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 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
The featured article candidacy for USS Triton (SSRN-586) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 21:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Operation Sandblast is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 21:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Template:Livingships has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Brad ( talk) 06:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
An AfD discussion has been started for an article which may interest this group. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carnival Glory (2nd nomination). --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 16:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Result was snowball keep. Can't wait for the third nomination. -- Brad ( talk) 06:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Ths U.S. Navy and commons identify the ship to the left as
USS Reuben James (FFG-57). Looking at the stack, the place where the forward missile launcher should be (I think that's a gun), and the location of the after radar mast I disagree. There's no discernible 76mm gun on the 0-2 level, and the stern doesn't seem to have a flight-deck area. So, I started looking at varoius cruiser/destroyer silhouettes and am left scratching my head. Even if it's two ships steaming side-by-side, I can't imagine that the forward one is a FFG. Any ideas? Thanks.
Haus
Talk
09:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Hah, there is a Chilean Condell class frigate, which was a spin-off of the Leander class. I think that's the beast. Thanks again. Haus Talk 11:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm currently researching an Empire ship which started out as a USN ship, and therefore has an entry on DANFS. The figures disagree with Lloyd's Register in some instances. DANFS entry is:- (Freighter: dp. 12,175; l. 423'9"; b. 54'0"; dph. 29'9"; dr. 23'11¼"; s. 9.5 k.; cpl. 75; a. 13")
What do "dp", "cpl" and "a" stand for? Is "l" length overall? I have a lower figure which I believe is lpp. "b" and "dph" are both different to Lloyd's figures. "dr" = draught/draft?, "s" = speed (9½kn)? Mjroots ( talk) 08:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
This article covers a fascinating subject (I didn't know the RoK Navy had a flattop!), but the article, while intriguing, is clearly suffering from grammar and formatting issues. I'd suggest that the article be given attention for improvement. :-) - The Bushranger ( talk) 05:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AIDAsol, just on the heels of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carnival Glory (2nd nomination). The nominator also prodded a few others which I have de-prodded. - MBK 004 04:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
This South Korean Navy corvette sank today after an onboard explosion. The article may need an eye kept on it to keep out unverified statements of a North Korean torpedo being responsible for the explosion. This is not confirmed at the moment. Also, would the article sit better at South Korean corvette Cheonan (PCC-772) per WP:NC-S? Mjroots ( talk) 19:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles ( BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.
The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>> Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Archive 19/Unreferenced BLPs<<<
If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.
Thank you.
I set up a series of categories for bridges by date, and have found that in the intervening 5 years, a lot of articles have been added... so times when in the past there were categories for bridges by decade without being further subdivided (that level of granularity seemed pointlessly small, since beyond a certain point in the past, most bridges by year categories would be empty and few would have more than a couple of entries), it now made sense to split up decade categories into year categories. Since ships by date categories are also subcategories of transport by date categories, I wondered how this project determined the appropriate level of granularity for year/decade, and whether it ought to be re-assessed now that more articles exist? For instance, Category:1840s ships now has 125 members, and could probably do with being split up. TheGrappler ( talk) 14:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
All the 1800s cats will end up with plenty of ships in them, so might as well split them now as later IMO. While we're on the topic, I'm also thinking it might be worthwhile to subcategorize the individual year cats, into at least "warship" and "merchant ship" cats if not further subcats like "US warships", "British warships" etc. Gatoclass ( talk) 20:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for Japanese battleship Yamato is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 22:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Following my nom of the SS Dumbo article for an April Fool's Day DYK with the hook "Did you know... that in October 1968, Dumbo was arrested in Las Palmas, Spain?" the subject of ships being arrested was brought up as an editor had not been aware that ships could be arrested. The arrest article says nothing on the subject, and on the non-criminal arrest section states "Only human beings can be arrested; objects may be confiscated or forfeited", which is not the case. Maybe a section is required for the arrest of ships. I believe aircraft can also be arrested, but I'm not 100% sure of this as a fact. Mjroots ( talk) 06:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
The 100th anniversary of the RMS Titanic sinking. Wouldn't it be nice to have that article at featured status by then? I'm dropping a hint without any plans to improve the article but working on it a little at a time is usually the best way to go.
I should also point out that Titanic is the number 1 most popular ship article according to the statistics. It gets over 300,000 hits per month average which is about 3 times more than the usual 100,000 hits of the number 2 article. (Earthrace and Comfort were big news items last month hence aircraft carrier is the normal second). -- Brad ( talk) 02:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Has it ever been determined whether http://www.ageofnelson.org/MichaelPhillips/index.html is a reliable source? Apparently the original author of the site Michael Phillips abandoned his site in 2007 and it's been resurrected and hosted at Age of Nelson. -- Brad ( talk) 18:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
It's up for TFD here. While it seems to meet the criteria for deletion, I would rather not force a poor soul make all that up again; can we userfy it to the SHIPS namespace for now? — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
The peer review for Irish Mercantile Marine during World War II is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 05:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, left a few notes on its talk page, yesterday. Could someone (possibly someone speaking some German) care? TX, [w.] 07:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, I tried to create a shipindex for Yamato, but it was refused. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Japanese warship Yamato
Does anyone think it should exist?
65.94.253.16 ( talk) 04:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for HMAS Australia (1911) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 05:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Given that this ship was only launched in 1842, should the title of the page be USS Union (1842)? Or sometimes is the year of being laid down used instead? TheGrappler ( talk) 22:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Can I just confirm with people that it makes sense to rename USS Union (1841) to USS Union (1842) and USS Advance (1850) to USS Advance (1847) to match the year of launch in both cases? TheGrappler ( talk) 15:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I suppose this is a wider point, but in the vast majority of cases, we wish readers to look at a title like USS Foobar (18xx) and read it as "USS Foobar, launched 18xx". In the rare cases where the date disambiguator is not the launch date because it is unavailable (or felt inappropriate for some other reason, as GraemeLeggett appears to be arguing for), shouldn't it be made clear that the date is not the date of launch? For instance, USS Foobar (commissioned 18xx) would be a title that will be clearly understood by a reader, without confusion with the names disambiguated by launch date. TheGrappler ( talk) 01:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
This argument is starting to get religious. Look at the actual statement in the instructions ( Wikipedia:NC-SHIPS#Disambiguating_ships_with_the_same_name): If no hull number is available, or if it is not well-known, use the ship's year of launching if known — like human birthdays, every ship has one — otherwise some other appropriate initial date, such as commissioning, or the date she is first mentioned in the historical record. (The italics are mine.) (Note that launch date itself is already only a backup identifier, as hull or pennant number is preferred.) That implies pretty clearly that the date is used only for disambiguation, and it does not imply anything else. Since one unique disambiguator is as good as another, there is no basis upon which to insist that one "should" use only one. Despite the assertion that "every ship has one", in a large number of cases the launch date is not mentioned in the sources that tell why the ship may have been important. I suppose that further digging could be used for many if not most of these, but that can be close enough to Original Research that it would run afoul of other strictures. PKKloeppel ( talk) 13:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
After USS Chesapeake (1799) was captured in 1813 the ship served in the Royal Navy until 1820 or so. Anyone have some info on the Royal Navy career? -- Brad ( talk) 03:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
and'...while the ex-American prizes were inspected closely there was no great desire to copy Chesapeake, Essex, or the sloop Frolic for that matter. The President might be regarded as an exception since an exact copy was ordered in 1818, but this was largely a political move: the old ship was in a poor state when captured in 1815 and eventually had to be broken up, but the Admiralty wished to retain the propaganda value of a President on the Navy List to celebrate its one great success over the American super-frigates.' (pp. 140-1)
and'When it was intended to repair the ship in 1818 ... The poor state of the hull led the shipwrights to recommend breaking up the ship, but the Admiralty was so keen to retain the most important prize of the American war that the First Lord invited the Comptroller of the Navy Board to a private interview to impress on him the value of the President as a propaganda tool. As a result of this pressure the ship was surveyed again, but despite claims made for the superiority of live oak, it was found that the only sound timber in the whole ship comprised fifty-six floors, thirty-nine first futtocks and twelve second futtocks; all the rest was defective, decayed or rotten. The ship was reluctantly taken to pieces and replaced with a replica.' (p. 97.)
This conflicts with our current article on President, which ascribes the decision to build her namesake to her design to, well, her design. I don't have access to Beach, but I can't see where Toll makes this claim. As to Chesapeake herself her survey reported thatThe ship herself was thought worthy of imitation, but this was purely a political decision. It had been hoped to retain the prize in service, but she would have required too much to be spent on her to guarantee an long life, so it was decided to break her up and build a replica instead. The new President was little more than a trophy, designed to remind the Royal Navy's rivals that dominion of the seas could not be won by a handful of individually superior ships. (p. 97)
and'The excessive overhang of the stern was prone to damage in a following sea, and despite the obviously fine lines, the ship's performance under sail was not regarded as exceptional. The survey was complimentary about the build-quality of the ship, but thought the scantlings over-size: she had originally been intended as another 44, and it is possible that the timbers collected for the original design were not reduced in siding for the smaller revised dimensions. (p. 96.)
and finallyAmerican prizes were closely scrutinised, and in the case of the Chesapeake and the sloop Florida were subject to commissioned sea trials, to see if anything could be learned from them. Far from being impressed, British officers regarded neither as a worthwhile prototype, and criticised the construction of the former, and the hull design of the latter ... in fact they considered her [Chesepeake] overbuilt.' (p. 96.)
Hope this helps, Benea ( talk) 22:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)The report on the Chesapeake ... was more critical. Because the main magazine was aft, stowage of provisions was a problem, less than 4 months' fitting under hatches. She was stiff, handled well, and was generally a good sea-boat, except that the excessive overhang of the stern caused the sea to strike very heavily under the counter; the captain felt the overhang would cause the ship to be damaged if taken aback. She was strongly constructed - indeed her captain thought her 'overbuilt' - but was very weatherly. She was better to windward that the fir-built Niger, but the latter ship could outrun Chesapeake off the wind or before it; indeed her recorded speeds are not very impressive at 9kts close-hauled and 11kts large. The report concluded with the captain's opinion that the ship was not a suitable model for copying (perhaps the real reason for commissioning the ship at the end of the war). (p. 147.)
| ||||||||
An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter |
As detailed in last week's Signpost, WildBot has been patrolling Wikipedia-Books and searched for various problems in them, such as books having duplicate articles or containing redirects. WikiProject Wikipedia-Books is in the process of cleaning them up, but help would be appreciated. For this project, the following books have problems:
The problem reports explain in details what exactly are the problems, why they are problems, and how to fix them. This way anyone can fix them even if they aren't familiar with books. If you don't see something that looks like this, then all problems have been fixed. (Please strike articles from this list as the problems get fixed.)
Also, the {{ saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of books (title, subtitle, cover-image, cover-color), and gives are preview of the default cover on the book's page. An example of such a cover is found on the right. Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class Ships articles should have covers.
If you need help with cleaning up a book, help with the {{ saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.
This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 22:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot ( owner • talk) 22:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I've update my list of missing vehicle-related topics, including the section of watercraft - Skysmith ( talk) 12:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for List of battleships of Germany is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy ( talk) 18:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Kongō class battlecruiser is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 05:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Article is currently semi-protected indefinitely due to vandalism. A possible alternative is to have a warning notice that appears when trying to edit the article, as has been done with the Lewis Hamilton article. Having the notice allows IPs to make constructive edits, and warns potential vandals that their actions will have consequences. Is this worth a try? Mjroots ( talk) 16:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The "mergist" who "merged" List of Japanese steam battleships to List of Japanese battleships only left an edit summary of "merge" without actually doing anything, and leaving all the information behind. Admittedly, some of the info had been merged earlier by other people, but alot was not, and none of the bluelinks were transferred on top of the black non-linked text.
Someone might actually want to complete the merge.
65.94.253.16 ( talk) 05:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
In the article of HMHS Gloucester Castle the text says, that “the Gloucester Castle had the largest loss of life of any ship sunk by German surface raiders during the war.”
Have you heard about passenger steamer SS Britannia (built in 1926 by Alexander Stephens and Sons for the Anchor Line), which was sunk by German raider Thor west of Dakar on March 25, 1941? 127 passengers and 122 crew members were killed in this incident. I just want you to know. There is no article about this ship on the English-language Wikipedia, but for the German-language version I have been writing one in 2009. Maybe someone is interested enough to create an English version.
Best regards and greetings from Germany, OfficeBoy ( talk) 22:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I've got a question regarding HMS Anson (1886). Was it this HMS Anson that ran down and sank the British passenger steamer SS Utopia (Anchor Line) off Gibraltar on March 3, 1891, causing a loss of 535 passengers and crew? There are several vessels of that name and I'd like to know which one it was. Thanks... OfficeBoy ( talk) 14:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for USS President (1800) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 20:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I just stubmled across another newbie CDN Traveller ( talk · contribs) creating articles on cruise ships that are only proposed and not yet under construction or even named! Carnival Dream 3 has now been PRODed, but I'll bet the newbie will force us to take this to AFD. Would someone with a bit more tact mind leaving them a note about when a cruise ship is deemed notable enough for an article (i.e. under construction). Thanks, - MBK 004 20:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
A request has been made to merge MV Liberty Star and MV Freedom Star into NASA recovery ship. The discussion is here, members of this project may wish to comment. Benea ( talk) 19:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
It had to happen, two ships built in the same year, each carrying the same name at different stages in their careers. I think I've found the solution. Mjroots ( talk) 06:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I noticed there are over 8,700 articles that have incomplete B-Class checklists. The full list: Category:Ships articles with incomplete B-Class checklists shows all the gory details. I've been doing a few a day but at that rate I might finish by 2053. If you have a few spare minutes to help out and reduce the backlog then please do. I have been finding a few articles that aren't in our scope or actually need downgrading to a stub. -- Brad ( talk) 10:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Create the USCGC Chincoteague (WPB-1320) article and you can get a 2011 April Fools day DYK on the back of the MY Titanic hook. Mjroots ( talk) 11:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
The peer review for Indiana class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 05:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The peer review for SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 05:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
An idea has been suggested to replace the current "no photo available" and change things so that using the photo request template on the talk page would no longer be needed. I think it's high time we found an alternative. Comments welcome at the infobox talk page. -- Brad ( talk) 10:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a dspute on the Kirov class battlecruiser over the use of the wording "most powereful". Please see Talk:Kirov class battlecruiser#Largest and most powerful non-aircraft carrier surface warship in the world today. The user supporting the claim refuses to provide sources supporting such claims, and is demanding objectors provide source refuting the claim. Any help upholding wp policies and guidelines would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 00:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion about merging Deepwater Horizon and 2010 Explosion on Deepwater Horizon drilling rig articles. Beagel ( talk) 20:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Deutschland class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 23:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Russian battleship Slava is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 21:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for Japanese battleship Tosa is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 21:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone take a look at this and see if I'm missing something here? I'm not going for anything above stub, but it was a missing article, and I need it for Japanese battleship Tosa's FAC. Thanks, — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
While housekeeping articles on places in Cornwall, UK, I have created a new article about the wreck of the trawler Ben Asdale from material removed from the article about Maenporth (a village in Cornwall).
The new article consists of the verbatim text removed from Maenporth. I've tagged the new article for clean-up and refimprove – it needs attention from an editor familiar with ships and shipwrecks. Andy F ( talk) 08:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
See my comment at Talk:Ship prefix (which may not be totally correct). There is some confusion over whether these were Royal Fleet Auxiliary or British Army ships. Assistance in clearing this up would be appreciated. Mjroots ( talk) 09:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
It appears that there is a request to move MS Caribbean Princess to a new title without the prefix because all of the other Princess Cruises ships don't have a prefix. Discussion is here. - MBK 004 18:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I hope this is the right place to ask this. I came across a ship in an encyclopedia I have called "Truelove". [1] looks like the same ship, and I was going to create a new article about it, as I don't think one exists. However, I don't know what to call it - I've noticed some articles have "Dutch ship ... (1777)" etc style naming, but this one seems to have been built in the US but soon captured by the British. The ship is also merchant, rather than naval, so I don't know what naming policy applies. Cortical ( talk) 18:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
The picture looks like a full rig. Thanks. Cortical ( talk) 18:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, one more question: what should I do about some sort of infobox? Cortical ( talk) 18:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I have written this article (
Truelove (ship)), but in finding sources for it, I've come across some conflicting information and I don't know what to do about it. The encyclopedia I have states the ship was broken up "around 1888", and this is supported by
[2] "Ship models - Page 64" and a couple of other sources. However, other places, such as
[3]
[4]
[5] state around 1895, but
[6] "Merchant sail vol 4", gives it as 1874. I don't really know which one is most accurate based on this, as most of the information I've given here seems trustworthy.
Cortical (
talk)
17:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
User:Plasticspork is making mass removals of the placeholder image for ships, ie the "No Photo Available" image. Does he have a consensus to do this? I haven't seen a discussion here, and I can't see one at the BOTREQ page that he cites. Gatoclass ( talk) 07:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I started a discussion on whether or not it would be more beneficial to merge USS Niagara (1813) and US Brig Niagara (museum ship) at WP:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. As it is relevant, comments/opinions from participants here would be welcomed. See WT:NRHP#Niagara conundrum. Niagara Don't give up the ship 22:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 03:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for HMS Lion (1910) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 14:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
A discussion has been started proposing the addition of lat/long fields to the ship infobox. Please feel free to add your comments and opinions at Template talk:Infobox ship begin/doc#Coordinates, redux. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 17:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Indiana class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 04:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I've still got 1 foot on the ship and one ashore, but I saw what appeared to be some bold edits by User:DePiep to a number of rather technical articles/templates on May 3. One example: the Gross Register Tonnage and draft (hull) articles seem to have a number of skype control codes in them. I may be jumping at shadows, but could someone look into it? I can't properly get into it until I get home in a few days. Haus Talk 18:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Is there any way somebody could have this image moved to Commons? I can't read Thai, but the "no copyright" symbol on it says enough, and I might try to expand the shamefully sub-stub page on this ship using the information there, online translators, and a massive shaker of salt for the output of said translators... - The Bushranger ( talk) 23:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 02:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion and !vote regarding the placement of A and GA symbols on corresponding mainspace articles (similar to the FA stars) here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles#Should GA and A-class articles be recognisable through a symbol on the article page? As we are one of the few projects that maintains a formal A-class review system, participation from this project would be helpful. Thank you, — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Should it be tank ship or tanker (ship)? This is being discussed at Talk:Tank ship. ( Msrasnw ( talk) 13:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC))
From ( HMS Hood) I clicked on the link for freeboard and was taken to what is essentially a dab page.
Clearly the Hood article should point to Freeboard_(nautical) and I was about to fix it but then it occurred to me that there might be other pages where the same change needs to be made.
There are currently 83 pages that link to the dab page, most of which seem ship related. It would be tedious to change all of them one at a time.
I have been working on WP for some time but have most made small edits, fixing broken links, reverting vandalism etc. I have never done anything like this.
Is there any clever tool that would make applying this change to most of these pages easier?
FerdinandFrog ( talk) 19:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm asking for consensus to allow seperate articles on sub-classes for ships to be created. You see, I've promoted to GA all but 2 (there are at GAN) of the German Type IXA submarines (A sub-class of the German Type IX submarine). In order to get it to GTC, I need to make the main article a GA so I created User:White Shadows/German Type IXA submarine. User:Sturmvogel 66 stated that he disagees with such an idea so I brough it up here.-- White Shadows you're breaking up 19:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion if WP:NC-SHIP applies also in case of semi-submersibles such as Deepwater Horizon. Beagel ( talk) 19:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for SMS Habsburg is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 21:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for SMS Árpád is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 21:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Need some help with this. I was going to do the Infobox for it but the article is a very stubby stub, lists itself as an altered design of 3 ships of the the Ardent class destroyer which itself is a subclass of the A class destroyer (1913)'s. However, other than one page List of destroyer classes on wikipedia, a search of the internet via google returns no information or even references to this class at all about this class having existed. It seems the only reference to this class is within the book Captain T.D. Manning, The British Destroyer listed on the pages references, this book seems to date from 1961 so it's very difficult to verify. Given naming of classes usually was done by the first in class, I would expect an HMS Ariel to have been at least within the class. However, the only HMS Ariel that could fit in with this class is already listed under the Angler group of 2 destroyers of the D class destroyer (1913). As such, I'm totally stuck. I would propose listing it for deletion until the class can be substantiated as having existed as I'm not willing to accept that a 50yr old book is the only reference in existence when everything else is so readily documented. Anybody have any leads or thoughts on this? JonEastham ( talk) 15:43, 28 April 2010 (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 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
The featured article candidacy for USS Triton (SSRN-586) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 21:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Operation Sandblast is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 21:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Template:Livingships has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Brad ( talk) 06:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
An AfD discussion has been started for an article which may interest this group. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carnival Glory (2nd nomination). --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 16:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Result was snowball keep. Can't wait for the third nomination. -- Brad ( talk) 06:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Ths U.S. Navy and commons identify the ship to the left as
USS Reuben James (FFG-57). Looking at the stack, the place where the forward missile launcher should be (I think that's a gun), and the location of the after radar mast I disagree. There's no discernible 76mm gun on the 0-2 level, and the stern doesn't seem to have a flight-deck area. So, I started looking at varoius cruiser/destroyer silhouettes and am left scratching my head. Even if it's two ships steaming side-by-side, I can't imagine that the forward one is a FFG. Any ideas? Thanks.
Haus
Talk
09:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Hah, there is a Chilean Condell class frigate, which was a spin-off of the Leander class. I think that's the beast. Thanks again. Haus Talk 11:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm currently researching an Empire ship which started out as a USN ship, and therefore has an entry on DANFS. The figures disagree with Lloyd's Register in some instances. DANFS entry is:- (Freighter: dp. 12,175; l. 423'9"; b. 54'0"; dph. 29'9"; dr. 23'11¼"; s. 9.5 k.; cpl. 75; a. 13")
What do "dp", "cpl" and "a" stand for? Is "l" length overall? I have a lower figure which I believe is lpp. "b" and "dph" are both different to Lloyd's figures. "dr" = draught/draft?, "s" = speed (9½kn)? Mjroots ( talk) 08:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
This article covers a fascinating subject (I didn't know the RoK Navy had a flattop!), but the article, while intriguing, is clearly suffering from grammar and formatting issues. I'd suggest that the article be given attention for improvement. :-) - The Bushranger ( talk) 05:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AIDAsol, just on the heels of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carnival Glory (2nd nomination). The nominator also prodded a few others which I have de-prodded. - MBK 004 04:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
This South Korean Navy corvette sank today after an onboard explosion. The article may need an eye kept on it to keep out unverified statements of a North Korean torpedo being responsible for the explosion. This is not confirmed at the moment. Also, would the article sit better at South Korean corvette Cheonan (PCC-772) per WP:NC-S? Mjroots ( talk) 19:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles ( BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.
The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>> Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Archive 19/Unreferenced BLPs<<<
If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.
Thank you.
I set up a series of categories for bridges by date, and have found that in the intervening 5 years, a lot of articles have been added... so times when in the past there were categories for bridges by decade without being further subdivided (that level of granularity seemed pointlessly small, since beyond a certain point in the past, most bridges by year categories would be empty and few would have more than a couple of entries), it now made sense to split up decade categories into year categories. Since ships by date categories are also subcategories of transport by date categories, I wondered how this project determined the appropriate level of granularity for year/decade, and whether it ought to be re-assessed now that more articles exist? For instance, Category:1840s ships now has 125 members, and could probably do with being split up. TheGrappler ( talk) 14:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
All the 1800s cats will end up with plenty of ships in them, so might as well split them now as later IMO. While we're on the topic, I'm also thinking it might be worthwhile to subcategorize the individual year cats, into at least "warship" and "merchant ship" cats if not further subcats like "US warships", "British warships" etc. Gatoclass ( talk) 20:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for Japanese battleship Yamato is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 22:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Following my nom of the SS Dumbo article for an April Fool's Day DYK with the hook "Did you know... that in October 1968, Dumbo was arrested in Las Palmas, Spain?" the subject of ships being arrested was brought up as an editor had not been aware that ships could be arrested. The arrest article says nothing on the subject, and on the non-criminal arrest section states "Only human beings can be arrested; objects may be confiscated or forfeited", which is not the case. Maybe a section is required for the arrest of ships. I believe aircraft can also be arrested, but I'm not 100% sure of this as a fact. Mjroots ( talk) 06:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
The 100th anniversary of the RMS Titanic sinking. Wouldn't it be nice to have that article at featured status by then? I'm dropping a hint without any plans to improve the article but working on it a little at a time is usually the best way to go.
I should also point out that Titanic is the number 1 most popular ship article according to the statistics. It gets over 300,000 hits per month average which is about 3 times more than the usual 100,000 hits of the number 2 article. (Earthrace and Comfort were big news items last month hence aircraft carrier is the normal second). -- Brad ( talk) 02:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Has it ever been determined whether http://www.ageofnelson.org/MichaelPhillips/index.html is a reliable source? Apparently the original author of the site Michael Phillips abandoned his site in 2007 and it's been resurrected and hosted at Age of Nelson. -- Brad ( talk) 18:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
It's up for TFD here. While it seems to meet the criteria for deletion, I would rather not force a poor soul make all that up again; can we userfy it to the SHIPS namespace for now? — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
The peer review for Irish Mercantile Marine during World War II is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 05:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, left a few notes on its talk page, yesterday. Could someone (possibly someone speaking some German) care? TX, [w.] 07:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, I tried to create a shipindex for Yamato, but it was refused. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Japanese warship Yamato
Does anyone think it should exist?
65.94.253.16 ( talk) 04:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for HMAS Australia (1911) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 05:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Given that this ship was only launched in 1842, should the title of the page be USS Union (1842)? Or sometimes is the year of being laid down used instead? TheGrappler ( talk) 22:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Can I just confirm with people that it makes sense to rename USS Union (1841) to USS Union (1842) and USS Advance (1850) to USS Advance (1847) to match the year of launch in both cases? TheGrappler ( talk) 15:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I suppose this is a wider point, but in the vast majority of cases, we wish readers to look at a title like USS Foobar (18xx) and read it as "USS Foobar, launched 18xx". In the rare cases where the date disambiguator is not the launch date because it is unavailable (or felt inappropriate for some other reason, as GraemeLeggett appears to be arguing for), shouldn't it be made clear that the date is not the date of launch? For instance, USS Foobar (commissioned 18xx) would be a title that will be clearly understood by a reader, without confusion with the names disambiguated by launch date. TheGrappler ( talk) 01:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
This argument is starting to get religious. Look at the actual statement in the instructions ( Wikipedia:NC-SHIPS#Disambiguating_ships_with_the_same_name): If no hull number is available, or if it is not well-known, use the ship's year of launching if known — like human birthdays, every ship has one — otherwise some other appropriate initial date, such as commissioning, or the date she is first mentioned in the historical record. (The italics are mine.) (Note that launch date itself is already only a backup identifier, as hull or pennant number is preferred.) That implies pretty clearly that the date is used only for disambiguation, and it does not imply anything else. Since one unique disambiguator is as good as another, there is no basis upon which to insist that one "should" use only one. Despite the assertion that "every ship has one", in a large number of cases the launch date is not mentioned in the sources that tell why the ship may have been important. I suppose that further digging could be used for many if not most of these, but that can be close enough to Original Research that it would run afoul of other strictures. PKKloeppel ( talk) 13:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
After USS Chesapeake (1799) was captured in 1813 the ship served in the Royal Navy until 1820 or so. Anyone have some info on the Royal Navy career? -- Brad ( talk) 03:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
and'...while the ex-American prizes were inspected closely there was no great desire to copy Chesapeake, Essex, or the sloop Frolic for that matter. The President might be regarded as an exception since an exact copy was ordered in 1818, but this was largely a political move: the old ship was in a poor state when captured in 1815 and eventually had to be broken up, but the Admiralty wished to retain the propaganda value of a President on the Navy List to celebrate its one great success over the American super-frigates.' (pp. 140-1)
and'When it was intended to repair the ship in 1818 ... The poor state of the hull led the shipwrights to recommend breaking up the ship, but the Admiralty was so keen to retain the most important prize of the American war that the First Lord invited the Comptroller of the Navy Board to a private interview to impress on him the value of the President as a propaganda tool. As a result of this pressure the ship was surveyed again, but despite claims made for the superiority of live oak, it was found that the only sound timber in the whole ship comprised fifty-six floors, thirty-nine first futtocks and twelve second futtocks; all the rest was defective, decayed or rotten. The ship was reluctantly taken to pieces and replaced with a replica.' (p. 97.)
This conflicts with our current article on President, which ascribes the decision to build her namesake to her design to, well, her design. I don't have access to Beach, but I can't see where Toll makes this claim. As to Chesapeake herself her survey reported thatThe ship herself was thought worthy of imitation, but this was purely a political decision. It had been hoped to retain the prize in service, but she would have required too much to be spent on her to guarantee an long life, so it was decided to break her up and build a replica instead. The new President was little more than a trophy, designed to remind the Royal Navy's rivals that dominion of the seas could not be won by a handful of individually superior ships. (p. 97)
and'The excessive overhang of the stern was prone to damage in a following sea, and despite the obviously fine lines, the ship's performance under sail was not regarded as exceptional. The survey was complimentary about the build-quality of the ship, but thought the scantlings over-size: she had originally been intended as another 44, and it is possible that the timbers collected for the original design were not reduced in siding for the smaller revised dimensions. (p. 96.)
and finallyAmerican prizes were closely scrutinised, and in the case of the Chesapeake and the sloop Florida were subject to commissioned sea trials, to see if anything could be learned from them. Far from being impressed, British officers regarded neither as a worthwhile prototype, and criticised the construction of the former, and the hull design of the latter ... in fact they considered her [Chesepeake] overbuilt.' (p. 96.)
Hope this helps, Benea ( talk) 22:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)The report on the Chesapeake ... was more critical. Because the main magazine was aft, stowage of provisions was a problem, less than 4 months' fitting under hatches. She was stiff, handled well, and was generally a good sea-boat, except that the excessive overhang of the stern caused the sea to strike very heavily under the counter; the captain felt the overhang would cause the ship to be damaged if taken aback. She was strongly constructed - indeed her captain thought her 'overbuilt' - but was very weatherly. She was better to windward that the fir-built Niger, but the latter ship could outrun Chesapeake off the wind or before it; indeed her recorded speeds are not very impressive at 9kts close-hauled and 11kts large. The report concluded with the captain's opinion that the ship was not a suitable model for copying (perhaps the real reason for commissioning the ship at the end of the war). (p. 147.)
| ||||||||
An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter |
As detailed in last week's Signpost, WildBot has been patrolling Wikipedia-Books and searched for various problems in them, such as books having duplicate articles or containing redirects. WikiProject Wikipedia-Books is in the process of cleaning them up, but help would be appreciated. For this project, the following books have problems:
The problem reports explain in details what exactly are the problems, why they are problems, and how to fix them. This way anyone can fix them even if they aren't familiar with books. If you don't see something that looks like this, then all problems have been fixed. (Please strike articles from this list as the problems get fixed.)
Also, the {{ saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of books (title, subtitle, cover-image, cover-color), and gives are preview of the default cover on the book's page. An example of such a cover is found on the right. Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class Ships articles should have covers.
If you need help with cleaning up a book, help with the {{ saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.
This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 22:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot ( owner • talk) 22:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I've update my list of missing vehicle-related topics, including the section of watercraft - Skysmith ( talk) 12:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for List of battleships of Germany is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy ( talk) 18:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Kongō class battlecruiser is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 05:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Article is currently semi-protected indefinitely due to vandalism. A possible alternative is to have a warning notice that appears when trying to edit the article, as has been done with the Lewis Hamilton article. Having the notice allows IPs to make constructive edits, and warns potential vandals that their actions will have consequences. Is this worth a try? Mjroots ( talk) 16:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The "mergist" who "merged" List of Japanese steam battleships to List of Japanese battleships only left an edit summary of "merge" without actually doing anything, and leaving all the information behind. Admittedly, some of the info had been merged earlier by other people, but alot was not, and none of the bluelinks were transferred on top of the black non-linked text.
Someone might actually want to complete the merge.
65.94.253.16 ( talk) 05:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
In the article of HMHS Gloucester Castle the text says, that “the Gloucester Castle had the largest loss of life of any ship sunk by German surface raiders during the war.”
Have you heard about passenger steamer SS Britannia (built in 1926 by Alexander Stephens and Sons for the Anchor Line), which was sunk by German raider Thor west of Dakar on March 25, 1941? 127 passengers and 122 crew members were killed in this incident. I just want you to know. There is no article about this ship on the English-language Wikipedia, but for the German-language version I have been writing one in 2009. Maybe someone is interested enough to create an English version.
Best regards and greetings from Germany, OfficeBoy ( talk) 22:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I've got a question regarding HMS Anson (1886). Was it this HMS Anson that ran down and sank the British passenger steamer SS Utopia (Anchor Line) off Gibraltar on March 3, 1891, causing a loss of 535 passengers and crew? There are several vessels of that name and I'd like to know which one it was. Thanks... OfficeBoy ( talk) 14:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for USS President (1800) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 20:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I just stubmled across another newbie CDN Traveller ( talk · contribs) creating articles on cruise ships that are only proposed and not yet under construction or even named! Carnival Dream 3 has now been PRODed, but I'll bet the newbie will force us to take this to AFD. Would someone with a bit more tact mind leaving them a note about when a cruise ship is deemed notable enough for an article (i.e. under construction). Thanks, - MBK 004 20:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
A request has been made to merge MV Liberty Star and MV Freedom Star into NASA recovery ship. The discussion is here, members of this project may wish to comment. Benea ( talk) 19:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
It had to happen, two ships built in the same year, each carrying the same name at different stages in their careers. I think I've found the solution. Mjroots ( talk) 06:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I noticed there are over 8,700 articles that have incomplete B-Class checklists. The full list: Category:Ships articles with incomplete B-Class checklists shows all the gory details. I've been doing a few a day but at that rate I might finish by 2053. If you have a few spare minutes to help out and reduce the backlog then please do. I have been finding a few articles that aren't in our scope or actually need downgrading to a stub. -- Brad ( talk) 10:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Create the USCGC Chincoteague (WPB-1320) article and you can get a 2011 April Fools day DYK on the back of the MY Titanic hook. Mjroots ( talk) 11:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
The peer review for Indiana class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 05:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The peer review for SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 05:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
An idea has been suggested to replace the current "no photo available" and change things so that using the photo request template on the talk page would no longer be needed. I think it's high time we found an alternative. Comments welcome at the infobox talk page. -- Brad ( talk) 10:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a dspute on the Kirov class battlecruiser over the use of the wording "most powereful". Please see Talk:Kirov class battlecruiser#Largest and most powerful non-aircraft carrier surface warship in the world today. The user supporting the claim refuses to provide sources supporting such claims, and is demanding objectors provide source refuting the claim. Any help upholding wp policies and guidelines would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 00:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion about merging Deepwater Horizon and 2010 Explosion on Deepwater Horizon drilling rig articles. Beagel ( talk) 20:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Deutschland class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 23:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Russian battleship Slava is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 21:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for Japanese battleship Tosa is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 21:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone take a look at this and see if I'm missing something here? I'm not going for anything above stub, but it was a missing article, and I need it for Japanese battleship Tosa's FAC. Thanks, — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
While housekeeping articles on places in Cornwall, UK, I have created a new article about the wreck of the trawler Ben Asdale from material removed from the article about Maenporth (a village in Cornwall).
The new article consists of the verbatim text removed from Maenporth. I've tagged the new article for clean-up and refimprove – it needs attention from an editor familiar with ships and shipwrecks. Andy F ( talk) 08:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
See my comment at Talk:Ship prefix (which may not be totally correct). There is some confusion over whether these were Royal Fleet Auxiliary or British Army ships. Assistance in clearing this up would be appreciated. Mjroots ( talk) 09:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
It appears that there is a request to move MS Caribbean Princess to a new title without the prefix because all of the other Princess Cruises ships don't have a prefix. Discussion is here. - MBK 004 18:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I hope this is the right place to ask this. I came across a ship in an encyclopedia I have called "Truelove". [1] looks like the same ship, and I was going to create a new article about it, as I don't think one exists. However, I don't know what to call it - I've noticed some articles have "Dutch ship ... (1777)" etc style naming, but this one seems to have been built in the US but soon captured by the British. The ship is also merchant, rather than naval, so I don't know what naming policy applies. Cortical ( talk) 18:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
The picture looks like a full rig. Thanks. Cortical ( talk) 18:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, one more question: what should I do about some sort of infobox? Cortical ( talk) 18:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I have written this article (
Truelove (ship)), but in finding sources for it, I've come across some conflicting information and I don't know what to do about it. The encyclopedia I have states the ship was broken up "around 1888", and this is supported by
[2] "Ship models - Page 64" and a couple of other sources. However, other places, such as
[3]
[4]
[5] state around 1895, but
[6] "Merchant sail vol 4", gives it as 1874. I don't really know which one is most accurate based on this, as most of the information I've given here seems trustworthy.
Cortical (
talk)
17:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
User:Plasticspork is making mass removals of the placeholder image for ships, ie the "No Photo Available" image. Does he have a consensus to do this? I haven't seen a discussion here, and I can't see one at the BOTREQ page that he cites. Gatoclass ( talk) 07:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I started a discussion on whether or not it would be more beneficial to merge USS Niagara (1813) and US Brig Niagara (museum ship) at WP:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. As it is relevant, comments/opinions from participants here would be welcomed. See WT:NRHP#Niagara conundrum. Niagara Don't give up the ship 22:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 03:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for HMS Lion (1910) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 14:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
A discussion has been started proposing the addition of lat/long fields to the ship infobox. Please feel free to add your comments and opinions at Template talk:Infobox ship begin/doc#Coordinates, redux. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 17:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Indiana class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 04:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I've still got 1 foot on the ship and one ashore, but I saw what appeared to be some bold edits by User:DePiep to a number of rather technical articles/templates on May 3. One example: the Gross Register Tonnage and draft (hull) articles seem to have a number of skype control codes in them. I may be jumping at shadows, but could someone look into it? I can't properly get into it until I get home in a few days. Haus Talk 18:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Is there any way somebody could have this image moved to Commons? I can't read Thai, but the "no copyright" symbol on it says enough, and I might try to expand the shamefully sub-stub page on this ship using the information there, online translators, and a massive shaker of salt for the output of said translators... - The Bushranger ( talk) 23:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 02:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion and !vote regarding the placement of A and GA symbols on corresponding mainspace articles (similar to the FA stars) here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles#Should GA and A-class articles be recognisable through a symbol on the article page? As we are one of the few projects that maintains a formal A-class review system, participation from this project would be helpful. Thank you, — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Should it be tank ship or tanker (ship)? This is being discussed at Talk:Tank ship. ( Msrasnw ( talk) 13:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC))
From ( HMS Hood) I clicked on the link for freeboard and was taken to what is essentially a dab page.
Clearly the Hood article should point to Freeboard_(nautical) and I was about to fix it but then it occurred to me that there might be other pages where the same change needs to be made.
There are currently 83 pages that link to the dab page, most of which seem ship related. It would be tedious to change all of them one at a time.
I have been working on WP for some time but have most made small edits, fixing broken links, reverting vandalism etc. I have never done anything like this.
Is there any clever tool that would make applying this change to most of these pages easier?
FerdinandFrog ( talk) 19:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm asking for consensus to allow seperate articles on sub-classes for ships to be created. You see, I've promoted to GA all but 2 (there are at GAN) of the German Type IXA submarines (A sub-class of the German Type IX submarine). In order to get it to GTC, I need to make the main article a GA so I created User:White Shadows/German Type IXA submarine. User:Sturmvogel 66 stated that he disagees with such an idea so I brough it up here.-- White Shadows you're breaking up 19:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion if WP:NC-SHIP applies also in case of semi-submersibles such as Deepwater Horizon. Beagel ( talk) 19:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for SMS Habsburg is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 21:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for SMS Árpád is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK 004 21:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Need some help with this. I was going to do the Infobox for it but the article is a very stubby stub, lists itself as an altered design of 3 ships of the the Ardent class destroyer which itself is a subclass of the A class destroyer (1913)'s. However, other than one page List of destroyer classes on wikipedia, a search of the internet via google returns no information or even references to this class at all about this class having existed. It seems the only reference to this class is within the book Captain T.D. Manning, The British Destroyer listed on the pages references, this book seems to date from 1961 so it's very difficult to verify. Given naming of classes usually was done by the first in class, I would expect an HMS Ariel to have been at least within the class. However, the only HMS Ariel that could fit in with this class is already listed under the Angler group of 2 destroyers of the D class destroyer (1913). As such, I'm totally stuck. I would propose listing it for deletion until the class can be substantiated as having existed as I'm not willing to accept that a 50yr old book is the only reference in existence when everything else is so readily documented. Anybody have any leads or thoughts on this? JonEastham ( talk) 15:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)