![]() | 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 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
RMS Titanic II (proposed ocean liner) Here we Go Again. Some things never get old; they just get repeated differently. Brad ( talk) 14:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe we should keep all of these articles and eliminate the need to repeat ourselves every other month. Brad ( talk) 22:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know that I am having discussions with the National Maritime Museum about them releasing a large tranche of information about Royal Navy warships for use on Wikipedia projects. If anyone's interested please have a look at Wikipedia:GLAM/NMM and ask any questions/sign up. Regards, The Land ( talk) 19:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I need help with disambiguating Amaranth. I think it needs a ship page as well as a disambiguation page, and a better hatnote. Thanks! Djembayz ( talk) 03:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, there are several sources, such as this NASA document (page 263) that refer to "Soviet tracking ships" from the 1960's, whose purpose was to track spacecraft as they flew around the Earth. They name the ships, but I haven't been able to work out what class of ship they were. Can anyone help? The names of the first generation of ships were: Sibir, Suchan, Sakhalin, and Chukotka; and the second generation ships were called: Dolinsk, Ilichevsk (or Illchevsk), and Krasnodar. Any more information about these ships would be appreciated. I'd like to add information, such as their class, into the Vostok programme article. Thanks, Mlm42 ( talk) 03:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
@ Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Project Scope. It probably needs more work but it's a good start for now. I've linked it to the main page and the project sidebar. Comments welcome. Brad ( talk) 05:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Much of the content of this page has yet to achieve consensus IMO. Certainly I think some of the statements could use further discussion. Are we sure ship owners should not be included? I can't think of many reasons why they should not. I'm also not altogether happy with the notion of an arbitrary cut-off of 100 feet/100 tons. They are a couple of concerns that immediately come to mind. Gatoclass ( talk) 06:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I moved the conversation here. Right now there are comments being left in three places. Too spread out. Brad ( talk) 19:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Moved from thread near top of page
Good start on scope page. Two comments re: sailing vessels: Could we add "Large sailing vessels" as being in scope? And could we add "WikiProject Sailing" as a related project on our home page? Djembayz ( talk)
My next inquiry is if we should have in our scope:
It looks to me the articles De Ruyter class cruiser and HNLMS De Ruyter (1935) need merging as for De Ruyter is the only ship in class and other unique ships on Wiki don’t have class articles. 86.87.73.104 ( talk) 20:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Copied from Talk:Submarine
Is there enough information out there to warrant a separate page on the fleet sub? The redirect to Submarine doesn't seem terribly helpful in describing the technical details & development. I'm not sure if it wouldn't just reproduce what's in the individual class pages, tho. Nor am I sure a page on a U.S.-only term (if it is...) is wise. (FYI, also posed here.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
While not that interested in sailing warships, I've been adding infoboxes to a bunch of ship articles. Whilst doing so I noticed that just about all the articles on French ships of the line are formatted as French ship XXXX. This does nothing to distinguish the warship from any other type of French ship. French ship of the line XXXX is a little long, but better fits our naming convention and I propose to rename the articles thusly when I add infoboxes to those articles. Thoughts?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 01:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I noticed your discussions, didn't want to butt in, however there is this available: [1] Chaosdruid ( talk) 02:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
USS SC-42 has been nominated for deletion, but the deletion rationale seems to indicate this is a test case for a wider ranging deletion of most non-capital-ship articles. 65.95.15.144 ( talk) 05:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{
citation}}, {{
cite journal}}, {{
cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id=
(or worse {{
arxiv|0123.4567}}
|url=
http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567
), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567
, likewise for |id=
and {{
JSTOR|0123456789}}
|url=
http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789
→ |jstor=0123456789
.
The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):
Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The SS Cotopaxi article was PRODded on 8 March by Brad101 ( talk · contribs), with the PROD being seconded by 86.186.44.85 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). I've managed to find references that prove the ship existed and disappeared at about the time claimed, and for its fictional appearance in an edition of Close Encounters of the Third Kind. As the Plimsoll Ship Data website is currently offline for maintenance, further expansion of the article will have to wait. It appears that a number of ships were named Cotopaxi over the years. This one was an American tramp steamer which disappeared in 1925. Assistance in further improving the article is welcome. Mjroots ( talk) 06:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
by Htphilly ( talk · contribs). Leave or revert? Materialscientist ( talk) 23:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Your attention is drawn here: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(ships)#HMS_prefix_in_old_English_warships. The Land ( talk) 15:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
This article, which is WP:SHIPS most popular article, is now unprotected due to the semi-protection I placed on the article six months ago expiring. So far, the vandalism does not seem to be recurring. Should this situation continue, then I'm happy for the article to remain unprotected. A return to previous levels of vandalism will mean that regrettably the duration of semi-protection will have to be indefinite. Mjroots ( talk) 06:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Yorktown class aircraft carrier# for an explanation of the situation. I'm at my wits' end dealing with this user, and could use some fresh input in finding a solution. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 05:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I am the other user and I am also at my wits end. The information we are debating is very simple and easy to verify. This needs to be looked at by someone who is impartial and it needs to be fixed in the spirit of accurate information. JFChandler95678 ( talk) 05:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I reviewed this article for GA on 12 March, but User:Thurgate has been inactive since then. Hopefully this user will be returning shortly, but I was wondering if anyone else here would be willing to have a look at my comments and help get this article to GA status, as it would be a shame to fail the article purely because the primary editor has disappeared. Harrias talk 10:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The Akra Aktion article has been prodded. Per discussion at user talk:Brad101, it contains some incorrect info. We have two choices here, allow the prod without prejudice to recreation, or bash the article into a shape resembling a ship. Mjroots ( talk) 11:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
USS Proteus (CVL-1).. yeah. There is no DANFS article that matches this ship. There is no Proteus with that designation listed in a registry reference I have. USS Proteus (AC-9) was sold in March 1941 and USS Proteus (AS-19) was laid down in September 1941. CVL-1 article claims CVL-1 went in service in 1934. This obviously can't be. Also, the CVL-1 article is a spooky ghost of USS Langley (CV-1). CVL-1 consists of photos of Langley renamed to Proteus and additional photos recaptioned to fit the story. It has some references but no bibliography to back up the claims. Not quite a speedy-delete hoax but it's certainly close. Can anyone dispute my research before I go to AFD? Brad ( talk) 09:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
On a similar subject, Port Glinsint. No evidence this place exists or existed, there were no captured U-boats brought to Britain in 1943, and no reason for them to be fitted with "decoy underwater device emmiters" with the suspicious acronym D.U.D.E's, and no evidence such a device ever existed. Benea ( talk) 14:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello everyone, hope all is going well. And while I'm at it Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HMS Constance (1880), if people would like to comment. Benea ( talk) 22:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
File:SS LESBIAN (3).jpg has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots ( talk) 17:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Something recently come up on HMS Speedy (1782), where Fifelfoo ( talk · contribs) has removed the cost conversion templates (i.e. 'ship x cost £100, equivalent to £1000 today', etc) arguing that 'Capital or GDP expenses cannot be inflated in terms of CPI' and 'It is factually incorrect and OR'. Since these were conversions insisted on at the GA/A class level reviews, and I intend to take this article to FA class can I have it settled whether he is in fact right and there has been some change of policy, or if he should be reverted? Other highly ranked articles also have conversions I seem to recall ( HMS Dreadnought (1906) for example.) Benea ( talk) 00:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Type 97 U-boat is the title but the body describes Type 93 U-boat and a list heading for Type 81 U-boats that goes on to list Type 93's. German subs aren't in my knowledge base; can anyone straighten this out? Brad ( talk) 11:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The Plimsoll Ship Data website (scans of Lloyd's registers) is offline for maintenance, and has been for a few days. Can we please ensure that references from this website are not marked as deadlinks. Even if the website remains offline, the original document is a Lloyd's Register entry, the web page being a convenience only. Mjroots ( talk) 12:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
A news report by Andrew Gilligan and Robert Mendick, "Japan tsunami: Fukushima Fifty, the first interview," 7:00AM BST 27 Mar 2011, shows that a tall ship named Kaiwo Maru [probably the Kaiwo Maru II] is being used to house and feed Fukusima nuclear power plant workers when they are off active duty. I think this is worthy of note in the entry for Kaiwo Maru II but I lack experience and the confidence to add to the report myself. I trust someone will do it.
I'm sorry if this note is in the wrong place and trust someone will move it if necessary, too. Bernard Macdougall ( talk) 05:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
{{ Class A article}} has been nominated for deletion. As this wikiproject uses A-class as a quality rating, I thought I'd let you know. 65.93.12.101 ( talk) 07:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Some issues have come to light at Kaiwo Maru II, see Talk:Kaiwo Maru II. 65.93.12.101 ( talk) 08:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I've propsed a change of scope for Category:Ships of British Rail at the talk page. Your views are welcome there. Mjroots ( talk) 08:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Nearly five thousand 1000px images of ships have been uploaded to Commons in the past week as part of the SLQ collaboration.(see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-12-20/Image donation for background) They have been automatically added to 'Ships in Queensland' and 'Ships of Australia', however in a large proportion of cases this will be wrong. I'll be herding them out of those high level categories over the coming weeks.
The high level categories are a bit broken at the moment (something to do with the ongoing upgrade). As a result, I have create a report on the categories on the images, so that contributors familiar with ships can scan down and work on ship names that interest them. See commons:Commons:State Library of Queensland/Reports/Ship categories. For people unfamiliar with Commons, commons:Category:Sydney (ship) is an example of how they do disambiguation.
If there are any tasks which can be automated to manage these images of ship, please let me know either here or at commons:Commons_talk:State_Library_of_Queensland. I'll be following this thread to help with any questions and see any suggestions. John Vandenberg ( chat) 13:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Great work! Could we bring this thread back from the archive?
I've started building the report for March, improving the reporting software as I go. See commons:Commons:State Library of Queensland/Reports/3/New categories and the previous report is here. The "new category" stats are skewed in favour of the current month because renaming categories involves deleting the old category and creating a new one. I can easily correct this in future reports, but it will be difficult to correct this in the current report as I don't readily have the necessary historical data.
If there are any lists or stats that you think would be useful, please let me know. John Vandenberg ( chat) 22:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
commons:Commons:State Library of Queensland/Reports/3/New Wikipedia pages is a semi-automatically generated list of articles created in March with an SLQ image on the page. Have any other articles been created this month? Feel free to add them to that page if they meet the criteria. John Vandenberg ( chat) 07:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I've added in three ships known to have been victims of the Japanese tsunami. Can anyone confirm which flag Asia Syndicate operates under. Unfortunately, a search on t'internet for "Asia Syndicate" produces lots of false results due to a heroin smuggling gang of the 1970s known as the "Mr Asia Syndicate". Maybe someone with a subscription to Miramar can help? Mjroots ( talk) 07:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for USS New Ironsides 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) 02:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Though related to ships, I'd like to get as many eyes on this as possible for clear consensus, so if anyone wants to stop by and voice their opinion one way or the other I'd be grateful - an issue over one or two battles of Trafalgar, being discussed here. Benea ( talk) 17:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The LST-766 article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots ( talk) 09:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully I wasn't too presumptuous, but seeing as we had prefix templates like {{
HMS}}
and {{
USS}}
and even {{
HNLMS}}
available, I thought I'd create the equivalent for ships of the Royal Norwegian Navy at {{
HNoMS}}
. The template itself and documentation is based on {{
HMS}}
, and it's been added to {{
WPSHIPS shortcut templates}}
. -
Chrism
would like to hear from you 23:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed for a while that there are no guidelines for sorting ship prefixes. For example, should USS Ashuelot be sorted as "Ashuelot, USS" or "Ashuelot USS" (ie with or without the comma)? Gatoclass ( talk) 13:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Crystal Symphony is without a doubt the most disgusting piece of tripe within the scope of this project. I'm nauseated after reading that article. It was expanded and worked on by an editor we had problems with on other cruise ship articles. Anyway, unless someone wants to take a stab at rewriting this PoS I'm taking it to AfD in a few days. Now pardon me whilst I find some Pepto. Brad ( talk) 01:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
The article has been chopped further, and as far as I'm concerned it is now neutral and acceptable. Two things on WP get my hair on fire and that's blatant glowing pro-subject advertising and trivia. Hail to the choppers! Brad ( talk) 18:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion here on where U-233 should redirect to; comments are invited... Xyl 54 ( talk) 05:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Image:Truong Sa Navy.jpg and Image:RVNS Ly Thuong Kiet.jpg have been nominated for deletion. 64.229.100.45 ( talk) 07:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I've been discovering quite a few articles that are rated at stub class that aren't in any way a stub. This is likely because the article has been expanded since it was originally assessed. Cruizer-class brig-sloop was a good example of this. I'm not suggesting a reassessment campaign of all stub articles but if we could be more attentive to what an article's rating is then little by little they can be reassessed accordingly.
A tool which has helped me to find articles like this is using a gadget under my/your preferences->Gadgets->User interface gadgets and ticking off Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article. This will show you the article rating on the front page rather than having to visit the talk page to find out. With that, if the article says stub and it's obviously not, it can be rerated. Of course if the article is overrated that can be changed too. Brad ( talk) 11:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of curiosity how should HMAS Alfie Cam and HMVS Nepean be rated? What would you rate them as? Brad ( talk) 08:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello all. It's turned up that there are potential copyright violations in a number of ship articles. User:Acad Ronin has, probably with the best of intentions, been adding text to articles based rather too closely on this copyrighted content. A number of people (particularly User:Shem1805 and User:VernoWhitney) have noticed this and been discussing the matter with Acad Ronin, but I think it's fair to say the scale of the problem has only just come to light.
We could use the attention of any experienced editors. Please looking at the list of articles here' which AcadRonin has identified as at risk of copyright violations. Each article on that list needs to be closely checked against the entry for the same ship at [2], and any section of it which is a copyright violation needs to be re-written or removed. In many cases, Acad has taken Phillips's text, and rewritten it a little, so it is not an obvious copy but rather (in copyright terms) a "derivative work".
In the meantime, please avoid any temptation to go around blanking Acad Ronin's contributions or shouting at him(/her). Many of Acad's contributions are of a high quality and, while we obviously need to deal with this copyright problem, I am optimistic that we can do it on an article-by-article basis with his co-operation and without removing large quantities of good material. Regards, The Land ( talk) 16:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I happened across Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Sources#Royal_Navy and noticed the entry:
Apparently some sort of permission was given (years ago) but whether the above mention of The Epopt having an email qualifies the source as permissible now should be investigated. Brad ( talk) 03:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
The article on the USS New Ironsides, an ironclad that saw action at Ft. Fisher and Charleston during the American Civil War is a featured article candidate. Feel free to drop by and review the article to see if it meets the FAC criteria.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 04:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to restore this for further discussion here as I notice Sturmvogel has started moving articles: Benea ( talk) 20:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
While not that interested in sailing warships, I've been adding infoboxes to a bunch of ship articles. Whilst doing so I noticed that just about all the articles on French ships of the line are formatted as French ship XXXX. This does nothing to distinguish the warship from any other type of French ship. French ship of the line XXXX is a little long, but better fits our naming convention and I propose to rename the articles thusly when I add infoboxes to those articles. Thoughts?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 01:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
This whole discussion just goes to show why the whole pre-disambiguation (which most of Wikipedia does not do) is such a bad idea. Just what is wrong with Courbet (1911)? Shem ( talk) 18:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The current naming convention says "For ships of navies or nations that don't have a standard ship prefix, name the article (Nationality) (type) (Name)". The alternatives I see are:
My personal feeling is that year of launch is unique (in the sense that every ship has only one), whereas ships change nationality and even type. In the extremely unlikely circumstance that two ships bearing the same name (and neither employing a prefix) are launched in the same year, further disambiguation would be required, but easy to do. Thoughts? Shem ( talk) 20:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't care a whole lot whether the disambiguation method is by ship type or date, I'm basically just opposed to pre-disambiguation. I also think we should stick to wider wikipedia conventions when disambiguating, with ship name coming first and disambiguation after, in brackets. So, Foo (battleship) or Foo (1916) is fine with me, but "Nationality shiptype Foo" or "Shiptype Foo" is not. Gatoclass ( talk) 13:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Reading through the above discussion isn't showing any resolution or decision made to change the naming convention. Brad ( talk) 00:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Should Borei class submarine or Audacious class aircraft carrier be italicized when mentioned? I.e. should it be 'Borei class submarine' or 'Borei class submarine?' It seems clear from the projects guidelines that the answer is no, because the lead vessel in each of these classes doesn't carry the class name but I am just checking the correct procedure.
"Ship class articles should follow the same general format as individual ship articles. If a ship class is named after its lead ship, the name is italicized (Ohio class); otherwise, use plain text (A class)." Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 04:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
The SS Marlin sank off the coast of North Carolina on 18 October 1965. A US Coast Guard cutter went to her assistance. Is there any editor with access to American newspaper archives who could find a name for the vessel please? Mjroots ( talk) 14:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I expect ship names to be sorted on the full name, without the prefix. However where the ship is named after a person, I find a mixture of orders - mainly sorting on the person's surname (correct for an article about the person). Is it correct to change this, so that eg. CCGS Sir William Alexander sorts as "Sir William Alexander, CCGS", not as "William..." or "Alexander..."? Finavon ( talk) 10:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. CCGS articles sorted on full name (ie Sir... and others where the name starts with initials). Finavon ( talk) 20:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Please visit the discussion here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines#Proposal_to_drop_the_disambiguator_in_the_lead_paragraph. Thanks. Shem ( talk) 09:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for HMS Hood (51) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 01:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I've created a new {{ PS}} template for paddle steamers, which works the same as the USS, HMS templates and so on. I would've done it a while back but the template was already in use by another project, so I had to shunt all the existing iterations of the other template to a new template first. "PS" is a useful disambiguator for paddle steamers, which is intended to replace cumbersome usage like "Shipname (steamboat)" or "Shipname (paddle steamer)" or "Shipname (side-wheeler)" and all the other variations. Gatoclass ( talk) 16:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
{{
PS}}
used to be a Harry Potter template.
65.93.12.101 (
talk) 04:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Which is why we should create redirects from non-prefixed names. Thus Empire Cormorant links to the SS Western Maid article, and Empire Condor links to a shipindex page to allow the reader to find the article they require. Mjroots ( talk) 11:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
And Wikipedia's search engine is pretty good now. If you know the ship name, you are going to find the article quickly no matter what the title happens to be. Gatoclass ( talk) 06:28, 18 April 2011 (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 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
RMS Titanic II (proposed ocean liner) Here we Go Again. Some things never get old; they just get repeated differently. Brad ( talk) 14:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe we should keep all of these articles and eliminate the need to repeat ourselves every other month. Brad ( talk) 22:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know that I am having discussions with the National Maritime Museum about them releasing a large tranche of information about Royal Navy warships for use on Wikipedia projects. If anyone's interested please have a look at Wikipedia:GLAM/NMM and ask any questions/sign up. Regards, The Land ( talk) 19:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I need help with disambiguating Amaranth. I think it needs a ship page as well as a disambiguation page, and a better hatnote. Thanks! Djembayz ( talk) 03:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, there are several sources, such as this NASA document (page 263) that refer to "Soviet tracking ships" from the 1960's, whose purpose was to track spacecraft as they flew around the Earth. They name the ships, but I haven't been able to work out what class of ship they were. Can anyone help? The names of the first generation of ships were: Sibir, Suchan, Sakhalin, and Chukotka; and the second generation ships were called: Dolinsk, Ilichevsk (or Illchevsk), and Krasnodar. Any more information about these ships would be appreciated. I'd like to add information, such as their class, into the Vostok programme article. Thanks, Mlm42 ( talk) 03:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
@ Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Project Scope. It probably needs more work but it's a good start for now. I've linked it to the main page and the project sidebar. Comments welcome. Brad ( talk) 05:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Much of the content of this page has yet to achieve consensus IMO. Certainly I think some of the statements could use further discussion. Are we sure ship owners should not be included? I can't think of many reasons why they should not. I'm also not altogether happy with the notion of an arbitrary cut-off of 100 feet/100 tons. They are a couple of concerns that immediately come to mind. Gatoclass ( talk) 06:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I moved the conversation here. Right now there are comments being left in three places. Too spread out. Brad ( talk) 19:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Moved from thread near top of page
Good start on scope page. Two comments re: sailing vessels: Could we add "Large sailing vessels" as being in scope? And could we add "WikiProject Sailing" as a related project on our home page? Djembayz ( talk)
My next inquiry is if we should have in our scope:
It looks to me the articles De Ruyter class cruiser and HNLMS De Ruyter (1935) need merging as for De Ruyter is the only ship in class and other unique ships on Wiki don’t have class articles. 86.87.73.104 ( talk) 20:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Copied from Talk:Submarine
Is there enough information out there to warrant a separate page on the fleet sub? The redirect to Submarine doesn't seem terribly helpful in describing the technical details & development. I'm not sure if it wouldn't just reproduce what's in the individual class pages, tho. Nor am I sure a page on a U.S.-only term (if it is...) is wise. (FYI, also posed here.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
While not that interested in sailing warships, I've been adding infoboxes to a bunch of ship articles. Whilst doing so I noticed that just about all the articles on French ships of the line are formatted as French ship XXXX. This does nothing to distinguish the warship from any other type of French ship. French ship of the line XXXX is a little long, but better fits our naming convention and I propose to rename the articles thusly when I add infoboxes to those articles. Thoughts?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 01:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I noticed your discussions, didn't want to butt in, however there is this available: [1] Chaosdruid ( talk) 02:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
USS SC-42 has been nominated for deletion, but the deletion rationale seems to indicate this is a test case for a wider ranging deletion of most non-capital-ship articles. 65.95.15.144 ( talk) 05:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{
citation}}, {{
cite journal}}, {{
cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id=
(or worse {{
arxiv|0123.4567}}
|url=
http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567
), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567
, likewise for |id=
and {{
JSTOR|0123456789}}
|url=
http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789
→ |jstor=0123456789
.
The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):
Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The SS Cotopaxi article was PRODded on 8 March by Brad101 ( talk · contribs), with the PROD being seconded by 86.186.44.85 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). I've managed to find references that prove the ship existed and disappeared at about the time claimed, and for its fictional appearance in an edition of Close Encounters of the Third Kind. As the Plimsoll Ship Data website is currently offline for maintenance, further expansion of the article will have to wait. It appears that a number of ships were named Cotopaxi over the years. This one was an American tramp steamer which disappeared in 1925. Assistance in further improving the article is welcome. Mjroots ( talk) 06:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
by Htphilly ( talk · contribs). Leave or revert? Materialscientist ( talk) 23:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Your attention is drawn here: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(ships)#HMS_prefix_in_old_English_warships. The Land ( talk) 15:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
This article, which is WP:SHIPS most popular article, is now unprotected due to the semi-protection I placed on the article six months ago expiring. So far, the vandalism does not seem to be recurring. Should this situation continue, then I'm happy for the article to remain unprotected. A return to previous levels of vandalism will mean that regrettably the duration of semi-protection will have to be indefinite. Mjroots ( talk) 06:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Yorktown class aircraft carrier# for an explanation of the situation. I'm at my wits' end dealing with this user, and could use some fresh input in finding a solution. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 05:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I am the other user and I am also at my wits end. The information we are debating is very simple and easy to verify. This needs to be looked at by someone who is impartial and it needs to be fixed in the spirit of accurate information. JFChandler95678 ( talk) 05:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I reviewed this article for GA on 12 March, but User:Thurgate has been inactive since then. Hopefully this user will be returning shortly, but I was wondering if anyone else here would be willing to have a look at my comments and help get this article to GA status, as it would be a shame to fail the article purely because the primary editor has disappeared. Harrias talk 10:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The Akra Aktion article has been prodded. Per discussion at user talk:Brad101, it contains some incorrect info. We have two choices here, allow the prod without prejudice to recreation, or bash the article into a shape resembling a ship. Mjroots ( talk) 11:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
USS Proteus (CVL-1).. yeah. There is no DANFS article that matches this ship. There is no Proteus with that designation listed in a registry reference I have. USS Proteus (AC-9) was sold in March 1941 and USS Proteus (AS-19) was laid down in September 1941. CVL-1 article claims CVL-1 went in service in 1934. This obviously can't be. Also, the CVL-1 article is a spooky ghost of USS Langley (CV-1). CVL-1 consists of photos of Langley renamed to Proteus and additional photos recaptioned to fit the story. It has some references but no bibliography to back up the claims. Not quite a speedy-delete hoax but it's certainly close. Can anyone dispute my research before I go to AFD? Brad ( talk) 09:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
On a similar subject, Port Glinsint. No evidence this place exists or existed, there were no captured U-boats brought to Britain in 1943, and no reason for them to be fitted with "decoy underwater device emmiters" with the suspicious acronym D.U.D.E's, and no evidence such a device ever existed. Benea ( talk) 14:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello everyone, hope all is going well. And while I'm at it Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HMS Constance (1880), if people would like to comment. Benea ( talk) 22:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
File:SS LESBIAN (3).jpg has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots ( talk) 17:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Something recently come up on HMS Speedy (1782), where Fifelfoo ( talk · contribs) has removed the cost conversion templates (i.e. 'ship x cost £100, equivalent to £1000 today', etc) arguing that 'Capital or GDP expenses cannot be inflated in terms of CPI' and 'It is factually incorrect and OR'. Since these were conversions insisted on at the GA/A class level reviews, and I intend to take this article to FA class can I have it settled whether he is in fact right and there has been some change of policy, or if he should be reverted? Other highly ranked articles also have conversions I seem to recall ( HMS Dreadnought (1906) for example.) Benea ( talk) 00:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Type 97 U-boat is the title but the body describes Type 93 U-boat and a list heading for Type 81 U-boats that goes on to list Type 93's. German subs aren't in my knowledge base; can anyone straighten this out? Brad ( talk) 11:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The Plimsoll Ship Data website (scans of Lloyd's registers) is offline for maintenance, and has been for a few days. Can we please ensure that references from this website are not marked as deadlinks. Even if the website remains offline, the original document is a Lloyd's Register entry, the web page being a convenience only. Mjroots ( talk) 12:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
A news report by Andrew Gilligan and Robert Mendick, "Japan tsunami: Fukushima Fifty, the first interview," 7:00AM BST 27 Mar 2011, shows that a tall ship named Kaiwo Maru [probably the Kaiwo Maru II] is being used to house and feed Fukusima nuclear power plant workers when they are off active duty. I think this is worthy of note in the entry for Kaiwo Maru II but I lack experience and the confidence to add to the report myself. I trust someone will do it.
I'm sorry if this note is in the wrong place and trust someone will move it if necessary, too. Bernard Macdougall ( talk) 05:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
{{ Class A article}} has been nominated for deletion. As this wikiproject uses A-class as a quality rating, I thought I'd let you know. 65.93.12.101 ( talk) 07:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Some issues have come to light at Kaiwo Maru II, see Talk:Kaiwo Maru II. 65.93.12.101 ( talk) 08:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I've propsed a change of scope for Category:Ships of British Rail at the talk page. Your views are welcome there. Mjroots ( talk) 08:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Nearly five thousand 1000px images of ships have been uploaded to Commons in the past week as part of the SLQ collaboration.(see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-12-20/Image donation for background) They have been automatically added to 'Ships in Queensland' and 'Ships of Australia', however in a large proportion of cases this will be wrong. I'll be herding them out of those high level categories over the coming weeks.
The high level categories are a bit broken at the moment (something to do with the ongoing upgrade). As a result, I have create a report on the categories on the images, so that contributors familiar with ships can scan down and work on ship names that interest them. See commons:Commons:State Library of Queensland/Reports/Ship categories. For people unfamiliar with Commons, commons:Category:Sydney (ship) is an example of how they do disambiguation.
If there are any tasks which can be automated to manage these images of ship, please let me know either here or at commons:Commons_talk:State_Library_of_Queensland. I'll be following this thread to help with any questions and see any suggestions. John Vandenberg ( chat) 13:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Great work! Could we bring this thread back from the archive?
I've started building the report for March, improving the reporting software as I go. See commons:Commons:State Library of Queensland/Reports/3/New categories and the previous report is here. The "new category" stats are skewed in favour of the current month because renaming categories involves deleting the old category and creating a new one. I can easily correct this in future reports, but it will be difficult to correct this in the current report as I don't readily have the necessary historical data.
If there are any lists or stats that you think would be useful, please let me know. John Vandenberg ( chat) 22:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
commons:Commons:State Library of Queensland/Reports/3/New Wikipedia pages is a semi-automatically generated list of articles created in March with an SLQ image on the page. Have any other articles been created this month? Feel free to add them to that page if they meet the criteria. John Vandenberg ( chat) 07:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I've added in three ships known to have been victims of the Japanese tsunami. Can anyone confirm which flag Asia Syndicate operates under. Unfortunately, a search on t'internet for "Asia Syndicate" produces lots of false results due to a heroin smuggling gang of the 1970s known as the "Mr Asia Syndicate". Maybe someone with a subscription to Miramar can help? Mjroots ( talk) 07:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for USS New Ironsides 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) 02:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Though related to ships, I'd like to get as many eyes on this as possible for clear consensus, so if anyone wants to stop by and voice their opinion one way or the other I'd be grateful - an issue over one or two battles of Trafalgar, being discussed here. Benea ( talk) 17:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The LST-766 article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots ( talk) 09:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully I wasn't too presumptuous, but seeing as we had prefix templates like {{
HMS}}
and {{
USS}}
and even {{
HNLMS}}
available, I thought I'd create the equivalent for ships of the Royal Norwegian Navy at {{
HNoMS}}
. The template itself and documentation is based on {{
HMS}}
, and it's been added to {{
WPSHIPS shortcut templates}}
. -
Chrism
would like to hear from you 23:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed for a while that there are no guidelines for sorting ship prefixes. For example, should USS Ashuelot be sorted as "Ashuelot, USS" or "Ashuelot USS" (ie with or without the comma)? Gatoclass ( talk) 13:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Crystal Symphony is without a doubt the most disgusting piece of tripe within the scope of this project. I'm nauseated after reading that article. It was expanded and worked on by an editor we had problems with on other cruise ship articles. Anyway, unless someone wants to take a stab at rewriting this PoS I'm taking it to AfD in a few days. Now pardon me whilst I find some Pepto. Brad ( talk) 01:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
The article has been chopped further, and as far as I'm concerned it is now neutral and acceptable. Two things on WP get my hair on fire and that's blatant glowing pro-subject advertising and trivia. Hail to the choppers! Brad ( talk) 18:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion here on where U-233 should redirect to; comments are invited... Xyl 54 ( talk) 05:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Image:Truong Sa Navy.jpg and Image:RVNS Ly Thuong Kiet.jpg have been nominated for deletion. 64.229.100.45 ( talk) 07:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I've been discovering quite a few articles that are rated at stub class that aren't in any way a stub. This is likely because the article has been expanded since it was originally assessed. Cruizer-class brig-sloop was a good example of this. I'm not suggesting a reassessment campaign of all stub articles but if we could be more attentive to what an article's rating is then little by little they can be reassessed accordingly.
A tool which has helped me to find articles like this is using a gadget under my/your preferences->Gadgets->User interface gadgets and ticking off Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article. This will show you the article rating on the front page rather than having to visit the talk page to find out. With that, if the article says stub and it's obviously not, it can be rerated. Of course if the article is overrated that can be changed too. Brad ( talk) 11:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of curiosity how should HMAS Alfie Cam and HMVS Nepean be rated? What would you rate them as? Brad ( talk) 08:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello all. It's turned up that there are potential copyright violations in a number of ship articles. User:Acad Ronin has, probably with the best of intentions, been adding text to articles based rather too closely on this copyrighted content. A number of people (particularly User:Shem1805 and User:VernoWhitney) have noticed this and been discussing the matter with Acad Ronin, but I think it's fair to say the scale of the problem has only just come to light.
We could use the attention of any experienced editors. Please looking at the list of articles here' which AcadRonin has identified as at risk of copyright violations. Each article on that list needs to be closely checked against the entry for the same ship at [2], and any section of it which is a copyright violation needs to be re-written or removed. In many cases, Acad has taken Phillips's text, and rewritten it a little, so it is not an obvious copy but rather (in copyright terms) a "derivative work".
In the meantime, please avoid any temptation to go around blanking Acad Ronin's contributions or shouting at him(/her). Many of Acad's contributions are of a high quality and, while we obviously need to deal with this copyright problem, I am optimistic that we can do it on an article-by-article basis with his co-operation and without removing large quantities of good material. Regards, The Land ( talk) 16:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I happened across Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Sources#Royal_Navy and noticed the entry:
Apparently some sort of permission was given (years ago) but whether the above mention of The Epopt having an email qualifies the source as permissible now should be investigated. Brad ( talk) 03:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
The article on the USS New Ironsides, an ironclad that saw action at Ft. Fisher and Charleston during the American Civil War is a featured article candidate. Feel free to drop by and review the article to see if it meets the FAC criteria.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 04:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to restore this for further discussion here as I notice Sturmvogel has started moving articles: Benea ( talk) 20:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
While not that interested in sailing warships, I've been adding infoboxes to a bunch of ship articles. Whilst doing so I noticed that just about all the articles on French ships of the line are formatted as French ship XXXX. This does nothing to distinguish the warship from any other type of French ship. French ship of the line XXXX is a little long, but better fits our naming convention and I propose to rename the articles thusly when I add infoboxes to those articles. Thoughts?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 01:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
This whole discussion just goes to show why the whole pre-disambiguation (which most of Wikipedia does not do) is such a bad idea. Just what is wrong with Courbet (1911)? Shem ( talk) 18:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The current naming convention says "For ships of navies or nations that don't have a standard ship prefix, name the article (Nationality) (type) (Name)". The alternatives I see are:
My personal feeling is that year of launch is unique (in the sense that every ship has only one), whereas ships change nationality and even type. In the extremely unlikely circumstance that two ships bearing the same name (and neither employing a prefix) are launched in the same year, further disambiguation would be required, but easy to do. Thoughts? Shem ( talk) 20:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't care a whole lot whether the disambiguation method is by ship type or date, I'm basically just opposed to pre-disambiguation. I also think we should stick to wider wikipedia conventions when disambiguating, with ship name coming first and disambiguation after, in brackets. So, Foo (battleship) or Foo (1916) is fine with me, but "Nationality shiptype Foo" or "Shiptype Foo" is not. Gatoclass ( talk) 13:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Reading through the above discussion isn't showing any resolution or decision made to change the naming convention. Brad ( talk) 00:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Should Borei class submarine or Audacious class aircraft carrier be italicized when mentioned? I.e. should it be 'Borei class submarine' or 'Borei class submarine?' It seems clear from the projects guidelines that the answer is no, because the lead vessel in each of these classes doesn't carry the class name but I am just checking the correct procedure.
"Ship class articles should follow the same general format as individual ship articles. If a ship class is named after its lead ship, the name is italicized (Ohio class); otherwise, use plain text (A class)." Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 04:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
The SS Marlin sank off the coast of North Carolina on 18 October 1965. A US Coast Guard cutter went to her assistance. Is there any editor with access to American newspaper archives who could find a name for the vessel please? Mjroots ( talk) 14:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I expect ship names to be sorted on the full name, without the prefix. However where the ship is named after a person, I find a mixture of orders - mainly sorting on the person's surname (correct for an article about the person). Is it correct to change this, so that eg. CCGS Sir William Alexander sorts as "Sir William Alexander, CCGS", not as "William..." or "Alexander..."? Finavon ( talk) 10:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. CCGS articles sorted on full name (ie Sir... and others where the name starts with initials). Finavon ( talk) 20:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Please visit the discussion here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines#Proposal_to_drop_the_disambiguator_in_the_lead_paragraph. Thanks. Shem ( talk) 09:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
The A-Class review for HMS Hood (51) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 01:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I've created a new {{ PS}} template for paddle steamers, which works the same as the USS, HMS templates and so on. I would've done it a while back but the template was already in use by another project, so I had to shunt all the existing iterations of the other template to a new template first. "PS" is a useful disambiguator for paddle steamers, which is intended to replace cumbersome usage like "Shipname (steamboat)" or "Shipname (paddle steamer)" or "Shipname (side-wheeler)" and all the other variations. Gatoclass ( talk) 16:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
{{
PS}}
used to be a Harry Potter template.
65.93.12.101 (
talk) 04:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Which is why we should create redirects from non-prefixed names. Thus Empire Cormorant links to the SS Western Maid article, and Empire Condor links to a shipindex page to allow the reader to find the article they require. Mjroots ( talk) 11:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
And Wikipedia's search engine is pretty good now. If you know the ship name, you are going to find the article quickly no matter what the title happens to be. Gatoclass ( talk) 06:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)