourselves. How about letting other WP's know, like WP:TWP and WP:AVIATION for a start. Mjroots ( talk) 06:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Tribal class destroyer (1936) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 04:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't sure where to categorize this into, currently it just has Category:Ships. I didn't see a barks subcat in Ships by type.... Skookum1 ( talk) 15:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I've been doing a little work on the footer template {{ Flower class corvette}}. Can anyone with a reference verify what the correct pennant number for the modified Flower-class corvette HMS Candytuft was? (This is a different ship than HMS Candytuft (K09), an unmodified Flower-class corvette.) The second Candytuft was transferred to the Royal Canadian Navy as HMCS Long Branch (K487). Uboat.net, usually pretty reliable, lists Candytuft with the pennant number K484, but Long Branch with K487. Most of the other Flower-class corvettes transferred between navies (except those to the U.S. Navy) seem to have kept the same pennant number. Is this a case of a source being wrong or did it have two differing pennant numbers? — Bellhalla ( talk) 16:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
(outdent)So, does anyone know about the pennant number? I created redirects for both names and both pennant numbers in case someone comes here looking under either number. — Bellhalla ( talk) 17:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for USS Nevada (BB-36) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 20:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
There are various lists of ship launches and shipwrecks. I'm sure these are underpopulated though. Every ship should be linked from the list of the year it was launched, and all shipwrecks should be linked from the list for that year (a shipwreck doesn't necessarily mean a loss). There are also lists of ship decomissionings too.
These lists all follow the format "List of ship (event) in (year)". Mjroots ( talk) 20:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Just ran across the NASA recovery ship today. Is it just me, or does this look like it should be a civilian version of the class or type articles we use with military ships? -- Kralizec! ( talk) 14:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I have been working my way through the U-boat set index pages to update the links to the new naming styles (per a discussion recently held at WP:NC-SHIPS). Most of the set index pages are like German submarine U-90 that list all the subs numbered 90 (whatever the series or Wikipedia naming style). In the case of the number 134, however, there was only one boat of that number commissioned, the sub whose article is currently at German submarine U-134 (1941). I think that since there were no other commissioned subs with the number 134, that the WWII sub should just be at German submarine U-134 with no disambiguation. Currently that page is set up as a set index page and includes redlinks to the two uncompleted WWI U-boats that would have been numbered 134. My question: should we have an index/disambiguation page in a case like this where the other subs are only marginally notable (if at all)? — Bellhalla ( talk) 17:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The articles Japanese cruiser Yodo and Japanese cruiser Mogami (1908), obviously, classify these two ships as cruisers. But the Yodo class is classified by the IJN themselves as aviso, or dispatch vessel; lighter than cruisers. I think these articles should be renamed appropriately but I realize that neither "aviso" nor "dispatch vessel" are classifications commonly used in English, so I'd like to ask for a suggestion.
Also, both of these vessels are prefixed with "IJN" at the beginning of the article. IJN is of course a tag invented by Anglophone writers. I wonder if there's been a consensus for the usage of this prefix in Wikipedia. It seems that at the present some ships are prefixed IJN and some aren't. o ( talk) 15:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I've just come across this article: Princess Kaguya (cruise ship), the current AFD is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Kaguya (cruise ship). The concept looks promising but I'm not sure if this article should be saved? - MBK 004 04:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for RMS Titanic is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 12:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
There were two ships named Mahratta in service with the Brocklebank Line. One was launched in 1892 and the other in 1917. Both foundered on the Goodwin Sands 30 years apart, and within a mile of each other. I'm having trouble creating a meaningful article on the second Mahratta as I can't find much info apart from this, which I think may fail WP:RS. Can I use this source or are we going to be left with a very short stub article? Mjroots ( talk) 10:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm pleased to announce that USS Constitution was promoted to Featured status. Congratulations to Brad101 and everyone that pitched in to help with the article, and thank you to those who participated in the peer review, A-class review, and FAC.
TomStar81 and I have been in touch via email, and he pointed out that February 22 will be the 100th anniversary of the conclusion of the Great White Fleet's trip around the world. He had been planning to work on the article, with the goal of Today's featured article on the centennial. Are there a couple people out there willing to take this on, with my help? Maralia ( talk) 21:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
These submarines are inconsistently named. Should they be under K-141, Kursk or RFS ? - Kittybrewster ☎ 15:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Please move page to be consistent with other Russian submarines from Russian submarine K-141 Kursk to K-141 Kursk. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
SS Titan (2012), an article concerning a proposed ship, has been nominated for deletion here. Interested editors may wish to comment. Benea ( talk) 00:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I created this article yesterday. Now I find that the news refers to it sometimes with the prefix MT and other times with MV. What's the appropriate naming convention? -- Rosiestep ( talk) 20:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC) alor
The peer review for Japanese World War II destroyers is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 04:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
This oil tanker was just hijacked off the coast of Somalia and so may be of interest to this project. Also there's a discussion on Talk:Sirius Star about whether or not the proper pronouns were neuter or feminine. Input from members of this project would be of assistance. JoshuaZ ( talk) 22:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The Ministry of War Transport owned many ships during World War II. These all had names prefixed Empire. I've discovered a list on them all online, and using that have started working on a list for Wikipedia. The basic info I have collated contains enough information to enable searches to obtain information to create articles on individual ships. I've put the Empire A— ships on a subpage. Anyone who would like to create individual ship articles from the list is welcome to do so. If you are creating an article on a particular ship, please wikilink the name so that it shows up red, and add an edit note to say who is working on the article. Once created, the link will then turn blue. Mjroots ( talk) 16:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
With the additions of HMS Mahratta (G23) and SM U-4 (Austria-Hungary) today, WikiProject Ships now has 300 DYK articles listed on our DYK page. (There may be others not on the list, so if you know of any ship DYKs not listed, please add them.) Keep up the good work, everyone! — Bellhalla ( talk) 13:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
American President Lines
Attack Squadron 46 (United States Navy) Casco class monitor Chester - Hadlyme Ferry Concordia (ship 1696) Factory ship Flyer (steamboat) German submarine U-38 (1938) German submarine U-656 Gondola (steam yacht) Haimun Harry Price (Royal Navy) Herring Buss HMNZS Te Mana (F111) HMS Ontario (1780) HNoMS Honningsvåg HNoMS Kjell Ikazuchi class destroyer Japanese destroyer Matsu (Type D) John Kempthorne (Royal Navy officer) K-1000 battleship Lone Tree Ferry Lynchburg Ferry Lytton (sternwheeler) MF Storegut Millersburg Ferry Monohansett (steamboat) MV Ascension MV Baffin Strait (T-AK-W9519) MV Virginian (T-AK 9205) Nobby (boat) Order of battle for Convoy SC 7 Princess Royal (sloop) SC-21 (United States) Shirakumo class destroyer Sir John Moore, 1st Baronet SS Cheviot SS Pan Kraft SS Pfalz United States lightship LV-58 USS Hawaii (CB-3) USS Sandpiper (AM-51) Valley View Ferry Vorpostenboot
(outdent)All added, except for five already there (but two of those had older names which were corrected). These additions put the number at 355 now. Wow! Almost a 20% expansion in three days ;) — Bellhalla ( talk) 12:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I've been checking online and have been unable to verify the information on the article page. Does anyone have an alternate source that could be referenced for the Iosif Stalin and the Vyacheslav Molotov ? Shinerunner ( talk) 17:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Kjet! I've added those links to the article as well. Shinerunner ( talk) 17:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
In response to the discussion above, I have made a proposal to move several Russian and Soviet submarine articles to match the naming style outlined at WP:NC-SHIPS. Details may be found here. All comments are welcome. — Bellhalla ( talk) 19:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Australian military history task force#Cerberus class battleship?, I am asking for views regarding the name and content of the following articles: Cerberus class battleship, HMVS Cerberus, HMS Magdala (1870), and HMS Abyssinia (1870), as well as the template {{ Cerberus class battleship}}
Based on various Australian naval history texts, I have found nothing that connects HMVS Cerberus and the concept of battleships beyond the fact that the ship's armoured hull, gun turrets, and superstructure were advances in naval architecture that were then utilised in the proto-battleships and battleships of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. However, I admit out front that I have not looked deeply into content on Magdala or Abyssinia, as I have little to no access to British or Indian naval histories, and what I have found on either side of the argument is limited to websites of dubious reliability. Based on this, I believe that naming the ships as "Battleships" is a gross exaggeration of their capabilities, design, and role, and am seeking to rename the main article to Cerberus class monitor and edit the articles appropriately.
If anyone has any observations or comments, please raise them here or at the Australian MILHIST task force link above. -- saberwyn 07:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
The National Archives of Australia has (in the last few days) declassified and released a large number of documents relating to the sinking of the Sydney. Although already rated GA, this new information should be thoroughly digested and included. We should work towards making this the FA for 22 November 2009, the 75th anniversary of her launch. 203.7.140.3 ( talk) 04:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
List of aircraft carriers by country
i suggest deleting seaplane carriers from this list or making a separated list for them. opinions? Loosmark ( talk) 15:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
ok i can try to explain. an aircraft carrier by definition is a ship with a FLIGHT DECK and which can LAUNCH and RECOVER aircraft. this is how most dictionary define the type for example:
http://dictionary.die.net/aircraft%20carrier "a large warship that carries planes and has a long flat deck for take-offs and landings [syn: carrier, flattop, attack aircraft carrier]"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/aircraft+carrier "a large naval vessel designed as a mobile air base, having a long flat deck on which aircraft can take off and land at sea."
i'm aware that at the time early seaplane tenders and carriers were sometimes called aircraft carrier but they are not aircraft carriers under the modern understanding of the word. furthermore whats worse at the moment the list has many merchant ships converted to seaplanders which basicaly only had a derrick to lower a seaplane down. or very small seaplane carriers i have for example never heard of the german vessel "Hans Rolshoven" (which is on the list described as a "light tug type seaplane tender") so i went to check her data: 985 tons. not exactly "a large warship" don't you agree? i believe that people who check this list are interested to see the list of aircraft carriers in the modern understanding of the world. Loosmark ( talk) 18:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
If any editors have some spare time i think theres an article that needs a major revamp. Ship Commissioning appears to be the only article on wikipedia about what a Commissioned Ship is. I was expecting to find an article along the lines of Commissioned Ship but there is nothing. It seems odd that there is no major article on this subject, considering how many lists of Commissioned ships there are and the fact commission dates appear on every ship page. Could someone please take a look at this problem if they have the time, either to try and improve the Ship Commissioning article or create a new page called Commissioned Ship. Even if it was just a stub, i think it would be worthy of an article, im just shocked there isnt one already. Thanks BritishWatcher ( talk) 03:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I've proposed renaming Category:Bangladesh Navy Ship to Category:Ships of the Bangladesh Navy, in line with our more standard conventions as seen at Category:Ships by navy. The discussion is here, interested editors are welcome to comment. Benea ( talk) 18:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Can an admin rename M/V Biscaglia to MV Biscaglia? Haus Talk 22:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Based on the above discussion, I have requested a move of Template:Warship to Template:Ship on the requested moves page, here. — Bellhalla ( talk) 19:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I noticed several uses of templates to link to ships such as the {{ USS}} ( USS example) or {{ MV}} ( MV example). Which is nice but some of the abbreviations are already in use such as {{ FV}} ( failed verification). I am creating a {{ Ship}} that will handle all ship classes. -- Cat chi? 12:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
{{warship|FV|Northwestern}}
produces
FV Northwestern. Yes, it looks silly in the edit window to see a fishing boat called a "warship" but it does work. —
Bellhalla (
talk)
18:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC){{ship|SS|Ohioan|1914|2}}
produces
Ohioan —
Bellhalla (
talk)
18:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC){{ship}}
as a meta-template, similar to the way {{
Cite DANFS}} uses {{
Cite web}}, but I do not support wholesale removal of existing uses of current shortcuts, per Martocticvs. Several of the existing shortcut templates, however, have extra options that would need to be considered, such as the optional slash for {{
MV}} and {{
MS}}, and the optional sub parameter for {{
SMS}}. —
Bellhalla (
talk)
18:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Wow, you all move like greased lightening! (Teach me to take a weekend off!) Nice work everyone on quickly hashing this out and coming up with a good consensus decision! -- Kralizec! ( talk) 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Please join the discussion here: Template_talk:DANFS#Problem_with_category_inclusion — G716 < T· C> 02:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
A new article, needs a bit of work to bash into shape though. Mjroots ( talk) 08:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I ran across this stub Provence II (shipwreck) and wanted to know if it should be renamed? Shinerunner ( talk) 23:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The Naval Historical Center has officially changed names to Naval History & Heritage Command according to the main page of the website. I suppose there are some templates in use that will need to be updated. -- Brad ( talk) 18:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for SM U-5 (Austria-Hungary) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 22:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for USS Liberty incident is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 22:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Empire State V. Can anyone spot what is wrong here? Infobox won't align, text is messed around and uncat tag is into the infobox. I've spent 15 minutes on this already. -- Brad ( talk) 22:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Many of the ships in the Stone Fleet list have articles with the USS prefix. A quick spot check of DANFS (looked at Marcia, Margaret Scott, Peter Demill and Robin Hood) yields no evidence that they were ever commissioned into the US Navy. See also Category:United States Navy Stone Fleet ships. I think unless a citable source can be found to show they were commissioned, the articles need to be renamed (or more likely just absorbed into the Stone Fleet article). Any civil war naval buffs have a source or want to straighten this out? -- J Clear ( talk) 02:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Is this article using the correct ship prefix? I thought that it would be RV or MV. Shinerunner ( talk) 14:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Move to MV Polarstern completed. Also, thanks Haus and Kjet for guessing the current value of my 401K plan! Shinerunner ( talk) 16:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I raised a question a while back at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Assessment in regard to the importance of uncompleted ship classes and got no responses, so I thought I'd bring it to a wider audience. What should the importance assessment be for an uncompleted ship class? The importance scale suggests that uncompleted ships should assessed as "Low", but there is no comparable suggestion for an uncompleted ship class. The way I see it there are two approaches suggested by the importance scale:
I bring this up because uncompleted ship class articles seem to have widely varying importance ratings, ranging from "High" for Montana-class battleship, to "Low" for U-52-class submarine. Any suggestions for what the guideline should be? — Bellhalla ( talk) 17:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
The preceded by/followed by links in the US BB class are messed up around the South Dakota class Wezelboy ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC).
The A-Class review for Lexington class battlecruiser is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 22:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
There are two ship articles at FAC that could benefit from additional input. The nomination for SS Dakotan is here, and the nomination for SS Washingtonian is here. Both have been open for some time. — Bellhalla ( talk) 22:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I reassessed this to B class today. Does it have the potential to go to GA class? Mjroots ( talk) 18:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Bizzare question time, can anyone identify the ship in this photo please? cheers muchly Khu kri 16:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
While working on improving the article USS Alexandria (SSN-757), I found that other articles about warships, both surface and submarine, often included a section listing commanding officers.
I sampled the articles by doing the following two searches:
I found that there is a lack of consistency in naming, placement and format of such lists. Here's what I found
# Section naming. Warship articles, whether surface of submarine, should name sections that list Commanding Officers as Commanding Officers, not List of Commanding Officers . This seems to be the most common naming convention
If anyone has comments and/or other views, please let me know. For the current article I am working on improving,
USS Alexandria (SSN-757), I will implement the list of COs using the recommended style noted above. If there is consensus, I'll work through the list of submarines and move/rename/redo the lists of Commanding Officers, if any.--
Joe Sperrazza (
talk) 02:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, --
Joe Sperrazza (
talk)
18:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
A Chief of Naval Operations' instruction (OPNAVINST 5750.12J) requires all commissioned ships in the Navy to submit an annual Command Operations Report, formerly known as the Command History Report. This report covers the operational and administrative actions of the command for each calendar year. To provide the crew of the current commissioned ships with a better understanding of its history, and in concert with the histories in the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, the annual history/command operational reports are posted for reference purposes.
...Please note the reports listed here are only for current commissioned ships....
THIS IS A LONG RANGE PROGRAM TO SCAN AND POST THESE REPORTS. AT THIS TIME THE "A" through "L" SHIP'S LISTS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED AND AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW. SPECIFIC HISTORY REPORTS FOR L, M, N, O, P, R, S, T, V, AND W SHIPS HAVE BEEN POSTED.
Ship History/Command Operations Reports
Thank you, again, all that provided their comments. I believe consensus was reached as follows:
This issue was not explicitly addressed by any of the comments. However, interpolating from the comments received, I propose to take the following actions, unless someone objects:
Cheers, -- Joe Sperrazza ( talk) 02:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The list needs to be expanded based on the info from International Maritime Organization. There are a number pf PDFs from the IMO at http://www.imo.org/Circulars/mainframe.asp?topic_id=334
Mind that the IMO info is for piracy world wide. Article is confined only to "Somali pirates".
-- Cat chi? 13:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Template:DANFS talk has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — G716 < T· C> 03:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Since {{ warship}} now redirects to {{ ship}}, is there any objection to following the same process we used when consolidating our infobox templates, namely:
Cheers. Haus Talk 00:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I've expanded the MS Hans Hedtoft article, but a German reader is needed to extract further material from this source and a Danish reader to extract further material from this source. Mjroots ( talk) 09:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I ripped the B-Class FAQ from milhist and updated/adapted it for Ships. I think I covered the main idea of B-Class for this project but alterations are welcome @ Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Assessment/B-class FAQ. -- Brad ( talk) 17:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for SMS Moltke (1910) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 20:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Over my time editing articles relating to the Royal Australian Navy (RAN), particulary articles relating to the ships thereof, I have become frustrated and confused with the system of categories used to categorise ship articles.
I would like to suggest a reorganisation of the category tree: Category:Naval ships of Australia at the top, with four subcategories; Category:Active naval ships of Australia, Category:Ships of Australian Colonial navies (possibly renamed), Category:Ships of the Royal Australian Navy, and Category:Australian naval ship stubs. The "Ships of the RAN" category would be kept empty of individual ship articles, which will be categorised into subcategories based on type (destroyer, cruiser, submarine, etc) and/or role (training ship, survey ship, etc).
Part of this reorganisation will require the creation of several subcategories based on type/role, the standardisation of category names for the same type/role (we have some that are "Type of the Royal Australian Navy", some "Type of Australia", and some "Royal Australian Navy type") and the removal of overly-specific subcategories, such as Category:Battlecruisers of Australia, (which only contains and only will contain the article HMAS Australia (1911)) or Category:Cold War aircraft carriers of Australia, (which with the exception of HMAS Albatross is identical to Category:Royal Australian Navy aircraft carriers and Category:Aircraft carriers of Australia).
I've drawn up a rough layout at User:Saberwyn/The Grand RAN/New category structure. This page also contains a breakdown of the type/role subcategories that are currently in use, need to be created, and need to have names standardised; a list of "Odd categories out" that I feel need to be merged, have their contents split out into other categories, or don't know what to do with. Some examples of how the new category structure will be applied to various RAN ship articles is provided.
Any thoughts or input would be greatly appreciated. Particularly, I would like to know if the subcategories should be standardised at "of Australia" or "of the Royal Australian Navy". -- saberwyn 11:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm well under-way with the recategorisation, and based on this think that the easiest way to solve the Navy/Nation issue is to ensure that all military ships are classified under their operating force, not their operation nation. These 'navy' categories would be subcategories of the "Naval ships of foo" cat. Thoughts? -- saberwyn 22:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for USS Iowa turret explosion is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 22:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
With 36 FAs, 18 featured pictures, and 245-ish DYKs, we certainly have enough material to support a pretty rich portal. I'm curious if a ships portal along the lines of P:USN/ P:USMM were to spring into existence, would anybody else be interested in working on it?
Big tasks in initial setup would include:
Getting the skeleton in place would be a matter of a few hours of work. OTOH, creating the capsules would probably take 18-36 hours, and I don't know how long it would take to transcribe the DYKs...
Cheers. Haus Talk 15:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
As I've never really worked on an article with a view to pushing it up towards the higher end of the assessment scale, I thought I'd just ask for some opinions on whether HMS Agamemnon (1781) is ready to be put up for GA assessment? Martocticvs ( talk) 16:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
If a previous ship (or previous ships) have been awarded battle honours, are those battle honors "owned" by a subsequent ship with that name? If so, is it appropriate to display them in the infobox of the latest ship with that name? Mjroots ( talk) 05:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
History | |
---|---|
Name | HMAS Sydney V |
Honours and awards | list error: <br /> list (
help) Battle Honours inherited: Emdem 1914 CALABRIA 1940 SPADA 1940 MEDITERRANEAN 1940 Kormoran 1941 KOREA 1951-52 VIETNAM 1965-72 KUWAIT 1991 Battle Honours earned: FOOBAR 20** Barfoo 20** Awards earned: Meritorious Unit Citation? |
Notes | Taken from: image at [7] and [8] |
(od) Is it just me, or is the infobox appearing at the bottom of this talk page for everyone? Mjroots ( talk) 22:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Are you allowed to assess your own articles? Given the new template where you just answer a bunch of questions and get an automatic assessment, I can't see why not, and it saves someone else the trouble of doing so, but I'd like to know if there is an established convention here. Gatoclass ( talk) 09:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
(od)As this issue affects all articles across Wikipedia, I've raised it here. Mjroots ( talk) 12:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for not responding to the many replies earlier. The "R.F." and "E.F." were in the stats for a DANFS article, specifically,
this one.
Gatoclass (
talk)
13:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Anybody know which HMS Arabis this is? It can't be this one and it doesn't seem that this one fits the bill either. Was there a third? Mjroots ( talk) 10:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Anyone know how to extract an image from a google book file? I have been able to DL entire books from google, but I don't know how to separate the images from the text. Gatoclass ( talk) 03:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
(outdent)Not sure about what Mjroots has said, but it's generally PD 75 70 years after the death of the creator.
IANAL, but here are some common examples:
Let's say Jane Smith makes a drawing 140 years ago, in 1868.
These guidelines are for images or works that were not done "for hire" (e.g. as an employee of a company), with the caveat that works published pre-1923 are always PD in the US. There are always complications and intricacies of copyright that are best left to lawyers, but if you follow these guidelines, you are generally pretty safe. — Bellhalla ( talk) 13:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
(e) Presumption as to Author’s Death.— After a period of 95 years from the year of first publication of a work, or a period of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first, any person who obtains from the Copyright Office a certified report that the records provided by subsection (d) disclose nothing to indicate that the author of the work is living, or died less than 70 years before, is entitled to the benefits of a presumption that the author has been dead for at least 70 years. Reliance in good faith upon this presumption shall be a complete defense to any action for infringement under this title.
(od) Let's look at a theoretical case. Photo taken in 1868, author unknown. As far as I can tell, copyright if the photograph was unpublished would have expired 75 years after creation in the USA = 1943. The photo was published in a book that was published in 1974. As the photo was already in the public domain by then, no new copyright could be created, thus the photo remained copyright expired and is available for anyone to use for whatever purpose they wish to use it for. Correct me if this is not the case. Mjroots ( talk) 20:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)