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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
There is a proposal to rename Category:Richmond, California ships to Category:Ships built in Richmond, California. All editors are welcome to comment here. — Bellhalla ( talk) 20:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Pennsylvania (1872), Ohio (1872), Indiana (1873) and Illinois (1873) are all great articles which met B-class right away but I'm wondering if they should carry the SS prefix? Seems like they should. -- Brad ( talk) 23:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
*Sigh* I moved them. I did have the impression from earlier discussion at wikiships that prefixes are best avoided because there are often different ones and they are often added incorrectly. But re-reading our guidelines here, it seems there is support for naming ship articles according to their most commonly employed name, and when you have ships with names as generic as these, I think one can probably safely assume that the prefix was very commonly used. I must admit that I too had a gut feeling that the names I originally gave the articles just didn't look quite right somehow.
I wouldn't like to think this is going to be used as some sort of precedent however. I still think there are good reasons to avoid prefixes in many cases, it's only in the case of these particular ships that I am conceding the practicality of it. Gatoclass ( talk) 06:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I have requested that the name of this article be changed to use an historically attested short form of one or other of the ship's titles, either HM Armed Vessel Bounty or HMS Bounty. Comments are solicited here. -- Petecarney ( talk) 13:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Spelling question: authoritative sources spell the ill-fated ship's name both ways. See discussion at Talk:Port Chicago disaster#Quinalt or Quinault?. Thanks! Binksternet ( talk) 23:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Would anyone here be interested in assessing the notability of article Theodore Too? I just discovered it is flagged under WP:TUGS, although i'm not sure how relevant the article itself is. Thanks. SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 02:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
is a large-scale imitation tugboat based on the fictional tugboat Does this really fit our project scope? Apparently this ship can make parades but not much more. We had some conversation not long ago about "ships" operated by Di$neyworld and how they were really entertainment pieces. -- Brad ( talk) 13:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Firefly. - Kittybrewster ☎ 10:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Can one or more of you fine sailors take a look at this article and the AfD discussion? I've launched into wild speculation that the "Beramba" is a mistaken transciption of "the Omrah". Expertise might be helpful, and I think the Omrah might make a nice article in any case. Happy Holidays! An extra round of hard tack for all of ye. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 21:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Just happened upon this: USS Stingray (SS-161). This is a fictional submarine that appeared in a movie. It appears to have been nom'd for CSD but was declined and then PRODed. Is this a candiadate for AfD or should we let it go? - MBK 004 05:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
The article makes no mention of the various ships owned and/or operated by the Southern Railway. Assistance from WP:SHIPS members in addressing this would be appreciated. Mjroots ( talk) 09:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I created (with help) a new template for use with shipwreck lists. It could be modified for use with ship articles as well. An example of it in use is at User:Shinerunner/Sandbox2. The link for the template itself is Template:Shipwreck list if anyone wishes to take a look. Shinerunner ( talk) 22:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I am thinking of purchasing a scanner so I can scan in images from books and use them on the wiki. Does anyone have a suggestion as to how much scanner I would need? I can get an all-in-one printer/scanner locally very cheap, but dedicated scanners start at almost twice the price, that's with a 2400 x 4800 optical resolution. Gatoclass ( talk) 16:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Article has been AfD'd for second time. Mjroots ( talk) 07:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I've come across a cut-and-paste move of USS Absecon (1918) to USS Absecon (ID-3131) that needs to be fixed. (I've already moved the talk page to the new name.) I left a note for the editor that did the cut-and-paste. — Bellhalla ( talk) 01:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Archimede class submarine and Spanish submarine C-3 contradict each other, the first says that Archimede was renamed General Sanjuro and Torricelli was renamed General Mola, whilst the latter says that Archimede was renamed General Mola and Torricelli was renamed General Sanjuro. This contradiction requires attention. 76.66.195.190 ( talk) 11:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Can an admin undo the move of HMS Mahratta (G23) to HMS Mahratta (1942). I moved this article as a result of a request on my talk page, but now realise this was done in error. Mjroots ( talk) 19:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Burford Class I'm not sure what the plan was for this article. Duplicate? -- Brad ( talk) 06:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for SS Timothy Bloodworth is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! — Bellhalla ( talk) 00:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Admin assistance is needed to move the article USS Wildwood (PC-1181) to USS PC-1181 (currently a redirect). Almost all of the article describes activity under the name PC-1181. The ship only held the name Wildwood for the last three years it was laid up and was never commissioned under that name. I posted a notice on the talk page and the article creator agrees with this non-controversial move. Thanks in advance. — Bellhalla ( talk) 22:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Could somebody here take a look at the change I just made at John McCain (disambiguation)? The page previously had one entry for the ships pointing to USS John McCain, which is itself essentially nothing more than a disambig page. I included the commissioned years in parens after the ship names making these look like birth/death years, but don't know if that's a common (or even reasonable) way to indicate years a ship was in service. Thanks. -- Rick Block ( talk) 15:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
There is a good chance that Nimrod Expedition will appear as the Main Page Feature Article on 9 January, which in turn will draw attention to Nimrod (ship). There is not much there now; sourcing is unclear except for the book link which I added. Miramar also has some limited data. If anyone has any interest in working this up, adding an infobox, etc. feel free. Kablammo ( talk) 04:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
This has been raised on the talk page of a template, but is rather hidden away there. With some ships going through a sucession of owners and names, infoboxes can get quite long. I'm trying to find a way of getting all the info into the infobox in the most compact way possible. I created the SS Empire Advocate article with a compact infobox, which another editor altered with the result that it is now much longer, and only adds one minor piece of information. Which is the preferred way of doing this? Mjroots ( talk) 08:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
History | |
---|---|
Name | list error: <br /> list (
help) Solfels (1913-20) Bowes Castle (1920-32) Angelina Lauro (1932-40) Empire Advocate (1940-45) |
Owner | list error: <br /> list (
help) Hansa Line, Bremen (1913-1919) British Shipping Controller (1919-20) Lancashire Shipping Co (1920-32) Achille Lauro, Naples (1932-40) Ministry of War Transport (1940-45) |
Operator | list error: <br /> list (
help) Hansa Line, Bremen (1913-1919) H Hogarth & Sons (1919-20) Chambers & Sons (1920-32) Achille Lauro, Naples (1932-40)Galbraith, Pembroke & Sons (1940-45) |
Port of registry | list error: <br /> list (
help) Bremen (1913-19) Liverpool (1919-32) Naples (1932-40) London (1948-55) |
Builder | J C Tecklenburg AG, Wesermünde |
Yard number | 255 |
Launched | 8 April 1913 |
In service | 22 May 1913 |
Identification | list error: <br /> list (
help) Italian official number 382 (1932-40) UK official number 143102 (1940-45) Code letters JWQS (1913-32) Code letters IBIB (1932) Code letters NDHU (1932-40) Code letters GLYJ (1940-45) |
Fate | Scrapped at Bo'ness, 1945 |
General characteristics | |
Tons burthen | 5,787 GRT |
Length | 418 feet 5 inches (127.53 m) |
Beam | 56 feet 1 inch (17.09 m) |
Draught | 29 feet 8 inches (9.04 m) |
Propulsion | 1 x triple expansion steam engine (J C Tecklenburg AG, Wesermünde) 520 horsepower (390 kW) NHP. |
Speed | 11.5 knots (21.3 km/h) |
Complement | 73 |
History | |
---|---|
Name | Solfels |
Owner | Hansa Line, Bremen |
Operator | Hansa Line, Bremen |
Port of registry | Bremen |
Builder | J C Tecklenburg AG, Wesermünde |
Yard number | 255 |
Launched | 8 April 1913 |
In service | 22 May 1913 |
Identification | list error: <br /> list (
help) Code letters JWQS |
Name | Bowes Castle |
Namesake | Bowes Castle |
Owner | list error: <br /> list (
help) British Shipping Controller (1919-20) Lancashire Shipping Co (1920-32) |
Operator | list error: <br /> list (
help) H Hogarth & Sons (1919-20) Chambers & Sons (1920-32) |
Port of registry | Liverpool |
In service | 1919 |
Identification | list error: <br /> list (
help) Code letters JWQS |
Name | Angelina Lauro |
Owner | Achille Lauro, Naples |
Operator | Achille Lauro, Naples |
Port of registry | Naples |
In service | 1932 |
Identification | list error: <br /> list (
help) Italian official number 382 (1932-40) Code letters IBIB (1932) Code letters NDHU (1932-40) |
Name | Empire Advocate |
Owner | Ministry of War Transport |
Operator | Galbraith, Pembroke & Sons |
Port of registry | London |
In service | 1940 |
Identification | list error: <br /> list (
help) UK official number 143102 Code letters GLYJ |
Fate | Scrapped at Bo'ness, 1945 |
General characteristics | |
Tonnage | 5,787 GRT |
Length | 418 feet 5 inches (127.53 m) |
Beam | 56 feet 1 inch (17.09 m) |
Draught | 29 feet 8 inches (9.04 m) |
Propulsion | 1 x triple expansion steam engine (J C Tecklenburg AG, Wesermünde) 520 horsepower (390 kW) NHP. |
Speed | 11.5 knots (21.3 km/h) |
Complement | 73 |
(outdent for clarity) On the orher of fields, personally I would prefer retaining the curent order of fields, with name, owner, operator and port of registry displaying before the numbers. Those details are—in my opinion at least—the most important basic information about a ship that a person will look at first, and therefore deserve to be displayed in a prominent position.
Also, on the original actual subject, I take it that the general concensus here is that the "don't repeat the box" formatting for commecial ships is the preferred one? — Kjet ( talk · contribs) 11:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
(Outdenting) We don't seem to be finding much common ground here. Look, maybe what I'll do is create an alternative infobox listing in my sandbox for people to compare with the current alternatives. It's a bit hard discussing some of these issues in the abstract I think. Gatoclass ( talk) 04:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Is there any reason why this ship shouldn't be moved to SS Justicia? Statendam wasn't even completed as such before being taken over by the White Star Line. As Justicia she found somewhat greater fame as the second-largest ship to be torpedoed during the First World War. -- Harlsbottom ( talk | library | book reviews) 11:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks like we are going to have to grab the bull by the horns and set down a set of notablility criteria for merchant ships.
To make a start, I'd like to propose that
OK, I've made a start, over to you. Mjroots ( talk) 19:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Is there any consensus as to what floating vessels would generally not be considered notable? Are the least boats belonging to a navy not "commissioned," which would be a bright line distinction? What about small harbor patrol boats of a navy, or some small country whose largest ship is a small speedboat with a machinegun? Edison ( talk) 21:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Viv Hamilton ( talk) 10:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
One question regarding proposed rule #1 above: what is an "Uncommissioned naval ship"? Does it mean a ship still in the hands of the builders prior to handover to the navy? Petecarney ( talk) 13:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Above should be discussion about the proposed rules in general. This section is for discussion of details which should be considered if the rules are accepted. -- SEWilco ( talk) 06:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
This article was recently in the last 48 hours drastically revamped by another editor. It could use some help to meet our quality standards. I normally would help out, but I'm just coming off of a vacation and am not ready for such a task yet. Would someone mind helping out? - MBK 004 04:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm wondering about this. In my travels I have come across some old books dating from the late 19th/early 20th century that have recently been reprinted. According to the "first published before 1923" rule, I would assume these books to be in the public domain, however the reprinters claim copyright. It is possible to re-establish copyright over an old out of copyright book, or is this sort of thing just an example of copyfraud? Gatoclass ( talk) 05:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
A proposed merge from Italian aircraft carrier Sparviero into MS Augustus is under discussion here. Please drop in to have you stay. — Kjet ( talk · contribs) 10:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The peer review for Armament of the Iowa class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 00:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Could I get some eyes on this article and commenting here on the talk page. There have been some edits made to this article which have removed SS and RMS from the names of the ships on the basis on "consistency". - MBK 004 05:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:SETINDEX pages, those used for our ship list pages, are specifically different from WP:DAB pages. There however at least three pages to my knowledge, that use the qualifier '(disambiguation)' ( HMS Victory (disambiguation), HMS Hood (disambiguation) and HMS Beagle (disambiguation)). This is fair enough if we decide that there is one ship that can qualify as the primary usage. But every now and then someone will come along and remove any formatting that doesn't comply with WP:MOSDAB, sometimes quite insistently. Should these articles perhaps be retitled to some new form that removes the 'disambiguation' qualifier in order to alleviate this? Or is just vigilant patrolling needed? I ask because the issue has cropped up on HMS Hood (disambiguation), where both set index and disambiguation tabs have been added side by side, despite that seeming mutually exclusive in terms of application of guidelines. Benea ( talk) 22:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The A-Class review for U-1 class submarine (Austria-Hungary) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 18:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Would the Cromer Lifeboat Louisa Heartwell ON 495 article be better titled as RNLB Louisa Heartwell? Is there a naming convention that covers lifeboat articles? Mjroots ( talk) 17:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
First of all may I say that it would have been nice to be asked to contribute to this discussion as the creator of the Cromer Lifeboat articles and not to have learnt second hand from another editor that this discussion was taking place. I think that a merger of these pages would not be a good thing. Firstly I was intending to add to each lifeboat its most notable actions as I have done with the Henry Blogg Lifeboat. This would make a combined page very long and tedious for a reader. I do agree that some of the Lifeboats that have been stationed at Cromer could not stand on there own in an individual article but some of them are indeed very notable and are deserving of there own page. Cromer Lifeboats have been some of the busiest lifeboats over the years, especially during the wars. Until I had made an effort to start these articles there was no reference to them on wikipedia, only to Henry Blogg. As famous and as brave as he was he could not have operated without the crew or the lifeboats that he served on and I think that they had been sadly neglected. I don’t think a single article would be a good enough reference to what has and still is a very important part of Cromer, Norfolk and the RNLI’s History. stavros1 ♣ 17:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
If this Lifeboat is not Notable can Bellhalla explain why the RNLI has gone to great time and expense to preserve this lifeboat in its own museum.!!!!! stavros1 ♣ 18:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
stavros1 ♣ 23:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The SS John Stagg article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots ( talk) 20:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Yamato class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 05:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
There's an article with the former title; the latter is the redlink in HMS Esk, and the two articles don't link to each other. I know nothing about WP conventions on the naming of ships, except that this needs to be sorted out! Over to one of you experts. (I just dropped by while looking at the Esk dab page). PamD ( talk) 09:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The A-Class review for U-3 class submarine (Austria-Hungary) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 20:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I could use some help with the Future Canadian Amphibious Assault Ship article. A user (apparantly both a reg and an IP) keeps adding a ship infox to what is a project article. I addition, he is adding a pic of a Mistral class ship to the infobox, but Canada has not even specified what size of ship it wants yet, nor even issued RFPs as yet. The article is also poorly cited, typical of this user. I've left detailed edit summaries, but not used the talk page or personal contact as yet, as I doubt I can keep my cool much longer. Any help here would be appreciated. Thanks. - BillCJ ( talk) 03:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The peer review for USS Illinois (BB-65) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 03:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
{{ Ship fate box active in service}} needs to be updated to 2009. Thanks -- Brad ( talk) 12:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The discussion on notability had gone quiet, so I've attempted to turn it into some sort of guideline here. This is very much a first attempt so feel free to be bold in editting it. I've copied the existing discussion to the new talk page. I would ask that you leave the existing sections and add new sections to discuss the new suggested guidelines. If it looks like we can generate a consensus we can move it to the project space. Viv Hamilton ( talk) 20:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
User:LimoWreck added two categories to Category:IMO 6519338 in Commons. Definately no wrong categories, it only works the other way around as intended. But my question is: Is it wise to add categories to IMO number categories?.
For those who aren't familiar with the IMO system: The International Maritime Organisation, in cooperation with Lloyd's Register, gives each sea-going ship above a certain tonnage a number of zeven digits. That number does not change during the lifetime of the ship. Have a look on Commons at Category:IMO 7126322 In many cases a new owner gives the ship a new name, the MMSI number and callsigns are coupled to the owner. IMO ship identification number
I created the Category:Ships by IMO number in Commons to make it possible to find all files of a certain ship, when it is found under a certain name. More than 700 ships can be found already, feel free to help. It was not my intention to add categories to that particular category, as I assume is has no extra value and in categories a direction to an IMO number looks to me a little bit strange. What is the general opinion? -- Stunteltje ( talk) 08:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The A-Class review for SM U-14 (Austria-Hungary) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 04:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Just stumbled upon these, and I don't know if there are more in this class:
Would someone more well-versed in merging take care of these? - MBK 004 00:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, why doesn't {{ infobox Ship Begin}} also include the wikitable opening wikimarkup {| and not have a complementary {{ infobox Ship End}} ? It seems other infoboxes are structured so that these things exist. 76.66.198.171 ( talk) 14:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The A-Class review for USS Texas (BB-35) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 02:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
There are quite a few ships article that use the Miramar Ship Index as a reference. After finding that links in references often did not point to the correct ship after a period of time, I exchanged e-mails with Mr. Haworth who runs the site. It turns out that the link style most often used is a transitory link, and is not guaranteed to always link to the same ship. So if I use the link http://www.miramarshipindex.org.nz/ship/show/193342 to point to the ship King Frederick, chances are that when someone else clicks on that link it will be a completely different ship than the one I intended. The type of link that is persistent (i.e. always linking to the expected page) uses the Miramar "IDNo" value. So using the example of King Frederick, the persistent link would be http://www.miramarshipindex.org.nz/ship/list?search_op=OR&IDNo=1119225. Regrettably, this link does not go directly to the page with the specs that most people would be citing, and requires that one click on the link presented in order to see the proper information.
To help remedy this, I've created the template {{
Cite Miramar}}
that takes the Miramar "IDNo" and converts it into a link. For the same example ship, King Frederick, typing this:
{{Cite Miramar | id = 1119225 | accessdate = 20 January 2009}}
generates this:
|register={{{register}}}
is not a valid registry name (
help)I've also added an optional shipname
field that would display as follows:
|register={{{register}}}
is not a valid registry name (
help)I'd like to get feedback on the looks of this and/or how to improve it. — Bellhalla ( talk) 04:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
|accessdate= 20 January 2009
?
Mjroots (
talk) 10:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)I've expanded/rewritten the article. A few questions arise:-
Comments appreciated please. Mjroots ( talk) 10:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
at Talk:Corvette, there is a discussion going on if the warship ( Corvette (ship) or sports car Chevrolet Corvette is the primary meaning of Corvette. This is listed at WP:RM 76.66.198.171 ( talk) 11:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The A-Class review for SMS Moltke (1910) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 20:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Archimede class submarine and Spanish submarine C-3 contradict each other, the first says that Archimede was renamed General Sanjuro and Torricelli was renamed General Mola, whilst the latter says that Archimede was renamed General Mola and Torricelli was renamed General Sanjuro. This contradiction requires attention. 76.66.198.171 ( talk) 15:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
The peer review for USS Kentucky (BB-66) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 20:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Article needs a major expansion as it says absolutely nothing about their shipbuilding activities. Article also has date and place of foundation completely wrong.
Mjroots (
talk) 06:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Japanese battleship Yamato is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 22:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
The above list was deleted as the result of an AfD discussion back in 2006. I've been in contact with the deleting admin and have been advised to ask here before the article is recreated. It was suggested in the AfD debate that the article should be brought to the attention of this WP, but it was not raised on the talk page as far as I can tell. The article only had one entry at deletion.
Q: Does WP:SHIPS support the recreation of the List of ship launches in 1946. Mjroots ( talk) 17:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Here are two more to go on the list: USS Coral Sea (CV-43) and USS Des Moines (CA-134). If we can have at least six or seven vessels to go on before we recreate, we stand a better chance of not having to go through another AFD. If you find some, I'll recreate it since it seems as though Mailer diablo is not opposed to recreation. - MBK 004 19:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
And there's USS Agerholm (DD-826), USS Fresno (CL-121), RFA Spalake (A260), RFA Rowenol (A284), RFA Spaburn (A257), USS Eversole (DD-789), USS Walrus (SS-437), USS Shelton (DD-790), USS Lansdale (DD-766) to name a few. Mjroots ( talk) 19:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I found three for 1947, so I went ahead and created that year as well: List of ship launches in 1947 - MBK 004 21:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The List of current ships of the United States Navy has developed nicely over the last few months. I would like to take it higher on the assessment scale but this project uses the List rating while Milhist does not. So I'm wondering how to go about this. Should Milhist rating work its way up the GA to FA scale while Ships goes for FL? Hmmm. -- Brad ( talk) 17:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
←Per this discussion, I have relented to the general consensus and have re-assessed the list in question as B-Class. Though you should take heed of Woody's comments about FLC, he has quite a few successful FLC noms to his credit:
but it wouldn't pass FLC without an image, an adequate lead and those refs sorted out
. - MBK 004 22:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Dear Project
Can I ask your advice please? I'm not a member of this project but, obviously, I do occasionally read/edit ship-related articles. :) On a couple of articles I like to look at, an editor has started to change "she/her" to "it/its". My (perhaps limited) understanding was that the "she/her" usage was pretty standard for ships. Is this so, and should I politely revert these alterations? Is there a guideline perhaps? Or is it some kind of horrendous hot topic in which an innocent like myself would not wish to get, er, embroiled? Thanks and best wishes, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered ( talk) 22:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
(Unindent) Every once in a while, a user whose native non-English language uses "he" for ships (for example, Russian) wants to change the use on a given page to "he". Does this need to be addressed in the guidelines somewhere? And in cases of a dispute of using "she" on such articles, is substituting "it" a good compromise? - BillCJ ( talk) 18:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
What would users opinion of removing the flags from the templates Category:United_States_shipbox_templates as per Wikipedia:ICONDECORATION Gnevin ( talk) 00:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Since we are in agreement about subst and TFD'ing, is it ok if I remove the flag while is am subst'ing them ? Gnevin ( talk) 17:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
What about List of naval ship classes in service which transcludes a number of templates in the same way as the ship box templates. Do we need these? Does the page need a total revamp? Woody ( talk) 17:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
There was a proposal made to rename Category:White Star Lines Big Four → Category:Big Four (White Star Line). The opinions of all editors are welcome at the category's entry at the Categories for Discussion page. — Bellhalla ( talk) 13:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
110 templates of the form "Ship box name" (e.g. Template:Ship box CCGS Labrador) have been nominated for deletion. The full list of templates nominated is:
All editors are welcome to comment at the templates' entry at Templates for Deletion — Bellhalla ( talk) 16:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
{{
R from merge}}
attached. I have started this but have to go, any help in converting the pages would be much appreciated. Thanks.
Woody (
talk) 23:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)The MV Polarstern article has been requested to be moved to "RV Polarstern". Is RV a recognised ship prefix within this Wikiproject? Rationale for move is 9 hits on Google News vs 0 hits for MV Polarstern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots ( talk • contribs)
The articles German Type U 66 submarine, SM U-66, SM U-67, SM U-68, SM U-69, and SM U-70 are under consideration for Good Topic status. Interested editors may comment on the topic's entry at the Good Topic nominations page. — Bellhalla ( talk) 22:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The A-Class review for U-5 class submarine (Austria-Hungary) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 18:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The peer review for USS Missouri (BB-63) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 23:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The peer review for Ship Gun Fire Control Systems is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 23:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The A-Class review for U-20 class submarine is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 01:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello. There is a long-going dispute on this page, whether the vessels featured iron armour or not. To solve the matter I recently asked User:Bradv for his Third Opinion. Following his suggestion, I then rewrote the section basing every single assertion on published references.
However, User:Melonbarmonster2 keeps on discussing me, instead of the contents (See Talk:Turtle ship#Roofing of the ships), and has repeatedly removed material without proper explanation. This is getting tiresome. His history shows IMHO that he confines most of his edits to the defense of perceived attacks on Korean history and culture. Whatever, I put a template on his talkpage, but he wants none of that. Since Bradv seems currently in WP holidays, I am turning to some fresh and uninvolved minds to take a look at the matter.
This is my version (section decking) . Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 20:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I need a roll back on USS Constitution to this version. And if I could get rollback ability I won't have to bother anyone again. Thanks. -- Brad ( talk) 20:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I've stumbled across USS Compass Island (AG-153), which has been worked on by a new-ish editor Ffnbbs ( talk · contribs). The article could use some help from an experienced editor of this project. Normally I would do the work, but right now I'm in the middle of working on getting USS Texas (BB-35) through an A-Class review ahead of an FAC. - MBK 004 07:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I need help with reviewing the edits of Magus732 ( talk · contribs). I have tried to have a discussion with the user, but it has been one-way. Myself and others have repeatedly reverted his edits to ship articles for many reasons. I have had to resort to threatening a topic-ban and possible blocks. I would appreciate some back-up and hopefully help with educating this new user. - MBK 004 05:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I think that tugs and coasters are generally not usually notable enough for articles on Wikipedia. I've just completed the first of the Empire Ships lists. There are currenty nine vessels on that list which don't have articles - seven tugs and two coasters. What is the consensus for/against an article being created for each of the following?
A 276 GRT tug was sunk in an air raid on Malta in 1942. Was repaired and returned to service. Ran aground in 1967 and declared a constructive total loss, scrapped in 1970.
A 479 GRT tug which was built in 1943 and scrapped in 1967
A 242 GRT tug which was built in 1944 and scrapped in 1969.
A 138 GRT tug which was built in 1943 and scrapped in the early 1960s.
A 232 GRT tug which was built in 1942 and scrapped in 1977.
A 192 GRT tug which was built in 1942 and converted to a barge in 1976.
A 263 GRT tug which was built in 1941. Preserved at the Welsh Industrial and Maritime Museum in 1978. Scrapped in 1998, public outcry at scrapping. Questions asked at Select Committee level in parliament over scrapping.
A 692 GRT coaster which was built in 1941. The only refrigerated coaster built for Ministry of War Transport during the war. Ran aground off Morocco in 1970 and declared a constructive total loss.
A 657 GRT coaster which was built in 1943. Grouned in 1967 off Dutch coast. Although temporary repairs were carried out she was sold for scrapping in 1969.
My thoughts are that Empire Ace (sunk, ran aground), Empire Ash (controversy over scrapping), Empire Atoll (ran aground) and Empire Audrey (ran aground) are the most likely candidates to have sufficient notability for articles (subject to WP:V and WP:RS). I'd like to get some views on these, as it would help establish consensus on notability of smaller ships generally. Please use each subsection to vote for/against and article being created. Mjroots ( talk) 08:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Based on this discussion, I will create articles for Empire Ace, Empire Ash and Empire Atoll. Am content for the others to be covered in the List of Empire ships - A, I may expand their entries there. Mjroots ( talk) 09:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
A user has been adding flag icons to the builders' filed in several British carrier class and ship articles. In this particular diff, it seems very excessive, but at least in Britain's case, all its mainline carriers were build in the UK. I don't recall seeing the flags used to show the builder's nationality in other articles, but it does seem like overkill to me. Is this permitted? - BillCJ ( talk) 22:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I have stopped adding flags to ships builders, until there is a consensus established on this matter. Perhaps if they were only added to ships built in a different country to the one in which a ship will enter service? Aidan Jennings ( talk) 23:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm inclined to say that we shouldn't have flags for builders unless that builder is unambiguously associated with a particular country (read: it is nationalized), and even then I could be convinced that we don't need them. I don't think a RfC is needed either. Protonk ( talk) 01:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
With the additions today of Q-Flex and Q-Max, the number of articles listed at the Project "Did you know?" page is now up to 400, up from 300 in November 2008. Thanks and congratulations to all who have helped write and expand articles for the project. — Bellhalla ( talk) 19:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
... here. Thanks, — Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 21:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know of online information about the construction and sailing history of this ship? -- Wpwatchdog ( talk) 21:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The articles Yamato-class battleship, Japanese battleship Yamato, Japanese battleship Musashi, and Japanese aircraft carrier Shinano are under consideration for Good Topic status. Interested editors may comment on the topic's entry at the Good Topic nominations page. — Bellhalla ( talk) 05:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I've just been going through Capt. Walbran's British Columbia Coast Names and coming across various refs; the Cutch was wrecked at Metlakatla Harbour, though how badly this ref doesn't say. Don't have anything else on it, and wouldn't know what the ship-designation is for US Coast Guard Vessels (USS or USCG or what?) but dropping mention of it here in case anyone would like to build it up to an article. Skookum1 ( talk) 14:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't much like ship articles being disambiguated like this. A ship article is about a ship, not merely about how it ended up. I think this should be renamed "Comet (steamboat)" or something similar. Any comments? Gatoclass ( talk) 06:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I think that this subject has now been fully discussed, and project members are broadly agreed about notability now. Is it now the time to move the proposed guidelines into the Wikiproject? Mjroots ( talk) 08:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The peer review for Timeline for aircraft carrier service is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 21:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The peer review for USS New Jersey (BB-62) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 21:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The peer review for Braunschweig class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 21:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The A-Class review for SM U-66 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 22:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Please see "Virago Sound". BC Geographical Names. re an earlier Virago in the waters off BC in the 1850s...the earliest Virago on that page now has the dab 1895..... Skookum1 ( talk) 02:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
After a straw poll on the matter I have initiated the FT nom for the Iowa-class battleships. Since this project stands to gain its first featured topic if this nom passes I am leaving this message here to inform you of the nom's opening and to offer anyone instersted a chance to chip on the matter. TomStar81 ( Talk) 06:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The following articles:
are under consideration for Good Topic status. Interested editors may comment on the topic's entry at the Good Topic nominations page. — Bellhalla ( talk) 22:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
There is an active proposal to rename the categories World War I Mediterranean shipwrecks and World War II Mediterranean shipwrecks. All interested editors are welcome to comment at this proposal's entry at the categories for discussion page. — Bellhalla ( talk) 14:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Please see Talk:HMS Dryad. Skookum1 ( talk) 17:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
USS Connecticut (BB-18) is today's featured article, and Brazilian battleship Minas Gerais is the lead DYK (the one with a picture meaning that it will probably get the most views). Eyes on those two would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, — Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 00:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Very nearly our first Trifecta! -- Kralizec! ( talk) 02:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The following articles:
are under consideration for Good Topic status. Interested editors may comment on the topic's entry at the Good Topic nominations page. — Bellhalla ( talk) 20:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Design 1047 battlecruiser is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 02:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Would it be useful for individual ships to be categorised by the shipyard that built them? For example, those built by Lithgows would be in Category:Ships built by Lithgows. Alternatively would a template do the job better - or both?
Another matter that needs discussion is the {{ Empire ships}} template. There were some 1,370 MoWT ships that bore the "Empire" prefix. I'd appreciate more input on the template's talk page re my suggestion to split by first letter of suffix, then arrange by ship type within the template.
Chris the speller has been turning up on my watchlist lately making changes to the date format like this. He argues that he is converting articles on American ships to American date format, but I'm not entirely sure this is correct. For one thing, DANFS itself does not use this so-called US date format. For another, adding a comma to infoboxes is a waste of space and looks redundant to me. Anyone have a view on this? Gatoclass ( talk) 05:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Gatoclass, et all, I've received a reply from Chris the speller that you may be interested in: [1]. - MBK 004 03:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Please read " Virago Sound" at this page and see Talk:HMS Virago. Skookum1 ( talk) 02:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Uss spearhead is noted as being owned and operated by the US Army. However, the reference is using the prefix of USS. I'm not sure what would be actually correct but there is no listing for spearhead in the NVR. The Army calls it a TSV (Theater Service Vessel) so perhaps a TSV prefix would be warranted. Otherwise I couldn't find anything to use as a precedent. -- Brad ( talk) 03:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
A proposed clarification to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Ships that changed name or nationality is under discussion here. More participants for the discussion would be highly appriciated. — Kjet ( talk · contribs) 16:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Was this ship a RFA ship? The info I have is that she was built as LST 3523, then became HMS Trouncer (pennant number ??) and then SS Empire Gull in 1968 for the Board of Trade. Mjroots ( talk) 07:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
The A-Class review for SM UB-45 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 20:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I've finally gotten around to setting up a template for better conversions of ship endurance figures, typically given in the form distance @ speed. I've always felt that using Template:Convert for endurance conversions was very klunky:
{{convert|1510|nmi|km}} @ {{convert|25|knots|km/h}}
→ 1,510 nautical miles (2,800 km) @ 25 knots (46 km/h)With the new template it looks like this:
{{endurance|1510|nmi|km|25|knots|km/h}}
→ 1,510 nautical miles @ 25 knots (2,800 km @ 46 km/h)Details on usage, syntax, units supported, etc., can be found at Template:Endurance. — Bellhalla ( talk) 17:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
for not using the word "at" instead of "@"?. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 10:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm in a disagreement with another editor about the Morion disambig page. The main info on MV Morion is found on the page the the link redirects to. User:Rogerb67 is of the opinion that the link should go to the article about the ship type instead, claiming that MOS:DAB enforces this. I originally linked to both articles, but if only one is to be linked, my opinion is that WP:IAR applies and that the link should go to the list. Comments please on the talk page of the dab. Mjroots ( talk) 05:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot ( Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
...with an ambiguous title it seems. The article Naval Force has recently been created as a reasonable hive off from Military of Lithuania. My guess is the title it ought to be at is Lithuanian Navy (currently a long standing redirect with history), following the approach demonstrated at Category:Navies by country. A search of their military's website suggests 'Lithuanian Navy' is a standard English equivalent. Naval Force could then probably do with being redirected to the general Navy article. Does this sound reasonable? Benea ( talk) 00:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
The Spirit of Mystery is less than 1,000 nautical miles from the end of her journey to Australia. Are there any members in Australia who would be able to get some photographs of her arrival there? The only photo on Geograph is too distant a view to be useable. Mjroots ( talk) 14:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Could an admin move HMS Eurydice (1841) (the year of her order) to HMS Eurydice (1843) (the year of her launching) per our guidelines? A redirect with history currently prevents the move. Thanks, Benea ( talk) 17:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Done Parsecboy ( talk) 17:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Japanese battleship Haruna is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 05:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
After a recent request on my talk page, I added the ships project to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. I can also get provide the full data for any project covered by the bot if requested, though I normally don't keep it for much longer than a week after the list is generated. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr. Z-man 06:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I expanded this article from a stub, and this being my first venture into Wiki Ships, (normally exclusively baseball), and I would love it if the people of this fine WikiProject could scour over the new article and review for any errors, things that could better, the proper infobox, etc. I want to promote this to GA status. Thanks ! Neonblak talk - 02:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Amagi class battlecruiser is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 05:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm seeing a lot of pleasure boat manufacturers—like Malibu Boats, and Sea Ray, to name a couple—being tagged with the WikiProject Ships banner. My feeling is that because pleasure boats are generally not within our scope, that pleasure boat manufacturers would similarly be out of scope (although I'd entertain arguments for a yacht company that built, say, minesweepers or something like that). Anyone else have opinions on the matter? — Bellhalla ( talk) 15:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Just a reminder that you aren't giving any link to the Article alert pages (found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Article alerts) from you projects' mainpage, losing pretty much all benefits of the subscription. You could also remove the display=none parameter from the {{ ArticleAlertbotSubscription}} template at the bottom of your project's homepage.. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Nassau class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 21:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Article seems to be the same as List of Liberty ships: Je-L. According to the List of Liberty ships the list should be (was at?) List of Liberty ships: G-L which is now a redirect. Mjroots ( talk) 11:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Done The issue has been resolved. Mjroots ( talk) 18:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm looking to build a page for the Defence, an American War of Independence privateer. It's become more famous as a shipwreck than as a ship, but I have a book about it coming in the mail this week and I'm unsure how to name the article. Should I use just Defence (ship), United States privateer Defence, or some other combination? And, do these go into Category:American Revolution ships of the United States or are they considered flagless and so need to be in a new/different category? JRP ( talk) 17:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The A-Class review for SM UB-43 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 19:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
What is B6 on Template:WikiProject Ships? It's not on the quality scale... — Ed 17 User talk:the_ed17(Talk / Contribs) 09:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
The peer review for Australian light destroyer project is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 23:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I moved this from Commissioning Scroll to Commission Warrant, which I now agree was an error. Should it go straight back or have a different title? Your input welcomed at Talk:Commission warrant Petecarney ( talk) 11:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
There's an open poll going on over 2 years now at talk:poop deck. I think that's somewhat long... and it's more or less split down the middle on opinions, so can some people comment and then someone else close it? 76.66.193.90 ( talk) 12:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
An editor has been changing the figures shown on the length and beam of the First World War era HMS Swordfish (1916). He claims that he actually has the dockyard prints and they state that she was 76ft long, with a beam of 7ft. That seems odd since that's basically a large midget submarine, and this was a ship built to take a steam engine originally built for HMS Nautilus, which topped out at over 250 ft long. Both Colledge and Conway's state the length was roughly 230ft by 23ft on the beam. Since that's pretty close to 76 by 7 m, I assumed that he had calculated the figures wrong, but now he's insisting he's correct. Conway's page is here for comparison. Both sources give a displacement of over 930 tons surfaced, making a claim of 76 by 7 ft even more incredible in my mind. Conway's even has a picture of her, with about 2 dozen men walking about on her hull. But how does this tie with the alleged dockyard blueprints? Does anyone have any more sources? Benea ( talk) 23:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
( Caswellsubs ( talk) 10:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)) Gents. My apologies for altering this too many times. I'm really new at this stuff and am having a hard time with making these submissions. I have a lot of plans and photos of submarines and simply wanted to share them, however, this is taking me far too long to get the hang of Wiki. If there is anyone who can add this stuff for me, I'll gladly pass over the material to more qualified people. I have a forum for submarine model makers with some very experience people who continually feed me with information that I can pass on. ( Caswellsubs ( talk) 18:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)) I have spoken with my local submarine expert and he has suggested that the linear marks are actual measurements, and have nothing to do with frames. Frames are not set on a submarine in any constant measurement. I seriously doubt that any Englishman in the 1910 era would have used metres as a measurement, and so therefore, maybe the numbers refer to yards? The bow of the boat's plan has copier smudging, and I cleaned it up to the best of my ability to determine the actual bow measurement, however I could easily have been a few feet out, which would get us much closer to your estimates of 230 feet.
United States Navy ships and United States Naval Ship are two articles sort of floating around not sure what to do with themselves. Both are acting like lists when there are other lists already done. I left a post here asking for some input on the matter. Comments would be appreciated. -- Brad ( talk) 07:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Please would somebody change this from redirect to article? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:05, 9 March 2009 (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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
There is a proposal to rename Category:Richmond, California ships to Category:Ships built in Richmond, California. All editors are welcome to comment here. — Bellhalla ( talk) 20:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Pennsylvania (1872), Ohio (1872), Indiana (1873) and Illinois (1873) are all great articles which met B-class right away but I'm wondering if they should carry the SS prefix? Seems like they should. -- Brad ( talk) 23:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
*Sigh* I moved them. I did have the impression from earlier discussion at wikiships that prefixes are best avoided because there are often different ones and they are often added incorrectly. But re-reading our guidelines here, it seems there is support for naming ship articles according to their most commonly employed name, and when you have ships with names as generic as these, I think one can probably safely assume that the prefix was very commonly used. I must admit that I too had a gut feeling that the names I originally gave the articles just didn't look quite right somehow.
I wouldn't like to think this is going to be used as some sort of precedent however. I still think there are good reasons to avoid prefixes in many cases, it's only in the case of these particular ships that I am conceding the practicality of it. Gatoclass ( talk) 06:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I have requested that the name of this article be changed to use an historically attested short form of one or other of the ship's titles, either HM Armed Vessel Bounty or HMS Bounty. Comments are solicited here. -- Petecarney ( talk) 13:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Spelling question: authoritative sources spell the ill-fated ship's name both ways. See discussion at Talk:Port Chicago disaster#Quinalt or Quinault?. Thanks! Binksternet ( talk) 23:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Would anyone here be interested in assessing the notability of article Theodore Too? I just discovered it is flagged under WP:TUGS, although i'm not sure how relevant the article itself is. Thanks. SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 02:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
is a large-scale imitation tugboat based on the fictional tugboat Does this really fit our project scope? Apparently this ship can make parades but not much more. We had some conversation not long ago about "ships" operated by Di$neyworld and how they were really entertainment pieces. -- Brad ( talk) 13:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Firefly. - Kittybrewster ☎ 10:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Can one or more of you fine sailors take a look at this article and the AfD discussion? I've launched into wild speculation that the "Beramba" is a mistaken transciption of "the Omrah". Expertise might be helpful, and I think the Omrah might make a nice article in any case. Happy Holidays! An extra round of hard tack for all of ye. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 21:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Just happened upon this: USS Stingray (SS-161). This is a fictional submarine that appeared in a movie. It appears to have been nom'd for CSD but was declined and then PRODed. Is this a candiadate for AfD or should we let it go? - MBK 004 05:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
The article makes no mention of the various ships owned and/or operated by the Southern Railway. Assistance from WP:SHIPS members in addressing this would be appreciated. Mjroots ( talk) 09:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I created (with help) a new template for use with shipwreck lists. It could be modified for use with ship articles as well. An example of it in use is at User:Shinerunner/Sandbox2. The link for the template itself is Template:Shipwreck list if anyone wishes to take a look. Shinerunner ( talk) 22:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I am thinking of purchasing a scanner so I can scan in images from books and use them on the wiki. Does anyone have a suggestion as to how much scanner I would need? I can get an all-in-one printer/scanner locally very cheap, but dedicated scanners start at almost twice the price, that's with a 2400 x 4800 optical resolution. Gatoclass ( talk) 16:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Article has been AfD'd for second time. Mjroots ( talk) 07:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I've come across a cut-and-paste move of USS Absecon (1918) to USS Absecon (ID-3131) that needs to be fixed. (I've already moved the talk page to the new name.) I left a note for the editor that did the cut-and-paste. — Bellhalla ( talk) 01:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Archimede class submarine and Spanish submarine C-3 contradict each other, the first says that Archimede was renamed General Sanjuro and Torricelli was renamed General Mola, whilst the latter says that Archimede was renamed General Mola and Torricelli was renamed General Sanjuro. This contradiction requires attention. 76.66.195.190 ( talk) 11:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Can an admin undo the move of HMS Mahratta (G23) to HMS Mahratta (1942). I moved this article as a result of a request on my talk page, but now realise this was done in error. Mjroots ( talk) 19:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Burford Class I'm not sure what the plan was for this article. Duplicate? -- Brad ( talk) 06:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for SS Timothy Bloodworth is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! — Bellhalla ( talk) 00:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Admin assistance is needed to move the article USS Wildwood (PC-1181) to USS PC-1181 (currently a redirect). Almost all of the article describes activity under the name PC-1181. The ship only held the name Wildwood for the last three years it was laid up and was never commissioned under that name. I posted a notice on the talk page and the article creator agrees with this non-controversial move. Thanks in advance. — Bellhalla ( talk) 22:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Could somebody here take a look at the change I just made at John McCain (disambiguation)? The page previously had one entry for the ships pointing to USS John McCain, which is itself essentially nothing more than a disambig page. I included the commissioned years in parens after the ship names making these look like birth/death years, but don't know if that's a common (or even reasonable) way to indicate years a ship was in service. Thanks. -- Rick Block ( talk) 15:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
There is a good chance that Nimrod Expedition will appear as the Main Page Feature Article on 9 January, which in turn will draw attention to Nimrod (ship). There is not much there now; sourcing is unclear except for the book link which I added. Miramar also has some limited data. If anyone has any interest in working this up, adding an infobox, etc. feel free. Kablammo ( talk) 04:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
This has been raised on the talk page of a template, but is rather hidden away there. With some ships going through a sucession of owners and names, infoboxes can get quite long. I'm trying to find a way of getting all the info into the infobox in the most compact way possible. I created the SS Empire Advocate article with a compact infobox, which another editor altered with the result that it is now much longer, and only adds one minor piece of information. Which is the preferred way of doing this? Mjroots ( talk) 08:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
History | |
---|---|
Name | list error: <br /> list (
help) Solfels (1913-20) Bowes Castle (1920-32) Angelina Lauro (1932-40) Empire Advocate (1940-45) |
Owner | list error: <br /> list (
help) Hansa Line, Bremen (1913-1919) British Shipping Controller (1919-20) Lancashire Shipping Co (1920-32) Achille Lauro, Naples (1932-40) Ministry of War Transport (1940-45) |
Operator | list error: <br /> list (
help) Hansa Line, Bremen (1913-1919) H Hogarth & Sons (1919-20) Chambers & Sons (1920-32) Achille Lauro, Naples (1932-40)Galbraith, Pembroke & Sons (1940-45) |
Port of registry | list error: <br /> list (
help) Bremen (1913-19) Liverpool (1919-32) Naples (1932-40) London (1948-55) |
Builder | J C Tecklenburg AG, Wesermünde |
Yard number | 255 |
Launched | 8 April 1913 |
In service | 22 May 1913 |
Identification | list error: <br /> list (
help) Italian official number 382 (1932-40) UK official number 143102 (1940-45) Code letters JWQS (1913-32) Code letters IBIB (1932) Code letters NDHU (1932-40) Code letters GLYJ (1940-45) |
Fate | Scrapped at Bo'ness, 1945 |
General characteristics | |
Tons burthen | 5,787 GRT |
Length | 418 feet 5 inches (127.53 m) |
Beam | 56 feet 1 inch (17.09 m) |
Draught | 29 feet 8 inches (9.04 m) |
Propulsion | 1 x triple expansion steam engine (J C Tecklenburg AG, Wesermünde) 520 horsepower (390 kW) NHP. |
Speed | 11.5 knots (21.3 km/h) |
Complement | 73 |
History | |
---|---|
Name | Solfels |
Owner | Hansa Line, Bremen |
Operator | Hansa Line, Bremen |
Port of registry | Bremen |
Builder | J C Tecklenburg AG, Wesermünde |
Yard number | 255 |
Launched | 8 April 1913 |
In service | 22 May 1913 |
Identification | list error: <br /> list (
help) Code letters JWQS |
Name | Bowes Castle |
Namesake | Bowes Castle |
Owner | list error: <br /> list (
help) British Shipping Controller (1919-20) Lancashire Shipping Co (1920-32) |
Operator | list error: <br /> list (
help) H Hogarth & Sons (1919-20) Chambers & Sons (1920-32) |
Port of registry | Liverpool |
In service | 1919 |
Identification | list error: <br /> list (
help) Code letters JWQS |
Name | Angelina Lauro |
Owner | Achille Lauro, Naples |
Operator | Achille Lauro, Naples |
Port of registry | Naples |
In service | 1932 |
Identification | list error: <br /> list (
help) Italian official number 382 (1932-40) Code letters IBIB (1932) Code letters NDHU (1932-40) |
Name | Empire Advocate |
Owner | Ministry of War Transport |
Operator | Galbraith, Pembroke & Sons |
Port of registry | London |
In service | 1940 |
Identification | list error: <br /> list (
help) UK official number 143102 Code letters GLYJ |
Fate | Scrapped at Bo'ness, 1945 |
General characteristics | |
Tonnage | 5,787 GRT |
Length | 418 feet 5 inches (127.53 m) |
Beam | 56 feet 1 inch (17.09 m) |
Draught | 29 feet 8 inches (9.04 m) |
Propulsion | 1 x triple expansion steam engine (J C Tecklenburg AG, Wesermünde) 520 horsepower (390 kW) NHP. |
Speed | 11.5 knots (21.3 km/h) |
Complement | 73 |
(outdent for clarity) On the orher of fields, personally I would prefer retaining the curent order of fields, with name, owner, operator and port of registry displaying before the numbers. Those details are—in my opinion at least—the most important basic information about a ship that a person will look at first, and therefore deserve to be displayed in a prominent position.
Also, on the original actual subject, I take it that the general concensus here is that the "don't repeat the box" formatting for commecial ships is the preferred one? — Kjet ( talk · contribs) 11:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
(Outdenting) We don't seem to be finding much common ground here. Look, maybe what I'll do is create an alternative infobox listing in my sandbox for people to compare with the current alternatives. It's a bit hard discussing some of these issues in the abstract I think. Gatoclass ( talk) 04:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Is there any reason why this ship shouldn't be moved to SS Justicia? Statendam wasn't even completed as such before being taken over by the White Star Line. As Justicia she found somewhat greater fame as the second-largest ship to be torpedoed during the First World War. -- Harlsbottom ( talk | library | book reviews) 11:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks like we are going to have to grab the bull by the horns and set down a set of notablility criteria for merchant ships.
To make a start, I'd like to propose that
OK, I've made a start, over to you. Mjroots ( talk) 19:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Is there any consensus as to what floating vessels would generally not be considered notable? Are the least boats belonging to a navy not "commissioned," which would be a bright line distinction? What about small harbor patrol boats of a navy, or some small country whose largest ship is a small speedboat with a machinegun? Edison ( talk) 21:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Viv Hamilton ( talk) 10:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
One question regarding proposed rule #1 above: what is an "Uncommissioned naval ship"? Does it mean a ship still in the hands of the builders prior to handover to the navy? Petecarney ( talk) 13:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Above should be discussion about the proposed rules in general. This section is for discussion of details which should be considered if the rules are accepted. -- SEWilco ( talk) 06:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
This article was recently in the last 48 hours drastically revamped by another editor. It could use some help to meet our quality standards. I normally would help out, but I'm just coming off of a vacation and am not ready for such a task yet. Would someone mind helping out? - MBK 004 04:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm wondering about this. In my travels I have come across some old books dating from the late 19th/early 20th century that have recently been reprinted. According to the "first published before 1923" rule, I would assume these books to be in the public domain, however the reprinters claim copyright. It is possible to re-establish copyright over an old out of copyright book, or is this sort of thing just an example of copyfraud? Gatoclass ( talk) 05:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
A proposed merge from Italian aircraft carrier Sparviero into MS Augustus is under discussion here. Please drop in to have you stay. — Kjet ( talk · contribs) 10:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The peer review for Armament of the Iowa class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 00:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Could I get some eyes on this article and commenting here on the talk page. There have been some edits made to this article which have removed SS and RMS from the names of the ships on the basis on "consistency". - MBK 004 05:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:SETINDEX pages, those used for our ship list pages, are specifically different from WP:DAB pages. There however at least three pages to my knowledge, that use the qualifier '(disambiguation)' ( HMS Victory (disambiguation), HMS Hood (disambiguation) and HMS Beagle (disambiguation)). This is fair enough if we decide that there is one ship that can qualify as the primary usage. But every now and then someone will come along and remove any formatting that doesn't comply with WP:MOSDAB, sometimes quite insistently. Should these articles perhaps be retitled to some new form that removes the 'disambiguation' qualifier in order to alleviate this? Or is just vigilant patrolling needed? I ask because the issue has cropped up on HMS Hood (disambiguation), where both set index and disambiguation tabs have been added side by side, despite that seeming mutually exclusive in terms of application of guidelines. Benea ( talk) 22:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The A-Class review for U-1 class submarine (Austria-Hungary) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 18:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Would the Cromer Lifeboat Louisa Heartwell ON 495 article be better titled as RNLB Louisa Heartwell? Is there a naming convention that covers lifeboat articles? Mjroots ( talk) 17:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
First of all may I say that it would have been nice to be asked to contribute to this discussion as the creator of the Cromer Lifeboat articles and not to have learnt second hand from another editor that this discussion was taking place. I think that a merger of these pages would not be a good thing. Firstly I was intending to add to each lifeboat its most notable actions as I have done with the Henry Blogg Lifeboat. This would make a combined page very long and tedious for a reader. I do agree that some of the Lifeboats that have been stationed at Cromer could not stand on there own in an individual article but some of them are indeed very notable and are deserving of there own page. Cromer Lifeboats have been some of the busiest lifeboats over the years, especially during the wars. Until I had made an effort to start these articles there was no reference to them on wikipedia, only to Henry Blogg. As famous and as brave as he was he could not have operated without the crew or the lifeboats that he served on and I think that they had been sadly neglected. I don’t think a single article would be a good enough reference to what has and still is a very important part of Cromer, Norfolk and the RNLI’s History. stavros1 ♣ 17:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
If this Lifeboat is not Notable can Bellhalla explain why the RNLI has gone to great time and expense to preserve this lifeboat in its own museum.!!!!! stavros1 ♣ 18:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
stavros1 ♣ 23:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The SS John Stagg article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots ( talk) 20:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Yamato class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 05:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
There's an article with the former title; the latter is the redlink in HMS Esk, and the two articles don't link to each other. I know nothing about WP conventions on the naming of ships, except that this needs to be sorted out! Over to one of you experts. (I just dropped by while looking at the Esk dab page). PamD ( talk) 09:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The A-Class review for U-3 class submarine (Austria-Hungary) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 20:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I could use some help with the Future Canadian Amphibious Assault Ship article. A user (apparantly both a reg and an IP) keeps adding a ship infox to what is a project article. I addition, he is adding a pic of a Mistral class ship to the infobox, but Canada has not even specified what size of ship it wants yet, nor even issued RFPs as yet. The article is also poorly cited, typical of this user. I've left detailed edit summaries, but not used the talk page or personal contact as yet, as I doubt I can keep my cool much longer. Any help here would be appreciated. Thanks. - BillCJ ( talk) 03:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The peer review for USS Illinois (BB-65) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 03:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
{{ Ship fate box active in service}} needs to be updated to 2009. Thanks -- Brad ( talk) 12:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The discussion on notability had gone quiet, so I've attempted to turn it into some sort of guideline here. This is very much a first attempt so feel free to be bold in editting it. I've copied the existing discussion to the new talk page. I would ask that you leave the existing sections and add new sections to discuss the new suggested guidelines. If it looks like we can generate a consensus we can move it to the project space. Viv Hamilton ( talk) 20:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
User:LimoWreck added two categories to Category:IMO 6519338 in Commons. Definately no wrong categories, it only works the other way around as intended. But my question is: Is it wise to add categories to IMO number categories?.
For those who aren't familiar with the IMO system: The International Maritime Organisation, in cooperation with Lloyd's Register, gives each sea-going ship above a certain tonnage a number of zeven digits. That number does not change during the lifetime of the ship. Have a look on Commons at Category:IMO 7126322 In many cases a new owner gives the ship a new name, the MMSI number and callsigns are coupled to the owner. IMO ship identification number
I created the Category:Ships by IMO number in Commons to make it possible to find all files of a certain ship, when it is found under a certain name. More than 700 ships can be found already, feel free to help. It was not my intention to add categories to that particular category, as I assume is has no extra value and in categories a direction to an IMO number looks to me a little bit strange. What is the general opinion? -- Stunteltje ( talk) 08:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The A-Class review for SM U-14 (Austria-Hungary) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 04:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Just stumbled upon these, and I don't know if there are more in this class:
Would someone more well-versed in merging take care of these? - MBK 004 00:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, why doesn't {{ infobox Ship Begin}} also include the wikitable opening wikimarkup {| and not have a complementary {{ infobox Ship End}} ? It seems other infoboxes are structured so that these things exist. 76.66.198.171 ( talk) 14:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The A-Class review for USS Texas (BB-35) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 02:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
There are quite a few ships article that use the Miramar Ship Index as a reference. After finding that links in references often did not point to the correct ship after a period of time, I exchanged e-mails with Mr. Haworth who runs the site. It turns out that the link style most often used is a transitory link, and is not guaranteed to always link to the same ship. So if I use the link http://www.miramarshipindex.org.nz/ship/show/193342 to point to the ship King Frederick, chances are that when someone else clicks on that link it will be a completely different ship than the one I intended. The type of link that is persistent (i.e. always linking to the expected page) uses the Miramar "IDNo" value. So using the example of King Frederick, the persistent link would be http://www.miramarshipindex.org.nz/ship/list?search_op=OR&IDNo=1119225. Regrettably, this link does not go directly to the page with the specs that most people would be citing, and requires that one click on the link presented in order to see the proper information.
To help remedy this, I've created the template {{
Cite Miramar}}
that takes the Miramar "IDNo" and converts it into a link. For the same example ship, King Frederick, typing this:
{{Cite Miramar | id = 1119225 | accessdate = 20 January 2009}}
generates this:
|register={{{register}}}
is not a valid registry name (
help)I've also added an optional shipname
field that would display as follows:
|register={{{register}}}
is not a valid registry name (
help)I'd like to get feedback on the looks of this and/or how to improve it. — Bellhalla ( talk) 04:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
|accessdate= 20 January 2009
?
Mjroots (
talk) 10:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)I've expanded/rewritten the article. A few questions arise:-
Comments appreciated please. Mjroots ( talk) 10:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
at Talk:Corvette, there is a discussion going on if the warship ( Corvette (ship) or sports car Chevrolet Corvette is the primary meaning of Corvette. This is listed at WP:RM 76.66.198.171 ( talk) 11:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The A-Class review for SMS Moltke (1910) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 20:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Archimede class submarine and Spanish submarine C-3 contradict each other, the first says that Archimede was renamed General Sanjuro and Torricelli was renamed General Mola, whilst the latter says that Archimede was renamed General Mola and Torricelli was renamed General Sanjuro. This contradiction requires attention. 76.66.198.171 ( talk) 15:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
The peer review for USS Kentucky (BB-66) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 20:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Article needs a major expansion as it says absolutely nothing about their shipbuilding activities. Article also has date and place of foundation completely wrong.
Mjroots (
talk) 06:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Japanese battleship Yamato is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 22:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
The above list was deleted as the result of an AfD discussion back in 2006. I've been in contact with the deleting admin and have been advised to ask here before the article is recreated. It was suggested in the AfD debate that the article should be brought to the attention of this WP, but it was not raised on the talk page as far as I can tell. The article only had one entry at deletion.
Q: Does WP:SHIPS support the recreation of the List of ship launches in 1946. Mjroots ( talk) 17:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Here are two more to go on the list: USS Coral Sea (CV-43) and USS Des Moines (CA-134). If we can have at least six or seven vessels to go on before we recreate, we stand a better chance of not having to go through another AFD. If you find some, I'll recreate it since it seems as though Mailer diablo is not opposed to recreation. - MBK 004 19:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
And there's USS Agerholm (DD-826), USS Fresno (CL-121), RFA Spalake (A260), RFA Rowenol (A284), RFA Spaburn (A257), USS Eversole (DD-789), USS Walrus (SS-437), USS Shelton (DD-790), USS Lansdale (DD-766) to name a few. Mjroots ( talk) 19:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I found three for 1947, so I went ahead and created that year as well: List of ship launches in 1947 - MBK 004 21:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The List of current ships of the United States Navy has developed nicely over the last few months. I would like to take it higher on the assessment scale but this project uses the List rating while Milhist does not. So I'm wondering how to go about this. Should Milhist rating work its way up the GA to FA scale while Ships goes for FL? Hmmm. -- Brad ( talk) 17:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
←Per this discussion, I have relented to the general consensus and have re-assessed the list in question as B-Class. Though you should take heed of Woody's comments about FLC, he has quite a few successful FLC noms to his credit:
but it wouldn't pass FLC without an image, an adequate lead and those refs sorted out
. - MBK 004 22:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Dear Project
Can I ask your advice please? I'm not a member of this project but, obviously, I do occasionally read/edit ship-related articles. :) On a couple of articles I like to look at, an editor has started to change "she/her" to "it/its". My (perhaps limited) understanding was that the "she/her" usage was pretty standard for ships. Is this so, and should I politely revert these alterations? Is there a guideline perhaps? Or is it some kind of horrendous hot topic in which an innocent like myself would not wish to get, er, embroiled? Thanks and best wishes, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered ( talk) 22:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
(Unindent) Every once in a while, a user whose native non-English language uses "he" for ships (for example, Russian) wants to change the use on a given page to "he". Does this need to be addressed in the guidelines somewhere? And in cases of a dispute of using "she" on such articles, is substituting "it" a good compromise? - BillCJ ( talk) 18:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
What would users opinion of removing the flags from the templates Category:United_States_shipbox_templates as per Wikipedia:ICONDECORATION Gnevin ( talk) 00:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Since we are in agreement about subst and TFD'ing, is it ok if I remove the flag while is am subst'ing them ? Gnevin ( talk) 17:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
What about List of naval ship classes in service which transcludes a number of templates in the same way as the ship box templates. Do we need these? Does the page need a total revamp? Woody ( talk) 17:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
There was a proposal made to rename Category:White Star Lines Big Four → Category:Big Four (White Star Line). The opinions of all editors are welcome at the category's entry at the Categories for Discussion page. — Bellhalla ( talk) 13:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
110 templates of the form "Ship box name" (e.g. Template:Ship box CCGS Labrador) have been nominated for deletion. The full list of templates nominated is:
All editors are welcome to comment at the templates' entry at Templates for Deletion — Bellhalla ( talk) 16:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
{{
R from merge}}
attached. I have started this but have to go, any help in converting the pages would be much appreciated. Thanks.
Woody (
talk) 23:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)The MV Polarstern article has been requested to be moved to "RV Polarstern". Is RV a recognised ship prefix within this Wikiproject? Rationale for move is 9 hits on Google News vs 0 hits for MV Polarstern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots ( talk • contribs)
The articles German Type U 66 submarine, SM U-66, SM U-67, SM U-68, SM U-69, and SM U-70 are under consideration for Good Topic status. Interested editors may comment on the topic's entry at the Good Topic nominations page. — Bellhalla ( talk) 22:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The A-Class review for U-5 class submarine (Austria-Hungary) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 18:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The peer review for USS Missouri (BB-63) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 23:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The peer review for Ship Gun Fire Control Systems is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 23:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The A-Class review for U-20 class submarine is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 01:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello. There is a long-going dispute on this page, whether the vessels featured iron armour or not. To solve the matter I recently asked User:Bradv for his Third Opinion. Following his suggestion, I then rewrote the section basing every single assertion on published references.
However, User:Melonbarmonster2 keeps on discussing me, instead of the contents (See Talk:Turtle ship#Roofing of the ships), and has repeatedly removed material without proper explanation. This is getting tiresome. His history shows IMHO that he confines most of his edits to the defense of perceived attacks on Korean history and culture. Whatever, I put a template on his talkpage, but he wants none of that. Since Bradv seems currently in WP holidays, I am turning to some fresh and uninvolved minds to take a look at the matter.
This is my version (section decking) . Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 20:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I need a roll back on USS Constitution to this version. And if I could get rollback ability I won't have to bother anyone again. Thanks. -- Brad ( talk) 20:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I've stumbled across USS Compass Island (AG-153), which has been worked on by a new-ish editor Ffnbbs ( talk · contribs). The article could use some help from an experienced editor of this project. Normally I would do the work, but right now I'm in the middle of working on getting USS Texas (BB-35) through an A-Class review ahead of an FAC. - MBK 004 07:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I need help with reviewing the edits of Magus732 ( talk · contribs). I have tried to have a discussion with the user, but it has been one-way. Myself and others have repeatedly reverted his edits to ship articles for many reasons. I have had to resort to threatening a topic-ban and possible blocks. I would appreciate some back-up and hopefully help with educating this new user. - MBK 004 05:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I think that tugs and coasters are generally not usually notable enough for articles on Wikipedia. I've just completed the first of the Empire Ships lists. There are currenty nine vessels on that list which don't have articles - seven tugs and two coasters. What is the consensus for/against an article being created for each of the following?
A 276 GRT tug was sunk in an air raid on Malta in 1942. Was repaired and returned to service. Ran aground in 1967 and declared a constructive total loss, scrapped in 1970.
A 479 GRT tug which was built in 1943 and scrapped in 1967
A 242 GRT tug which was built in 1944 and scrapped in 1969.
A 138 GRT tug which was built in 1943 and scrapped in the early 1960s.
A 232 GRT tug which was built in 1942 and scrapped in 1977.
A 192 GRT tug which was built in 1942 and converted to a barge in 1976.
A 263 GRT tug which was built in 1941. Preserved at the Welsh Industrial and Maritime Museum in 1978. Scrapped in 1998, public outcry at scrapping. Questions asked at Select Committee level in parliament over scrapping.
A 692 GRT coaster which was built in 1941. The only refrigerated coaster built for Ministry of War Transport during the war. Ran aground off Morocco in 1970 and declared a constructive total loss.
A 657 GRT coaster which was built in 1943. Grouned in 1967 off Dutch coast. Although temporary repairs were carried out she was sold for scrapping in 1969.
My thoughts are that Empire Ace (sunk, ran aground), Empire Ash (controversy over scrapping), Empire Atoll (ran aground) and Empire Audrey (ran aground) are the most likely candidates to have sufficient notability for articles (subject to WP:V and WP:RS). I'd like to get some views on these, as it would help establish consensus on notability of smaller ships generally. Please use each subsection to vote for/against and article being created. Mjroots ( talk) 08:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Based on this discussion, I will create articles for Empire Ace, Empire Ash and Empire Atoll. Am content for the others to be covered in the List of Empire ships - A, I may expand their entries there. Mjroots ( talk) 09:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
A user has been adding flag icons to the builders' filed in several British carrier class and ship articles. In this particular diff, it seems very excessive, but at least in Britain's case, all its mainline carriers were build in the UK. I don't recall seeing the flags used to show the builder's nationality in other articles, but it does seem like overkill to me. Is this permitted? - BillCJ ( talk) 22:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I have stopped adding flags to ships builders, until there is a consensus established on this matter. Perhaps if they were only added to ships built in a different country to the one in which a ship will enter service? Aidan Jennings ( talk) 23:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm inclined to say that we shouldn't have flags for builders unless that builder is unambiguously associated with a particular country (read: it is nationalized), and even then I could be convinced that we don't need them. I don't think a RfC is needed either. Protonk ( talk) 01:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
With the additions today of Q-Flex and Q-Max, the number of articles listed at the Project "Did you know?" page is now up to 400, up from 300 in November 2008. Thanks and congratulations to all who have helped write and expand articles for the project. — Bellhalla ( talk) 19:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
... here. Thanks, — Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 21:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know of online information about the construction and sailing history of this ship? -- Wpwatchdog ( talk) 21:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The articles Yamato-class battleship, Japanese battleship Yamato, Japanese battleship Musashi, and Japanese aircraft carrier Shinano are under consideration for Good Topic status. Interested editors may comment on the topic's entry at the Good Topic nominations page. — Bellhalla ( talk) 05:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I've just been going through Capt. Walbran's British Columbia Coast Names and coming across various refs; the Cutch was wrecked at Metlakatla Harbour, though how badly this ref doesn't say. Don't have anything else on it, and wouldn't know what the ship-designation is for US Coast Guard Vessels (USS or USCG or what?) but dropping mention of it here in case anyone would like to build it up to an article. Skookum1 ( talk) 14:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't much like ship articles being disambiguated like this. A ship article is about a ship, not merely about how it ended up. I think this should be renamed "Comet (steamboat)" or something similar. Any comments? Gatoclass ( talk) 06:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I think that this subject has now been fully discussed, and project members are broadly agreed about notability now. Is it now the time to move the proposed guidelines into the Wikiproject? Mjroots ( talk) 08:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The peer review for Timeline for aircraft carrier service is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 21:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The peer review for USS New Jersey (BB-62) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 21:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The peer review for Braunschweig class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 21:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The A-Class review for SM U-66 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 22:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Please see "Virago Sound". BC Geographical Names. re an earlier Virago in the waters off BC in the 1850s...the earliest Virago on that page now has the dab 1895..... Skookum1 ( talk) 02:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
After a straw poll on the matter I have initiated the FT nom for the Iowa-class battleships. Since this project stands to gain its first featured topic if this nom passes I am leaving this message here to inform you of the nom's opening and to offer anyone instersted a chance to chip on the matter. TomStar81 ( Talk) 06:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The following articles:
are under consideration for Good Topic status. Interested editors may comment on the topic's entry at the Good Topic nominations page. — Bellhalla ( talk) 22:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
There is an active proposal to rename the categories World War I Mediterranean shipwrecks and World War II Mediterranean shipwrecks. All interested editors are welcome to comment at this proposal's entry at the categories for discussion page. — Bellhalla ( talk) 14:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Please see Talk:HMS Dryad. Skookum1 ( talk) 17:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
USS Connecticut (BB-18) is today's featured article, and Brazilian battleship Minas Gerais is the lead DYK (the one with a picture meaning that it will probably get the most views). Eyes on those two would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, — Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 00:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Very nearly our first Trifecta! -- Kralizec! ( talk) 02:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The following articles:
are under consideration for Good Topic status. Interested editors may comment on the topic's entry at the Good Topic nominations page. — Bellhalla ( talk) 20:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Design 1047 battlecruiser is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 02:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Would it be useful for individual ships to be categorised by the shipyard that built them? For example, those built by Lithgows would be in Category:Ships built by Lithgows. Alternatively would a template do the job better - or both?
Another matter that needs discussion is the {{ Empire ships}} template. There were some 1,370 MoWT ships that bore the "Empire" prefix. I'd appreciate more input on the template's talk page re my suggestion to split by first letter of suffix, then arrange by ship type within the template.
Chris the speller has been turning up on my watchlist lately making changes to the date format like this. He argues that he is converting articles on American ships to American date format, but I'm not entirely sure this is correct. For one thing, DANFS itself does not use this so-called US date format. For another, adding a comma to infoboxes is a waste of space and looks redundant to me. Anyone have a view on this? Gatoclass ( talk) 05:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Gatoclass, et all, I've received a reply from Chris the speller that you may be interested in: [1]. - MBK 004 03:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Please read " Virago Sound" at this page and see Talk:HMS Virago. Skookum1 ( talk) 02:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Uss spearhead is noted as being owned and operated by the US Army. However, the reference is using the prefix of USS. I'm not sure what would be actually correct but there is no listing for spearhead in the NVR. The Army calls it a TSV (Theater Service Vessel) so perhaps a TSV prefix would be warranted. Otherwise I couldn't find anything to use as a precedent. -- Brad ( talk) 03:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
A proposed clarification to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Ships that changed name or nationality is under discussion here. More participants for the discussion would be highly appriciated. — Kjet ( talk · contribs) 16:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Was this ship a RFA ship? The info I have is that she was built as LST 3523, then became HMS Trouncer (pennant number ??) and then SS Empire Gull in 1968 for the Board of Trade. Mjroots ( talk) 07:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
The A-Class review for SM UB-45 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 20:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I've finally gotten around to setting up a template for better conversions of ship endurance figures, typically given in the form distance @ speed. I've always felt that using Template:Convert for endurance conversions was very klunky:
{{convert|1510|nmi|km}} @ {{convert|25|knots|km/h}}
→ 1,510 nautical miles (2,800 km) @ 25 knots (46 km/h)With the new template it looks like this:
{{endurance|1510|nmi|km|25|knots|km/h}}
→ 1,510 nautical miles @ 25 knots (2,800 km @ 46 km/h)Details on usage, syntax, units supported, etc., can be found at Template:Endurance. — Bellhalla ( talk) 17:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
for not using the word "at" instead of "@"?. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 10:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm in a disagreement with another editor about the Morion disambig page. The main info on MV Morion is found on the page the the link redirects to. User:Rogerb67 is of the opinion that the link should go to the article about the ship type instead, claiming that MOS:DAB enforces this. I originally linked to both articles, but if only one is to be linked, my opinion is that WP:IAR applies and that the link should go to the list. Comments please on the talk page of the dab. Mjroots ( talk) 05:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot ( Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
...with an ambiguous title it seems. The article Naval Force has recently been created as a reasonable hive off from Military of Lithuania. My guess is the title it ought to be at is Lithuanian Navy (currently a long standing redirect with history), following the approach demonstrated at Category:Navies by country. A search of their military's website suggests 'Lithuanian Navy' is a standard English equivalent. Naval Force could then probably do with being redirected to the general Navy article. Does this sound reasonable? Benea ( talk) 00:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
The Spirit of Mystery is less than 1,000 nautical miles from the end of her journey to Australia. Are there any members in Australia who would be able to get some photographs of her arrival there? The only photo on Geograph is too distant a view to be useable. Mjroots ( talk) 14:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Could an admin move HMS Eurydice (1841) (the year of her order) to HMS Eurydice (1843) (the year of her launching) per our guidelines? A redirect with history currently prevents the move. Thanks, Benea ( talk) 17:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Done Parsecboy ( talk) 17:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Japanese battleship Haruna is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 05:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
After a recent request on my talk page, I added the ships project to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. I can also get provide the full data for any project covered by the bot if requested, though I normally don't keep it for much longer than a week after the list is generated. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr. Z-man 06:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I expanded this article from a stub, and this being my first venture into Wiki Ships, (normally exclusively baseball), and I would love it if the people of this fine WikiProject could scour over the new article and review for any errors, things that could better, the proper infobox, etc. I want to promote this to GA status. Thanks ! Neonblak talk - 02:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Amagi class battlecruiser is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 05:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm seeing a lot of pleasure boat manufacturers—like Malibu Boats, and Sea Ray, to name a couple—being tagged with the WikiProject Ships banner. My feeling is that because pleasure boats are generally not within our scope, that pleasure boat manufacturers would similarly be out of scope (although I'd entertain arguments for a yacht company that built, say, minesweepers or something like that). Anyone else have opinions on the matter? — Bellhalla ( talk) 15:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Just a reminder that you aren't giving any link to the Article alert pages (found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Article alerts) from you projects' mainpage, losing pretty much all benefits of the subscription. You could also remove the display=none parameter from the {{ ArticleAlertbotSubscription}} template at the bottom of your project's homepage.. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Nassau class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 21:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Article seems to be the same as List of Liberty ships: Je-L. According to the List of Liberty ships the list should be (was at?) List of Liberty ships: G-L which is now a redirect. Mjroots ( talk) 11:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Done The issue has been resolved. Mjroots ( talk) 18:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm looking to build a page for the Defence, an American War of Independence privateer. It's become more famous as a shipwreck than as a ship, but I have a book about it coming in the mail this week and I'm unsure how to name the article. Should I use just Defence (ship), United States privateer Defence, or some other combination? And, do these go into Category:American Revolution ships of the United States or are they considered flagless and so need to be in a new/different category? JRP ( talk) 17:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The A-Class review for SM UB-43 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 19:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
What is B6 on Template:WikiProject Ships? It's not on the quality scale... — Ed 17 User talk:the_ed17(Talk / Contribs) 09:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
The peer review for Australian light destroyer project is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 23:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I moved this from Commissioning Scroll to Commission Warrant, which I now agree was an error. Should it go straight back or have a different title? Your input welcomed at Talk:Commission warrant Petecarney ( talk) 11:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
There's an open poll going on over 2 years now at talk:poop deck. I think that's somewhat long... and it's more or less split down the middle on opinions, so can some people comment and then someone else close it? 76.66.193.90 ( talk) 12:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
An editor has been changing the figures shown on the length and beam of the First World War era HMS Swordfish (1916). He claims that he actually has the dockyard prints and they state that she was 76ft long, with a beam of 7ft. That seems odd since that's basically a large midget submarine, and this was a ship built to take a steam engine originally built for HMS Nautilus, which topped out at over 250 ft long. Both Colledge and Conway's state the length was roughly 230ft by 23ft on the beam. Since that's pretty close to 76 by 7 m, I assumed that he had calculated the figures wrong, but now he's insisting he's correct. Conway's page is here for comparison. Both sources give a displacement of over 930 tons surfaced, making a claim of 76 by 7 ft even more incredible in my mind. Conway's even has a picture of her, with about 2 dozen men walking about on her hull. But how does this tie with the alleged dockyard blueprints? Does anyone have any more sources? Benea ( talk) 23:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
( Caswellsubs ( talk) 10:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)) Gents. My apologies for altering this too many times. I'm really new at this stuff and am having a hard time with making these submissions. I have a lot of plans and photos of submarines and simply wanted to share them, however, this is taking me far too long to get the hang of Wiki. If there is anyone who can add this stuff for me, I'll gladly pass over the material to more qualified people. I have a forum for submarine model makers with some very experience people who continually feed me with information that I can pass on. ( Caswellsubs ( talk) 18:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)) I have spoken with my local submarine expert and he has suggested that the linear marks are actual measurements, and have nothing to do with frames. Frames are not set on a submarine in any constant measurement. I seriously doubt that any Englishman in the 1910 era would have used metres as a measurement, and so therefore, maybe the numbers refer to yards? The bow of the boat's plan has copier smudging, and I cleaned it up to the best of my ability to determine the actual bow measurement, however I could easily have been a few feet out, which would get us much closer to your estimates of 230 feet.
United States Navy ships and United States Naval Ship are two articles sort of floating around not sure what to do with themselves. Both are acting like lists when there are other lists already done. I left a post here asking for some input on the matter. Comments would be appreciated. -- Brad ( talk) 07:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Please would somebody change this from redirect to article? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)