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 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
I notice Chris the speller recently changed the dates in a USN ship article from ddmmyyyy to mmddyyyy. I thought we had a guideline which states this is a no-no but can't see it in the guidelines, does anyone know where it is and if it hasn't been added, isn't it about time we did so? Gatoclass ( talk) 10:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Man I am getting sick of this laptop keyboard, now it's eating my posts! I believe in previous discussions we have agreed that ddmmyyyy should be used universally in ship articles. Certainly we should have a consistent format for infoboxes IMO. Once we've made a decision, it should obviously be added to SHIPMOS and MILMOS per ed to avoid confusion. Gatoclass ( talk) 10:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The choice of date format is basically down to the original author of the article. There should be no changing of date format without discussion via the talk page and consensus being reached. My personal preference is ddmmyyyy, but I can live with mmddyyyy if that is what the original author chose to use. On the other hand, yyyymmdd is not an acceptable method of giving a date IMHO. Mjroots ( talk) 21:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone mind if I write " hull number 39" instead of " hull classification symbol BB-39"? The latter is the title of the relevant page, but I'm getting 5 times as many hits for the former, and on top of that, the hits for the former generally seem to be relevant, whereas most of the first 20 hits on the latter seem to be in or copied from Wikipedia. I also want to be as tight and informal as possible (without sacrificing accuracy of course). - Dank ( push to talk) 16:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Are we getting confused here? Hull number could refer to a United States Maritime Commission hull number, but it could also refer to a yard number (which is akin to a manufacturer's serial number). These are entirely different to pennant numbers. Mjroots ( talk) 06:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
A discussion about category names that might be of interest to the project is here and here. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
...is the plural form of "landing platform dock" (LSD) "landing platform docks", "landing platform dock ships", or "dock landing ships"? I've seen all three used... - The Bushranger One ping only 07:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for USS Arizona (BB-39) 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) 04:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Anyone familiar and/or interested in French ships might want to look into the botch job that recently occurred (June'11) on the List of French steam frigates page. Click on the links and see where they take you. Almost all of them are bunk and link up to pages that have nothing to do with ships. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 19:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for HMS Vanguard (23); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 00:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
The A class reviews for these two warships are currently due to be closed in the next few days as not successful due, in the main part, to a lack of reviewers. It would be great to avoid this outcome, so any and all reviews at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Temeraire (1798) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Vanguard (23) would be fantastic. If the reason for the lack of reviews is concerns that the articles aren't up to A-class standard I'm sure that User:Benea and User:Sturmvogel 66 would appreciate your comments and suggestions rather than not really knowing why their nominations didn't pass. Nick-D ( talk) 23:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I was recently told that using both the terms
Privateer and
Letter of marque is redundant, (e.g. 'A Privateer acting under Letter of marque...) however in the various sources these terms are both used on the same page. For example, in John William Norie's
The naval gazetteer' ..., p.259 (and the other listed pages) he refers to some vessels as Privateers and others as Letter of marque, so now I am wondering why he just doesn't use one term or the other. We know that Privateer refers to the vessel, while the Letter of marque refers to its authorization to capture given ships and that sometimes the vessel is simply referred to as a Letter of marque, but this still doesn't explain why both terms are used in the same page. Apparently some privateers acted with just the understanding that it was 'open season' on a given country's ships, while those referred to as a Letter of marque had the actual written authorization, again, apparently.
Also, in the WP Privateer article in the
Legal framework section both terms are used in the same sentence. Need clarification. --
Gwillhickers (
talk)
07:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
new, the ship which collided with a tram Lugnad ( talk) 13:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
If Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships is using naval records as the source for the historical accounts they offer, and since this is a naval institution itself, wouldn't this be considered a primary source and a 'no-no' for use as a citation here at WP? -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 19:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Need more "discussion" on the two templates below. Brad ( talk) 11:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Ship Wreck Location has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Brad ( talk) 05:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Ship Wreck Event has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Brad ( talk) 05:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for HMS New Zealand (1911) 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) 01:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
... has been created - Template:Infobox ship builder. Does anyone have an opinion on this, I'm not 100% sure myself, but its already started to appear on ship articles. Benea ( talk) 14:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The problem I attempted to solve with this template was to standardise the display and categorisation of ship articles to include both categories for the location built, and the builder of the ship. The latter being the primary purpose when I set out to create the template. The original plan was to automatically add the articles to a Category for ship built by sorted by Yard number (I've since decided it's probably better to not sort by yard number as very few articles contain the yard number.) I do agree about the over-information in the infobox, the location being perhaps a bit too specific, but this will be a problem no matter whether there is a template or not. I believe the location needs to be defined for the builder as shipyards move, but builders don't, builders can have multiple shipyards etc, the template at least prompts the user for what information is suitable. With regards de-cluttering the fields, more than happy for someone who knows how, to re-write the template to drop certain items when all fields are completed. I couldn't workout what criteria to use that suited all situations (ie, defining the city when the region is Western Australia helps narrow it down to where the location actually is, but defining the city when the region is as small as a UK county may not be necessary.) I considered having both the country and then lowest denominator (either city or region) for the categories. With regards red-linked categories, I don't think that should be much of an issue. Any user can define a category on an article but not tie that new category into an existing category structure. There must be someway of highlighting these in a similar way to the New Article feed. If the consensus is not to use the template then I'd instead suggest including some aspects into {{ Infobox ship career}} instead of a sub-template. JonEastham ( talk) 18:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I've deleted the template at JonEastham's request. — SMALL JIM 11:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
They were created 2 years ago and I didn't feel like starting drama over them. Since the topic of "add a box" is now being discussed I thought I would throw these into the ring. My personal thoughts are that some of the parameters could be transferred over to "ship begin" or whatever. Brad ( talk) 03:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
About 50 articles are using the templates. Should the information be moved elsewhere in the article before deleting the template? I don't know what would happen otherwise. Brad ( talk) 23:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Ship Wreck Location has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Brad ( talk) 05:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Ship Wreck Event has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Brad ( talk) 05:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure many editors do know this, but I think I need to make a general point to people writing articles on sailing warships. I have just noticed that the person who constructed the articles on the 1706, 1719 and 1745 Establishments (and I suspect there may be other articles with the same fault) has given what purports to be metric tonnage equivalents for the tons burthen. Apologies to those of you are already aware of this, but I think we need to spread the word that tons burthen (used for all ships of the sailing era, although the calculation varied from one nation to another) are units of measurement and not units of weight (so reference to "long tons" is also an error) and there are no metric equivalents. It was only with the introduction of displacement tons during the 19th Century that tons acquired the meaning of tons weight. Shem and I have between us corrected the particular three articles cited above, but there may mean that a number of other articles which need to be corrected. Rif Winfield ( talk) 09:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Re: Templates nominated for deletion
(Discussion segment from above moved here: (copy-paste)}
About 50 articles are using the templates. Should the information be moved elsewhere in the article before deleting the template? I don't know what would happen otherwise. Brad ( talk) 23:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
This issue isn't worth the amount of drama being assigned to it. Templates will not be deleted until they no longer have any articles attached to them. Brad ( talk) 10:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for German battleship Tirpitz 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! Parsecboy ( talk) 02:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I just took a stab at one ship, Lindus (1881), moving info from Infobox Ship Wreck Event and Infobox Ship Wreck Location and writing it up in the section Shipwrecked, as there doesn't seem to be anywhere in 'Ship begin' to put this stuff, not unless you want to cram it all into 'fate' or 'notes'. This info seems better placed in the text. Have removed those templates from page. This info was and remains uncited. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 21:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
An Arklow schooner, new article, similar to Cymric (schooner). Please assess. Lugnad ( talk) 00:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Two merge proposals needing comment at Talk:Kasuga Maru and Talk:Japanese aircraft carrier Chūyō. Thanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I was surprised to see that this change was made to Template:Infobox ship career without any apparent discussion first. It makes the country name in the infobox small, and I can't see that it's an improvement. Perhaps I missed the discussion? 88.111.28.236 ( talk) 18:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Aboard each US naval ship (other countries too) there is a 'post office' which often times consists of nothing more than the desk of the postmaster/officer in charge, a postmarking device and a mail bag. Mail and postmarks from these ships is widely collected among, not just stamp collectors, but history and ship buffs (like me). Most of the postmarks are somewhat common, some are scarce while others are rare and quite valuable. i.e.finding a postmark of the USS Arizona (sunk at Pearl) is a challenge; finding one with the date 'Dec. 7 1941' is a real challenge, and if you ever find one tucked away in an old book hang on to it, it is quite valuable as there are only a couple of these known in existence. Dates from ships during various battles are also widely sought. Anyway, this sort of gets into stamp/postal history stuff, but I just included this image (from my collection) to the USS Texas page. Don't know if it really helps you to understand the ship any better other than to inform the reader that there was a post office aboard each ship and just to give one an example of the mail sent from sailors while serving aboard the vessel. If you feel the image is not appropriate, well, go ahead and remove it. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 16:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Template:Titanic on film and TV has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Brad ( talk) 23:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Template:Titanic memorials has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Brad ( talk) 23:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello -
I am working on a crowd sourcing project, Old Weather, involving WWI Royal Navy ships' logs (with US Navy logs to come, I think). The project's primary focus is to record the weather data from these logs, however, we also transcribe the narrative logs as well. In the course of this effort, my fellow transcribers and I have discovered information in the logs that can be used to correct or update Wiki articles, for example, please see the article on Cadmus class sloops or HMS Aphis (1915). After much discussion about the use of the logs, the Wiki powers that be have decided that the logs, are verifiable and are also not original research as such. I propose that this forum be used to provide any pertinent information found in the logs, for use in Wiki articles. For starters, I am posting a link to a log page that contains information on the Second Battle of Heligoland Bight from a ship, the Galatea, that participated in the action, but is not mentioned in the article: https://s3.amazonaws.com/oldweather/ADM53-42346/0067_1.jpg - I hope we can develop this partnership. yours - Kathy Wendolkowski (wendolk is my user name at Old Weather) 216.15.44.249 (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.80.53.48 ( talk)
Some issues have cropped up with List of battleships of the Royal Swedish Navy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and List of ships of the line of the Royal Swedish Navy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), see Talk:List of ships of the line of the Royal Swedish Navy and Talk:List of battleships of the Royal Swedish Navy .
70.24.244.248 ( talk) 09:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering about a possible clash between WP:GNG and "WP:SHIPS position is that any ship of 100' long or 100 tons (deliberatrely vague) is generally notable enough to sustain a stand alone article". I severely doubt that! Reading WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability it seems to me that it is the notability that should be verified, not the mere existence. That means that a ship that just does its jobs without anything special, would fail WP:GNG. Night of the Big Wind talk 19:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
As long as we now apply the GNG to ships in the same way that we do to other articles, rather than 100/100 being used to bypass the GNG, I'm happy. bobrayner ( talk) 16:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I've looked again at the AfD discussion and the article, and I stand by my original comment at the AfD - "references need to be inline, but there is enough indication that the ship meets WP:GNG. Needing improvement is not a reason for deletion". A number of sources are indicated; it would appear that these just need to be correctly referenced for the article to be fully compliant. That they are not does not mean that the subject fails the GNG. Mjroots ( talk) 15:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
A discussion at the Village Pumps suggests that having WikiProjects call their advice pages "guidelines" is confusing at least some editors into thinking that they're the same as the "official" community-wide guidelines like WP:Reliable sources, rather than advice from the members of the WikiProject. WP:POLICY#Naming generally discourages the use of terms like "guideline" or "policy" in page names even for regular policies anyway. So some of the WikiProjects are renaming their pages to something like "Article advice", "Recommendations", or "Style advice". This is just a friendly suggestion that your group consider doing the same. There are templates listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice_pages if you want to tag the pages that way.
While you're at it, if it's been a long time since anyone overhauled those pages, this might be a good time to do that, too. I don't know what the history is for your group, but it's pretty typical for a page to get written and then neglected for a long time. If you happen to find anything that no longer matches up with the community-wide Manual of Style or other general guidelines, then perhaps it would be good to fix it. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I seem to be in a template mode lately. I found: {{ State ships}} and it doesn't seem to have any purpose outside of listing ships named after states as far as I can tell. If that's indeed the purpose then it could be expected that the template should hold every ship that has been named after a US State. In that sense the template would grow disproportionately large and unwieldy. But why is Freedom Schooner Amistad on this template? Brad ( talk) 20:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Template renamed to {{ US state ships}}. Transclusions of the former name have been changed. Outline of template use posted on template talk page. Brad ( talk) 01:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I've decided to bring this discussion to the attention of this board as I feel there is a broad principle involved. Bushranger initially proposed deletion of the Category:Unique attack transports on the basis that each of these ships should either be in their own single ship category, or else just be listed in the parent cat. I am opposed to the latter because with such an organization, it will not be at all clear to readers why some ships are listed in the parent category and others are not. Alternatively, for someone who might want to look at only the unique ships, they will have no way of doing so if all the ships are listed in the parent cat. On the other hand, I think that creating separate categories for each unique ship of a given type would be overkill, perhaps not in this category but in many others. So I think this discussion needs more eyes on the page. Thanks, Gatoclass ( talk) 04:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I just created this article and was about to do more work on the info box. However, I don't think one will do! She was built and commissioned for the RN somewhere in New England (more research) as West Florida (sloop of war) She was then taken by the rebels as part of a Spanish operation, and renamed Gálveztown, but she was taken into the Spanish Navy rather than the Continental Navy. The Spanish then changed her rig. She then sailed as a trader under an American captain and crew to Havana, and on to Philadelphia, where she was pronounced unseaworthy and sold...apparently (the American captain was from there) ...because at Washington's inauguration she saluted him in New York nine years later as a Spanish "ship of war"!
So it seems the article will need at least three info boxes?
Is this correct? Please reply in the article talk Koakhtzvigad ( talk) 08:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I've written a new version of Sinking of the RMS Titanic, which I'm intending to nominate for Featured Article status with the aim of getting it onto the Main Page in time for the anniversary of the sinking. If you have any comments on the new version, please leave feedback at Talk:Sinking of the RMS Titanic#New version posted - feedback requested. Prioryman ( talk) 23:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
During my work on galley, I came across the concept of early US Navy " row galleys" and found it to be a problematic and rather vague term. On Wikipedia, they're often confused with actual galleys, which doesn't seem to have any support in maritime history. I've brought the issue up on peripheral pages before, and have engaged in correcting confusing linkage to galley from articles like USS Viper (1814). But it seems like a broader discussion is needed, especially since there are two separate categories for "galleys" and "row galleys" in the US Navy, despite there being no apparent difference between the two.
I've started a discussion about this issue over at Talk:Row_galley#Still not galleys. Please join in if you're interested.
Peter Isotalo 17:23, 25 December 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 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
I notice Chris the speller recently changed the dates in a USN ship article from ddmmyyyy to mmddyyyy. I thought we had a guideline which states this is a no-no but can't see it in the guidelines, does anyone know where it is and if it hasn't been added, isn't it about time we did so? Gatoclass ( talk) 10:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Man I am getting sick of this laptop keyboard, now it's eating my posts! I believe in previous discussions we have agreed that ddmmyyyy should be used universally in ship articles. Certainly we should have a consistent format for infoboxes IMO. Once we've made a decision, it should obviously be added to SHIPMOS and MILMOS per ed to avoid confusion. Gatoclass ( talk) 10:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The choice of date format is basically down to the original author of the article. There should be no changing of date format without discussion via the talk page and consensus being reached. My personal preference is ddmmyyyy, but I can live with mmddyyyy if that is what the original author chose to use. On the other hand, yyyymmdd is not an acceptable method of giving a date IMHO. Mjroots ( talk) 21:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone mind if I write " hull number 39" instead of " hull classification symbol BB-39"? The latter is the title of the relevant page, but I'm getting 5 times as many hits for the former, and on top of that, the hits for the former generally seem to be relevant, whereas most of the first 20 hits on the latter seem to be in or copied from Wikipedia. I also want to be as tight and informal as possible (without sacrificing accuracy of course). - Dank ( push to talk) 16:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Are we getting confused here? Hull number could refer to a United States Maritime Commission hull number, but it could also refer to a yard number (which is akin to a manufacturer's serial number). These are entirely different to pennant numbers. Mjroots ( talk) 06:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
A discussion about category names that might be of interest to the project is here and here. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
...is the plural form of "landing platform dock" (LSD) "landing platform docks", "landing platform dock ships", or "dock landing ships"? I've seen all three used... - The Bushranger One ping only 07:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for USS Arizona (BB-39) 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) 04:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Anyone familiar and/or interested in French ships might want to look into the botch job that recently occurred (June'11) on the List of French steam frigates page. Click on the links and see where they take you. Almost all of them are bunk and link up to pages that have nothing to do with ships. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 19:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for HMS Vanguard (23); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 00:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
The A class reviews for these two warships are currently due to be closed in the next few days as not successful due, in the main part, to a lack of reviewers. It would be great to avoid this outcome, so any and all reviews at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Temeraire (1798) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Vanguard (23) would be fantastic. If the reason for the lack of reviews is concerns that the articles aren't up to A-class standard I'm sure that User:Benea and User:Sturmvogel 66 would appreciate your comments and suggestions rather than not really knowing why their nominations didn't pass. Nick-D ( talk) 23:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I was recently told that using both the terms
Privateer and
Letter of marque is redundant, (e.g. 'A Privateer acting under Letter of marque...) however in the various sources these terms are both used on the same page. For example, in John William Norie's
The naval gazetteer' ..., p.259 (and the other listed pages) he refers to some vessels as Privateers and others as Letter of marque, so now I am wondering why he just doesn't use one term or the other. We know that Privateer refers to the vessel, while the Letter of marque refers to its authorization to capture given ships and that sometimes the vessel is simply referred to as a Letter of marque, but this still doesn't explain why both terms are used in the same page. Apparently some privateers acted with just the understanding that it was 'open season' on a given country's ships, while those referred to as a Letter of marque had the actual written authorization, again, apparently.
Also, in the WP Privateer article in the
Legal framework section both terms are used in the same sentence. Need clarification. --
Gwillhickers (
talk)
07:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
new, the ship which collided with a tram Lugnad ( talk) 13:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
If Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships is using naval records as the source for the historical accounts they offer, and since this is a naval institution itself, wouldn't this be considered a primary source and a 'no-no' for use as a citation here at WP? -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 19:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Need more "discussion" on the two templates below. Brad ( talk) 11:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Ship Wreck Location has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Brad ( talk) 05:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Ship Wreck Event has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Brad ( talk) 05:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for HMS New Zealand (1911) 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) 01:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
... has been created - Template:Infobox ship builder. Does anyone have an opinion on this, I'm not 100% sure myself, but its already started to appear on ship articles. Benea ( talk) 14:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The problem I attempted to solve with this template was to standardise the display and categorisation of ship articles to include both categories for the location built, and the builder of the ship. The latter being the primary purpose when I set out to create the template. The original plan was to automatically add the articles to a Category for ship built by sorted by Yard number (I've since decided it's probably better to not sort by yard number as very few articles contain the yard number.) I do agree about the over-information in the infobox, the location being perhaps a bit too specific, but this will be a problem no matter whether there is a template or not. I believe the location needs to be defined for the builder as shipyards move, but builders don't, builders can have multiple shipyards etc, the template at least prompts the user for what information is suitable. With regards de-cluttering the fields, more than happy for someone who knows how, to re-write the template to drop certain items when all fields are completed. I couldn't workout what criteria to use that suited all situations (ie, defining the city when the region is Western Australia helps narrow it down to where the location actually is, but defining the city when the region is as small as a UK county may not be necessary.) I considered having both the country and then lowest denominator (either city or region) for the categories. With regards red-linked categories, I don't think that should be much of an issue. Any user can define a category on an article but not tie that new category into an existing category structure. There must be someway of highlighting these in a similar way to the New Article feed. If the consensus is not to use the template then I'd instead suggest including some aspects into {{ Infobox ship career}} instead of a sub-template. JonEastham ( talk) 18:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I've deleted the template at JonEastham's request. — SMALL JIM 11:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
They were created 2 years ago and I didn't feel like starting drama over them. Since the topic of "add a box" is now being discussed I thought I would throw these into the ring. My personal thoughts are that some of the parameters could be transferred over to "ship begin" or whatever. Brad ( talk) 03:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
About 50 articles are using the templates. Should the information be moved elsewhere in the article before deleting the template? I don't know what would happen otherwise. Brad ( talk) 23:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Ship Wreck Location has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Brad ( talk) 05:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Ship Wreck Event has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Brad ( talk) 05:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure many editors do know this, but I think I need to make a general point to people writing articles on sailing warships. I have just noticed that the person who constructed the articles on the 1706, 1719 and 1745 Establishments (and I suspect there may be other articles with the same fault) has given what purports to be metric tonnage equivalents for the tons burthen. Apologies to those of you are already aware of this, but I think we need to spread the word that tons burthen (used for all ships of the sailing era, although the calculation varied from one nation to another) are units of measurement and not units of weight (so reference to "long tons" is also an error) and there are no metric equivalents. It was only with the introduction of displacement tons during the 19th Century that tons acquired the meaning of tons weight. Shem and I have between us corrected the particular three articles cited above, but there may mean that a number of other articles which need to be corrected. Rif Winfield ( talk) 09:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Re: Templates nominated for deletion
(Discussion segment from above moved here: (copy-paste)}
About 50 articles are using the templates. Should the information be moved elsewhere in the article before deleting the template? I don't know what would happen otherwise. Brad ( talk) 23:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
This issue isn't worth the amount of drama being assigned to it. Templates will not be deleted until they no longer have any articles attached to them. Brad ( talk) 10:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for German battleship Tirpitz 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! Parsecboy ( talk) 02:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I just took a stab at one ship, Lindus (1881), moving info from Infobox Ship Wreck Event and Infobox Ship Wreck Location and writing it up in the section Shipwrecked, as there doesn't seem to be anywhere in 'Ship begin' to put this stuff, not unless you want to cram it all into 'fate' or 'notes'. This info seems better placed in the text. Have removed those templates from page. This info was and remains uncited. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 21:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
An Arklow schooner, new article, similar to Cymric (schooner). Please assess. Lugnad ( talk) 00:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Two merge proposals needing comment at Talk:Kasuga Maru and Talk:Japanese aircraft carrier Chūyō. Thanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I was surprised to see that this change was made to Template:Infobox ship career without any apparent discussion first. It makes the country name in the infobox small, and I can't see that it's an improvement. Perhaps I missed the discussion? 88.111.28.236 ( talk) 18:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Aboard each US naval ship (other countries too) there is a 'post office' which often times consists of nothing more than the desk of the postmaster/officer in charge, a postmarking device and a mail bag. Mail and postmarks from these ships is widely collected among, not just stamp collectors, but history and ship buffs (like me). Most of the postmarks are somewhat common, some are scarce while others are rare and quite valuable. i.e.finding a postmark of the USS Arizona (sunk at Pearl) is a challenge; finding one with the date 'Dec. 7 1941' is a real challenge, and if you ever find one tucked away in an old book hang on to it, it is quite valuable as there are only a couple of these known in existence. Dates from ships during various battles are also widely sought. Anyway, this sort of gets into stamp/postal history stuff, but I just included this image (from my collection) to the USS Texas page. Don't know if it really helps you to understand the ship any better other than to inform the reader that there was a post office aboard each ship and just to give one an example of the mail sent from sailors while serving aboard the vessel. If you feel the image is not appropriate, well, go ahead and remove it. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 16:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Template:Titanic on film and TV has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Brad ( talk) 23:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Template:Titanic memorials has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Brad ( talk) 23:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello -
I am working on a crowd sourcing project, Old Weather, involving WWI Royal Navy ships' logs (with US Navy logs to come, I think). The project's primary focus is to record the weather data from these logs, however, we also transcribe the narrative logs as well. In the course of this effort, my fellow transcribers and I have discovered information in the logs that can be used to correct or update Wiki articles, for example, please see the article on Cadmus class sloops or HMS Aphis (1915). After much discussion about the use of the logs, the Wiki powers that be have decided that the logs, are verifiable and are also not original research as such. I propose that this forum be used to provide any pertinent information found in the logs, for use in Wiki articles. For starters, I am posting a link to a log page that contains information on the Second Battle of Heligoland Bight from a ship, the Galatea, that participated in the action, but is not mentioned in the article: https://s3.amazonaws.com/oldweather/ADM53-42346/0067_1.jpg - I hope we can develop this partnership. yours - Kathy Wendolkowski (wendolk is my user name at Old Weather) 216.15.44.249 (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.80.53.48 ( talk)
Some issues have cropped up with List of battleships of the Royal Swedish Navy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and List of ships of the line of the Royal Swedish Navy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), see Talk:List of ships of the line of the Royal Swedish Navy and Talk:List of battleships of the Royal Swedish Navy .
70.24.244.248 ( talk) 09:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering about a possible clash between WP:GNG and "WP:SHIPS position is that any ship of 100' long or 100 tons (deliberatrely vague) is generally notable enough to sustain a stand alone article". I severely doubt that! Reading WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability it seems to me that it is the notability that should be verified, not the mere existence. That means that a ship that just does its jobs without anything special, would fail WP:GNG. Night of the Big Wind talk 19:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
As long as we now apply the GNG to ships in the same way that we do to other articles, rather than 100/100 being used to bypass the GNG, I'm happy. bobrayner ( talk) 16:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I've looked again at the AfD discussion and the article, and I stand by my original comment at the AfD - "references need to be inline, but there is enough indication that the ship meets WP:GNG. Needing improvement is not a reason for deletion". A number of sources are indicated; it would appear that these just need to be correctly referenced for the article to be fully compliant. That they are not does not mean that the subject fails the GNG. Mjroots ( talk) 15:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
A discussion at the Village Pumps suggests that having WikiProjects call their advice pages "guidelines" is confusing at least some editors into thinking that they're the same as the "official" community-wide guidelines like WP:Reliable sources, rather than advice from the members of the WikiProject. WP:POLICY#Naming generally discourages the use of terms like "guideline" or "policy" in page names even for regular policies anyway. So some of the WikiProjects are renaming their pages to something like "Article advice", "Recommendations", or "Style advice". This is just a friendly suggestion that your group consider doing the same. There are templates listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice_pages if you want to tag the pages that way.
While you're at it, if it's been a long time since anyone overhauled those pages, this might be a good time to do that, too. I don't know what the history is for your group, but it's pretty typical for a page to get written and then neglected for a long time. If you happen to find anything that no longer matches up with the community-wide Manual of Style or other general guidelines, then perhaps it would be good to fix it. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I seem to be in a template mode lately. I found: {{ State ships}} and it doesn't seem to have any purpose outside of listing ships named after states as far as I can tell. If that's indeed the purpose then it could be expected that the template should hold every ship that has been named after a US State. In that sense the template would grow disproportionately large and unwieldy. But why is Freedom Schooner Amistad on this template? Brad ( talk) 20:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Template renamed to {{ US state ships}}. Transclusions of the former name have been changed. Outline of template use posted on template talk page. Brad ( talk) 01:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I've decided to bring this discussion to the attention of this board as I feel there is a broad principle involved. Bushranger initially proposed deletion of the Category:Unique attack transports on the basis that each of these ships should either be in their own single ship category, or else just be listed in the parent cat. I am opposed to the latter because with such an organization, it will not be at all clear to readers why some ships are listed in the parent category and others are not. Alternatively, for someone who might want to look at only the unique ships, they will have no way of doing so if all the ships are listed in the parent cat. On the other hand, I think that creating separate categories for each unique ship of a given type would be overkill, perhaps not in this category but in many others. So I think this discussion needs more eyes on the page. Thanks, Gatoclass ( talk) 04:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I just created this article and was about to do more work on the info box. However, I don't think one will do! She was built and commissioned for the RN somewhere in New England (more research) as West Florida (sloop of war) She was then taken by the rebels as part of a Spanish operation, and renamed Gálveztown, but she was taken into the Spanish Navy rather than the Continental Navy. The Spanish then changed her rig. She then sailed as a trader under an American captain and crew to Havana, and on to Philadelphia, where she was pronounced unseaworthy and sold...apparently (the American captain was from there) ...because at Washington's inauguration she saluted him in New York nine years later as a Spanish "ship of war"!
So it seems the article will need at least three info boxes?
Is this correct? Please reply in the article talk Koakhtzvigad ( talk) 08:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I've written a new version of Sinking of the RMS Titanic, which I'm intending to nominate for Featured Article status with the aim of getting it onto the Main Page in time for the anniversary of the sinking. If you have any comments on the new version, please leave feedback at Talk:Sinking of the RMS Titanic#New version posted - feedback requested. Prioryman ( talk) 23:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
During my work on galley, I came across the concept of early US Navy " row galleys" and found it to be a problematic and rather vague term. On Wikipedia, they're often confused with actual galleys, which doesn't seem to have any support in maritime history. I've brought the issue up on peripheral pages before, and have engaged in correcting confusing linkage to galley from articles like USS Viper (1814). But it seems like a broader discussion is needed, especially since there are two separate categories for "galleys" and "row galleys" in the US Navy, despite there being no apparent difference between the two.
I've started a discussion about this issue over at Talk:Row_galley#Still not galleys. Please join in if you're interested.
Peter Isotalo 17:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)