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 30 | ← | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | → | Archive 40 |
-- 76.65.128.43 ( talk) 03:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Here is a incubator WikiProject Military history project that is related somewhat to this WikiProject: Operation Nautilus. WikiCopter ( t • c • onau • omt) 20:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Is there a notability guideline related to WPSHIPS? WP:N-SHIPS; or a more general one WP:N-WATERCRAFT ? (obviously, if they exist, they do not exist at these shortcuts) -- 76.65.128.43 ( talk) 23:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
John B. Caddell - which was at one time YO-140 - has been nominated for deletion. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Editor JHunterJ has been moving ship index articles from prefix Name (disambiguation) to List of ships named prefix Name. Because there is discussion regarding the name of a ship index article for the HMS Hood series of articles, I've asked Editor JHunterJ to hold off on further name changes until we can make a determination on how we would like to proceed.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 16:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
{{
HMS}}
, {{
USS}}
, etc.) whereas List of ships named X does not.Instead, they are list articles titled "List of XXX named YYY"; the "they" referred to the previous sentence's subject: set-index articles. I agree, set-index articles should not be disambiguated with the disambiguation nomenclature.
The only time a (ship) disambiguator should be used is when the vessel is a full rigged ship.
Should there be more than one full-rigged ship with the same name, we dab by year of launch.
(ship) should not be used for other vessels that aren't full-rigged ships. Mjroots ( talk) 08:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Did we come up with a specialized guideline over "List of ships named XXX"? Or do we continue to use that format when the Ship Index is not the primary topic for XXX? -- JHunterJ ( talk) 20:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, |
There should be an article for
America (privateer) (suggested name). Instead of duplicating post, please see:
Talk:America#America (ship)
~Thanks, ~Eric F 00:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
74.60.29.141 (
talk) 19:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) is receiving an average of some over 1000 views a day and it's pretty bad. Can someone take a look and see if they can fix it up? Ryan Vesey 04:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I've requested that Fortune (ship) be renamed, since fortune (disambiguation) lists many ships named "Fortune". So "Fortune (ship)" should redirect to the disambiguation page fortune. But I don't have a good name to move the current article to. Any suggestions are welcome, see talk:Fortune (ship). -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 14:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I stumbled upon an article on pl wiki about Hai Long class destroyers ( pl:Niszczyciele typu Hai Long); the story is briefly summarized at a disambig (sic) at HMS Taku. This potential 5-article series would make a really nice DYK, I think. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Fairly straightforward. We must alter the pages away from feminine pronouns to gender neutral pronouns. The traditional reference to ships with feminine pronouns is offensive to women as it is a form of systemic sexual objectification.
-Gravitycollapse — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gravitycollapse ( talk • contribs) 05:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
The usage of gendered pronouns to refer to inanimate objects is sexual objectification in any form. Be it feminine or masculine. It is also logically incorrect as inanimate objects do not have gender identities. Inanimate objects are referred to with neutral pronouns like "it." This is a common understanding in the English language that is only excepted when it comes to certain objects like ships or aircraft. This traditional usage of feminine pronouns to refer to ships or aircraft or cars or motorcycles is guilty of systemically objectifying women and reducing their bodies to the status of "objects" used among large bodies of men. It is both offensive and incorrect.
Gravitycollapse (
talk) 05:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
It is in fact very offensive that such feminization or masculinization takes place. But that is off topic at this point. I am specifically referring to the usage of feminine pronouns to describe ships in this project. It is offensive and it is not the correct usage of the English language. I will be gathering further citations with my colleagues and I will submit them here. Gravitycollapse ( talk) 06:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Do you have any citations to back up that argument? Or are you submitting to common usage? Gravitycollapse ( talk) 06:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
The Chicago Manual of Style
[1]
It states that gender specific pronouns are to be used for specific genders. "He" for men and "she" for women. It also states that non-gendered objects should be referred to as "it."
From the point of proper grammar, there can be no argument made. The rules of the English language dictate that it be used when referring to inanimate objects or non-gendered objects.
Gravitycollapse ( talk) 06:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
It is not arguable that using she to describe a ship is grammatically incorrect. He and she are gendered pronouns. Ships do not have gender. What was referred to in the fact that the author was in the minority was that a majority of people misuse it and that the minority are correct.
With that aside, what this argument comes down to is tradition. That is why she is used to describe ships. Not proper English but tradition. And it is up to me to demonstrate why that tradition is offensive. I will do this in the coming days. Gravitycollapse ( talk) 06:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
English has not always worked this way. Unless you're now attempting to argue that English became a language in the mid 1600s. Hence, it is tradition to use feminine pronouns for things like ships or aircraft. There are many traditions that are wrong. And as I have already told another user, if tradition was the only measure of language, we'd still be calling black people niggers. Using feminine pronouns to describe inanimate objects is demonstrably incorrect and it is systematically destructive towards women. It embeds the perception that the female body is a tool to be used by hoards of men at their whim. It seems that several of you agree with me on some level. However, there also seems to be a lot of passing the buck around to avoid responsibility. In order for a concept to be changed, there must be a first step. And if everyone argues the excuse that it's tradition, that there is no consensus or that it is too radical a change, then it will never change. Gravitycollapse ( talk) 01:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
"English has always worked this way." - Check up-thread. English has not always worked this way. There is nothing inherent about the English language that requires gendered pronouns for inanimate objects. In fact, there are rules demonstrating quite the opposite. What this reduces the practice to is tradition. Nigger as a racial epithet was utilitarian for hundreds of years before it became a genuinely offensive racial epithet sometime in the late 1800s. Such is the evolution of language. We cannot discount the destruction caused by language misused. Especially when considering the pervasiveness of sexist language cloaked under the guise of terms of endearment or tradition. When you call a ship "she" you are reducing the concept of "she" to a conduit hosting the movements of men who control its every action. And who ultimately have the ability to destroy it. Gravitycollapse ( talk) 02:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I will work on my civility with future posts. I will also investigate the RfC. However, in defense of my argument, I have to point out the fact that you are making a strawman argument. That the usage of gendered pronouns in other languages does not in itself defeat my position on the specific usage of feminine pronouns within the context of the articles I attempted to edit. - Gravitycollapse ( talk) 03:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I fail to see how inanimate objects could be offended by the use of feminine pronouns. Nevertheless, Lloyd's Register is a strong argument and I will consider using it in the future when writing about ships. ÄDA - DÄP VA ( talk) 04:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Shiny_new_editor_Gravitycollapse_and_yet_another_MOS-ditching_editwar. Thank you. Andy Dingley ( talk) 02:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
worth an article? Mjroots ( talk) 16:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I have moved RP FLIP to RV FLIP, for reasoning see the Talk Page. I hope that this is not controversial. I'll hold off editing the article itself for consistency until I find whether my hand is going to be bitten off. Davidships ( talk) 02:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
At the risk of seeming grumpy, I've been reverting recent moves of articles on Royal Australian Navy warship classes which add hyphens to their names (for instance, Bay class minehunter to Bay-class minehunter). These moves have been made in very good faith and in accordance with WP:NC-SHIPS, but do not actually reflect the common names of Australian warship classes. I'm not all that familiar with the naming conventions used in other countries, but Australian works on RAN ship classes do not use hyphens. For instance, they're not used in any form in the semi-official history of the RAN which was released in 2001 (The Royal Australian Navy: A History, edited by David Stephens), Ross Gillett, the most prolific author of books on the RAN's warships, doesn't use them (see, for instance, his Australian and New Zealand Warships since 1946), and the RAN itself consistently doesn't use hyphens on its website (some examples: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]). As such, I think that applying the hyphens to Australian warship classes violates WP:COMMONNAME and possibly WP:ENGVAR. Note that there was a discussion of this on my talk page at User talk:Nick-D#Hyphenating ship classes, but I think that a broader discussion may be in order. Nick-D ( talk) 23:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
As I'm a one man band here, I think it's time to acknowledge that consensus is against me. I have no objections to these articles being moved, though I'll grumble to myself when the moves occur ;) Nick-D ( talk) 10:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi all,
Just to let you know that the Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums are advertising for a Wikipedian in Residence ( announcement). It's a funded post, part-time through spring and early summer, based in Newcastle (so may well suit a student). Applications are open until 4th March. They're particularly interested in the prospect of someone wanting to work with the shipbuilding & industrial history collections, and digitising some of the material they have in their archives.
Details are available on their website, and there's some details about other upcoming UK residency programs here.
Please pass this on to anyone who might be interested, and feel free to get in touch with me if you've any questions! Andrew Gray ( talk) 15:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I have finished the {{
sclass}}
family of templates. The newest and last member of the family is {{
sclass2-}}
for use with hyphenated article titles when the ship class is named for a common attribute: {{Sclass2|Flower|corvette}}
produces:
Flower-class
corvette.
In the relatively recent past, the {{sclass}}
family of templates was nominated for deletion because the original templates {{
sclass}}
and {{
sclass2}}
and the new {{
sclass-}}
templates were all forks - copies of the original {{sclass}}
. Because of that, I created {{
sclass/core}}
which does all of the formatting for the four templates. Two of the templates, {{Sclass}}
and {{Sclass2}}
use {{sclass/core}}
while the other two do not. {{sclass}}
and {{sclass2}}
are protected so I can't replace them with the sandbox versions that use {{sclass/core}}
.
Test cases for all of the {{sclass}}
templates are at the
testcases page. Are there any admins who would be willing to move {{
sclass/sandbox}}
to {{
sclass}}
and {{
sclass2/sandbox}}
to {{
sclass2}}
?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
A heads up here, for those that don't normally monitor the alerts page. Benea ( talk) 20:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Is there a Wikipedia article for Mineral resource extraction ships generally? I found an article for Drillships, which is also a Category of ships, Category:Drillships. But I have not been able to locate an article for this more general type of ship on Wikipedia, nor an appropriate Category that is broader than Category:Drillships.
I'm thinking of ships that might mine aggregates (sand, gravel, etc.) or metallic ores like gold and copper (as, for example, Nautilus Minerals, etc.), or even the never-operated but putatively-built-for-mineral-extraction ("manganese nodules off the seafloor") Glomar Explorer. Where would such ships resource extraction ships belong, beyond the more "drilling"-specific ships related to the oil and gas/energy industry belong? What is there proper category? What general article describes them? Cheers. N2e ( talk) 00:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
This nomination at CfD may be of interest to the project. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Here in Wikipedia is written lot of articles about historic ship types, but there is not Historic ship itself, can anyone start it? :) User:Suwa ( talk) 09:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
We are having a disagreement at Replica Titanic about whether the Popular Mechanics feasibility study was part of the Gous project, or whether it is independent. -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 23:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello! I'm not well versed in the technical data of warships, but I wondered if someone might be able to write the technical data for the HMS Godetia (K226) article. I believe much of the information can be found here, but as I say, I'm far from expert. Many thanks! --- Brigade Piron ( talk) 15:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
All,
I have the Description of Engines, Boilers, and Auxiliary Machinery document for the 1885 IRIS. It is a filled out form that contains lots of technical information for the ship. Is this of any use to anyone?
Skully09 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure it would be very useful. The article on the ship in question is USS Iris (1885). I don't have a ton of free time at the moment, so unfortunately I can't help with improving the article, but perhaps someone else around here can :) Parsecboy ( talk) 20:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Style issue seems to be the most relevant topic available. Although this also carries an element of language usage as well as political relevance.
I would like comment on the relevance of converting feminine or masculine pronouns for inanimate objects, specifically ships in this project, to gender neutral pronouns. Gravitycollapse ( talk) 03:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Edited this to provide some relevant source material
http://www.erudit.org/revue/meta/1990/v35/n4/003726ar.pdf
"Making Translations More « Native »: The Use of Feminine Pronoun for Inanimate Things"
"I'm No Lady Astronaut": Nonsexist Language for Tomorrow." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gravitycollapse ( talk • contribs) 20:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
For the infobox of "ship characteristics" what does Ship tons burthen mean? Is it the gross tonnage or net tonnage of the ship? ShaneMc2010 17:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I PRODed the article Ottomar gern because it is not in English and I cannot establish notability, but I want to do due diligence. Per Google Translate, the claim is being made that he built one of the first ever submarines in the 18th century. If true, it's is a fact missed by every reliable source I can find on submarine history. Has anybody here ever heard of him? Andrew 327 06:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that The Bushranger has recently been changing class template titles from singular to plural, example here. Bushranger argues that the singular is "grammatically odd" and that the article is about the ships (plural). But I don't agree it is grammatically odd at all. The class articles AFAIK are all named in the singular and no-one has ever claimed that is "grammatically odd" because the articles are about more than one ship. The class articles are singular because the article refers to a single class of ships, and I see no reason why the class template titles should not follow suit. Gatoclass ( talk) 06:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the "British naval ship classes of the First World War" template is at all relevant here because that is obviously a template referring to multiple ship classes. But other than that, I guess this depends to some degree on one's POV. I see the template header less as a title and more as the main link in a series of related links, and it seems counterintuitive to me to link from a plural to a singular because IMO it is going to make readers wonder why the class article isn't a plural as well. But I guess there are valid arguments on both sides of the fence here, so maybe we should just wait to see what the consensus is. Gatoclass ( talk) 08:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
{{
Casco class light draft monitor}}
probably should be renamed to {{Casco-class monitor}}
in keeping with
WP:NC-SHIPS.{{Casco-class monitors}}
to match the category name?
Frietjes (
talk) 18:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
need help in the translation of ru:Опытный малый погружающийся ракетный корабль проекта 1231 Vyacheslav84 ( talk) 04:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Eduard Aframeev. DIVING MISSILE-BOATS - image is used in the English version. ru:Википедия:Критерии добросовестного использования#Условия complete (full) analogy Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Policy (can verify the translation). Project 1231 analogy ru:Опытный малый погружающийся ракетный корабль проекта 1231. File:Project 1231.png analogy ru:Файл:Ныряющий катер.png. File in the Russian Wikipedia checked the local administrators (our licensing strictly). What claims? Bring to a slow removal if there is doubt: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Vyacheslav84 ( talk) 05:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
When a ship is transferred from one navy to another, but remains with all its information in a single article, how should it be categorised in Category:Ships by navy? By the navy for which the article takes the ship's name from, with other navies having the redirects in their respective categories, or directly from all navies using the ship? For instance, taking, Belgian frigate Leopold I (F930), formerly HNLMS Karel Doorman (F827); should the article be in both Category:Karel Doorman-class frigates, piped to |Karel Doorman (as, being built and orignally operated by the Dutch, the main class category doesn't get an "of the Foo" appendage) and Category:Karel Doorman-class frigates of the Belgian Navy, or should it only be in Category:Karel Doorman-class frigates of the Belgian Navy, with the redirect using the RNLN's name in Category:Karel Doorman-class frigates? One (the former) is better for navigation from the article, but creates some awkwardness in the category listings, while the other (the latter) is better from navigation downwards through the category tree. I'm personally thinking the latter might actually be preferable, but would like opinons. (Ideally, an entirely new article would be created every time a ship changed navies, but that way lies madness...) - The Bushranger One ping only 19:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I've found a lot of things that indicate that the Brazilian Navy may use "NDCC" as a ship prefix. Is this an official thing? - The Bushranger One ping only 02:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
A quick heads-up...
There's a large tranche of WWII Royal Navy photographs recently uploaded to commons - around 2000 currently at commons:Category:Royal Naval photographer, and another thousand or so to come. Some are categorised, some aren't; there's a list of those needing checked for categorisation here.
The metadata's pretty good, usually identifying specific ships and dates, so it should be fairly easy to match them to articles. If you've any questions, feel free to shout here! Andrew Gray ( talk) 13:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
User:Sardine Sam has been adding either www.cruisecritic.com or www.cleancruising.com.au or both to liners article. They dont appear to add any value to the articles and I have left the user a spam warning. I dont have many ships on my watchlist so perhaps project members can have a look at the contributions. Thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 21:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure everyone loves our newest citation template, {{ cite ship register}}. User:Trappist the monk made a great job in bringing the citation template more or less in line with other existing templates — see discussion and test cases — but the project has not progressed since the end of December.
Liking the new output more than the old, I propose that we go live with the sandbox version, do an AWB/manual conversion to the existing articles, and update the documentation. Tupsumato ( talk) 19:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
{{
Citation/core}}
. Is it possible to make assignments within a switch? I don't think so, at least, not according to this
reference. Assignments will need to be made for |Publisher=
, |IncludedWorkURL=
, and |Title=
.
While we're at it, could we perhaps drop MMSI from the citation template? MarineTraffic.com is not a database that can be used as a source, and I see hardly any use for it in the citation template. We already have {{
MMSI}} for presenting the MMSI number in the infobox with a handy link to the tracking website.
Tupsumato (
talk) 14:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I've tweaked the
sandbox and live versions of {{
cite ship register}}
to support the abbreviations I mentioned above (with the exception of RS which I left as-is because the RS abbreviation is used on that registry's web site and on it's Wikipedia page). I then went through all of the article-space pages that link to {{cite ship register}}
and changed the templates that used Clyebuilt (none), Equasis, and Mirimar to use the new abbreviations. All of the long-form names have been removed from the sandbox version; the documentation page now reflects the abbreviations supported by the sandbox version; the testcases page no longer tests long-form name versions of the live and sandbox templates.
Since the community has been mute on this topic for a week now, I am inclined to replace the live version of the template with the sandbox version and will do so tomorrow unless there is sufficient reason not to do so.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 17:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Has this progressed? Tupsumato ( talk) 16:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite ship register}}
(my version) "went live" 22 February 2013.I've been meaning to do this for a long time, but it slipped my mind until now. Nautilus-class submarine (1914) is an article about a single submarine, rather than a class. Only one vessel was ever built, or planned for that matter, so under our usual standards the article should be at HMS Nautilus (1914). I'd have been bold and moved it myself long ago, but a redirect with history at that title continues to block the move. Perhaps an admin could delete it to facilitate the move? This move has been sitting around for 6 years now. Must be a record. Benea ( talk) 20:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
{{
sclass}}
and {{
sclass2}}
edit requests. I'd be ever so appreciative.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 30 | ← | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | → | Archive 40 |
-- 76.65.128.43 ( talk) 03:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Here is a incubator WikiProject Military history project that is related somewhat to this WikiProject: Operation Nautilus. WikiCopter ( t • c • onau • omt) 20:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Is there a notability guideline related to WPSHIPS? WP:N-SHIPS; or a more general one WP:N-WATERCRAFT ? (obviously, if they exist, they do not exist at these shortcuts) -- 76.65.128.43 ( talk) 23:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
John B. Caddell - which was at one time YO-140 - has been nominated for deletion. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Editor JHunterJ has been moving ship index articles from prefix Name (disambiguation) to List of ships named prefix Name. Because there is discussion regarding the name of a ship index article for the HMS Hood series of articles, I've asked Editor JHunterJ to hold off on further name changes until we can make a determination on how we would like to proceed.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 16:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
{{
HMS}}
, {{
USS}}
, etc.) whereas List of ships named X does not.Instead, they are list articles titled "List of XXX named YYY"; the "they" referred to the previous sentence's subject: set-index articles. I agree, set-index articles should not be disambiguated with the disambiguation nomenclature.
The only time a (ship) disambiguator should be used is when the vessel is a full rigged ship.
Should there be more than one full-rigged ship with the same name, we dab by year of launch.
(ship) should not be used for other vessels that aren't full-rigged ships. Mjroots ( talk) 08:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Did we come up with a specialized guideline over "List of ships named XXX"? Or do we continue to use that format when the Ship Index is not the primary topic for XXX? -- JHunterJ ( talk) 20:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, |
There should be an article for
America (privateer) (suggested name). Instead of duplicating post, please see:
Talk:America#America (ship)
~Thanks, ~Eric F 00:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
74.60.29.141 (
talk) 19:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) is receiving an average of some over 1000 views a day and it's pretty bad. Can someone take a look and see if they can fix it up? Ryan Vesey 04:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I've requested that Fortune (ship) be renamed, since fortune (disambiguation) lists many ships named "Fortune". So "Fortune (ship)" should redirect to the disambiguation page fortune. But I don't have a good name to move the current article to. Any suggestions are welcome, see talk:Fortune (ship). -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 14:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I stumbled upon an article on pl wiki about Hai Long class destroyers ( pl:Niszczyciele typu Hai Long); the story is briefly summarized at a disambig (sic) at HMS Taku. This potential 5-article series would make a really nice DYK, I think. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Fairly straightforward. We must alter the pages away from feminine pronouns to gender neutral pronouns. The traditional reference to ships with feminine pronouns is offensive to women as it is a form of systemic sexual objectification.
-Gravitycollapse — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gravitycollapse ( talk • contribs) 05:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
The usage of gendered pronouns to refer to inanimate objects is sexual objectification in any form. Be it feminine or masculine. It is also logically incorrect as inanimate objects do not have gender identities. Inanimate objects are referred to with neutral pronouns like "it." This is a common understanding in the English language that is only excepted when it comes to certain objects like ships or aircraft. This traditional usage of feminine pronouns to refer to ships or aircraft or cars or motorcycles is guilty of systemically objectifying women and reducing their bodies to the status of "objects" used among large bodies of men. It is both offensive and incorrect.
Gravitycollapse (
talk) 05:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
It is in fact very offensive that such feminization or masculinization takes place. But that is off topic at this point. I am specifically referring to the usage of feminine pronouns to describe ships in this project. It is offensive and it is not the correct usage of the English language. I will be gathering further citations with my colleagues and I will submit them here. Gravitycollapse ( talk) 06:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Do you have any citations to back up that argument? Or are you submitting to common usage? Gravitycollapse ( talk) 06:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
The Chicago Manual of Style
[1]
It states that gender specific pronouns are to be used for specific genders. "He" for men and "she" for women. It also states that non-gendered objects should be referred to as "it."
From the point of proper grammar, there can be no argument made. The rules of the English language dictate that it be used when referring to inanimate objects or non-gendered objects.
Gravitycollapse ( talk) 06:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
It is not arguable that using she to describe a ship is grammatically incorrect. He and she are gendered pronouns. Ships do not have gender. What was referred to in the fact that the author was in the minority was that a majority of people misuse it and that the minority are correct.
With that aside, what this argument comes down to is tradition. That is why she is used to describe ships. Not proper English but tradition. And it is up to me to demonstrate why that tradition is offensive. I will do this in the coming days. Gravitycollapse ( talk) 06:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
English has not always worked this way. Unless you're now attempting to argue that English became a language in the mid 1600s. Hence, it is tradition to use feminine pronouns for things like ships or aircraft. There are many traditions that are wrong. And as I have already told another user, if tradition was the only measure of language, we'd still be calling black people niggers. Using feminine pronouns to describe inanimate objects is demonstrably incorrect and it is systematically destructive towards women. It embeds the perception that the female body is a tool to be used by hoards of men at their whim. It seems that several of you agree with me on some level. However, there also seems to be a lot of passing the buck around to avoid responsibility. In order for a concept to be changed, there must be a first step. And if everyone argues the excuse that it's tradition, that there is no consensus or that it is too radical a change, then it will never change. Gravitycollapse ( talk) 01:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
"English has always worked this way." - Check up-thread. English has not always worked this way. There is nothing inherent about the English language that requires gendered pronouns for inanimate objects. In fact, there are rules demonstrating quite the opposite. What this reduces the practice to is tradition. Nigger as a racial epithet was utilitarian for hundreds of years before it became a genuinely offensive racial epithet sometime in the late 1800s. Such is the evolution of language. We cannot discount the destruction caused by language misused. Especially when considering the pervasiveness of sexist language cloaked under the guise of terms of endearment or tradition. When you call a ship "she" you are reducing the concept of "she" to a conduit hosting the movements of men who control its every action. And who ultimately have the ability to destroy it. Gravitycollapse ( talk) 02:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I will work on my civility with future posts. I will also investigate the RfC. However, in defense of my argument, I have to point out the fact that you are making a strawman argument. That the usage of gendered pronouns in other languages does not in itself defeat my position on the specific usage of feminine pronouns within the context of the articles I attempted to edit. - Gravitycollapse ( talk) 03:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I fail to see how inanimate objects could be offended by the use of feminine pronouns. Nevertheless, Lloyd's Register is a strong argument and I will consider using it in the future when writing about ships. ÄDA - DÄP VA ( talk) 04:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Shiny_new_editor_Gravitycollapse_and_yet_another_MOS-ditching_editwar. Thank you. Andy Dingley ( talk) 02:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
worth an article? Mjroots ( talk) 16:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I have moved RP FLIP to RV FLIP, for reasoning see the Talk Page. I hope that this is not controversial. I'll hold off editing the article itself for consistency until I find whether my hand is going to be bitten off. Davidships ( talk) 02:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
At the risk of seeming grumpy, I've been reverting recent moves of articles on Royal Australian Navy warship classes which add hyphens to their names (for instance, Bay class minehunter to Bay-class minehunter). These moves have been made in very good faith and in accordance with WP:NC-SHIPS, but do not actually reflect the common names of Australian warship classes. I'm not all that familiar with the naming conventions used in other countries, but Australian works on RAN ship classes do not use hyphens. For instance, they're not used in any form in the semi-official history of the RAN which was released in 2001 (The Royal Australian Navy: A History, edited by David Stephens), Ross Gillett, the most prolific author of books on the RAN's warships, doesn't use them (see, for instance, his Australian and New Zealand Warships since 1946), and the RAN itself consistently doesn't use hyphens on its website (some examples: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]). As such, I think that applying the hyphens to Australian warship classes violates WP:COMMONNAME and possibly WP:ENGVAR. Note that there was a discussion of this on my talk page at User talk:Nick-D#Hyphenating ship classes, but I think that a broader discussion may be in order. Nick-D ( talk) 23:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
As I'm a one man band here, I think it's time to acknowledge that consensus is against me. I have no objections to these articles being moved, though I'll grumble to myself when the moves occur ;) Nick-D ( talk) 10:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi all,
Just to let you know that the Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums are advertising for a Wikipedian in Residence ( announcement). It's a funded post, part-time through spring and early summer, based in Newcastle (so may well suit a student). Applications are open until 4th March. They're particularly interested in the prospect of someone wanting to work with the shipbuilding & industrial history collections, and digitising some of the material they have in their archives.
Details are available on their website, and there's some details about other upcoming UK residency programs here.
Please pass this on to anyone who might be interested, and feel free to get in touch with me if you've any questions! Andrew Gray ( talk) 15:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I have finished the {{
sclass}}
family of templates. The newest and last member of the family is {{
sclass2-}}
for use with hyphenated article titles when the ship class is named for a common attribute: {{Sclass2|Flower|corvette}}
produces:
Flower-class
corvette.
In the relatively recent past, the {{sclass}}
family of templates was nominated for deletion because the original templates {{
sclass}}
and {{
sclass2}}
and the new {{
sclass-}}
templates were all forks - copies of the original {{sclass}}
. Because of that, I created {{
sclass/core}}
which does all of the formatting for the four templates. Two of the templates, {{Sclass}}
and {{Sclass2}}
use {{sclass/core}}
while the other two do not. {{sclass}}
and {{sclass2}}
are protected so I can't replace them with the sandbox versions that use {{sclass/core}}
.
Test cases for all of the {{sclass}}
templates are at the
testcases page. Are there any admins who would be willing to move {{
sclass/sandbox}}
to {{
sclass}}
and {{
sclass2/sandbox}}
to {{
sclass2}}
?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
A heads up here, for those that don't normally monitor the alerts page. Benea ( talk) 20:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Is there a Wikipedia article for Mineral resource extraction ships generally? I found an article for Drillships, which is also a Category of ships, Category:Drillships. But I have not been able to locate an article for this more general type of ship on Wikipedia, nor an appropriate Category that is broader than Category:Drillships.
I'm thinking of ships that might mine aggregates (sand, gravel, etc.) or metallic ores like gold and copper (as, for example, Nautilus Minerals, etc.), or even the never-operated but putatively-built-for-mineral-extraction ("manganese nodules off the seafloor") Glomar Explorer. Where would such ships resource extraction ships belong, beyond the more "drilling"-specific ships related to the oil and gas/energy industry belong? What is there proper category? What general article describes them? Cheers. N2e ( talk) 00:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
This nomination at CfD may be of interest to the project. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Here in Wikipedia is written lot of articles about historic ship types, but there is not Historic ship itself, can anyone start it? :) User:Suwa ( talk) 09:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
We are having a disagreement at Replica Titanic about whether the Popular Mechanics feasibility study was part of the Gous project, or whether it is independent. -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 23:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello! I'm not well versed in the technical data of warships, but I wondered if someone might be able to write the technical data for the HMS Godetia (K226) article. I believe much of the information can be found here, but as I say, I'm far from expert. Many thanks! --- Brigade Piron ( talk) 15:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
All,
I have the Description of Engines, Boilers, and Auxiliary Machinery document for the 1885 IRIS. It is a filled out form that contains lots of technical information for the ship. Is this of any use to anyone?
Skully09 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure it would be very useful. The article on the ship in question is USS Iris (1885). I don't have a ton of free time at the moment, so unfortunately I can't help with improving the article, but perhaps someone else around here can :) Parsecboy ( talk) 20:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Style issue seems to be the most relevant topic available. Although this also carries an element of language usage as well as political relevance.
I would like comment on the relevance of converting feminine or masculine pronouns for inanimate objects, specifically ships in this project, to gender neutral pronouns. Gravitycollapse ( talk) 03:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Edited this to provide some relevant source material
http://www.erudit.org/revue/meta/1990/v35/n4/003726ar.pdf
"Making Translations More « Native »: The Use of Feminine Pronoun for Inanimate Things"
"I'm No Lady Astronaut": Nonsexist Language for Tomorrow." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gravitycollapse ( talk • contribs) 20:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
For the infobox of "ship characteristics" what does Ship tons burthen mean? Is it the gross tonnage or net tonnage of the ship? ShaneMc2010 17:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I PRODed the article Ottomar gern because it is not in English and I cannot establish notability, but I want to do due diligence. Per Google Translate, the claim is being made that he built one of the first ever submarines in the 18th century. If true, it's is a fact missed by every reliable source I can find on submarine history. Has anybody here ever heard of him? Andrew 327 06:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that The Bushranger has recently been changing class template titles from singular to plural, example here. Bushranger argues that the singular is "grammatically odd" and that the article is about the ships (plural). But I don't agree it is grammatically odd at all. The class articles AFAIK are all named in the singular and no-one has ever claimed that is "grammatically odd" because the articles are about more than one ship. The class articles are singular because the article refers to a single class of ships, and I see no reason why the class template titles should not follow suit. Gatoclass ( talk) 06:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the "British naval ship classes of the First World War" template is at all relevant here because that is obviously a template referring to multiple ship classes. But other than that, I guess this depends to some degree on one's POV. I see the template header less as a title and more as the main link in a series of related links, and it seems counterintuitive to me to link from a plural to a singular because IMO it is going to make readers wonder why the class article isn't a plural as well. But I guess there are valid arguments on both sides of the fence here, so maybe we should just wait to see what the consensus is. Gatoclass ( talk) 08:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
{{
Casco class light draft monitor}}
probably should be renamed to {{Casco-class monitor}}
in keeping with
WP:NC-SHIPS.{{Casco-class monitors}}
to match the category name?
Frietjes (
talk) 18:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
need help in the translation of ru:Опытный малый погружающийся ракетный корабль проекта 1231 Vyacheslav84 ( talk) 04:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Eduard Aframeev. DIVING MISSILE-BOATS - image is used in the English version. ru:Википедия:Критерии добросовестного использования#Условия complete (full) analogy Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Policy (can verify the translation). Project 1231 analogy ru:Опытный малый погружающийся ракетный корабль проекта 1231. File:Project 1231.png analogy ru:Файл:Ныряющий катер.png. File in the Russian Wikipedia checked the local administrators (our licensing strictly). What claims? Bring to a slow removal if there is doubt: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Vyacheslav84 ( talk) 05:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
When a ship is transferred from one navy to another, but remains with all its information in a single article, how should it be categorised in Category:Ships by navy? By the navy for which the article takes the ship's name from, with other navies having the redirects in their respective categories, or directly from all navies using the ship? For instance, taking, Belgian frigate Leopold I (F930), formerly HNLMS Karel Doorman (F827); should the article be in both Category:Karel Doorman-class frigates, piped to |Karel Doorman (as, being built and orignally operated by the Dutch, the main class category doesn't get an "of the Foo" appendage) and Category:Karel Doorman-class frigates of the Belgian Navy, or should it only be in Category:Karel Doorman-class frigates of the Belgian Navy, with the redirect using the RNLN's name in Category:Karel Doorman-class frigates? One (the former) is better for navigation from the article, but creates some awkwardness in the category listings, while the other (the latter) is better from navigation downwards through the category tree. I'm personally thinking the latter might actually be preferable, but would like opinons. (Ideally, an entirely new article would be created every time a ship changed navies, but that way lies madness...) - The Bushranger One ping only 19:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I've found a lot of things that indicate that the Brazilian Navy may use "NDCC" as a ship prefix. Is this an official thing? - The Bushranger One ping only 02:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
A quick heads-up...
There's a large tranche of WWII Royal Navy photographs recently uploaded to commons - around 2000 currently at commons:Category:Royal Naval photographer, and another thousand or so to come. Some are categorised, some aren't; there's a list of those needing checked for categorisation here.
The metadata's pretty good, usually identifying specific ships and dates, so it should be fairly easy to match them to articles. If you've any questions, feel free to shout here! Andrew Gray ( talk) 13:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
User:Sardine Sam has been adding either www.cruisecritic.com or www.cleancruising.com.au or both to liners article. They dont appear to add any value to the articles and I have left the user a spam warning. I dont have many ships on my watchlist so perhaps project members can have a look at the contributions. Thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 21:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure everyone loves our newest citation template, {{ cite ship register}}. User:Trappist the monk made a great job in bringing the citation template more or less in line with other existing templates — see discussion and test cases — but the project has not progressed since the end of December.
Liking the new output more than the old, I propose that we go live with the sandbox version, do an AWB/manual conversion to the existing articles, and update the documentation. Tupsumato ( talk) 19:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
{{
Citation/core}}
. Is it possible to make assignments within a switch? I don't think so, at least, not according to this
reference. Assignments will need to be made for |Publisher=
, |IncludedWorkURL=
, and |Title=
.
While we're at it, could we perhaps drop MMSI from the citation template? MarineTraffic.com is not a database that can be used as a source, and I see hardly any use for it in the citation template. We already have {{
MMSI}} for presenting the MMSI number in the infobox with a handy link to the tracking website.
Tupsumato (
talk) 14:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I've tweaked the
sandbox and live versions of {{
cite ship register}}
to support the abbreviations I mentioned above (with the exception of RS which I left as-is because the RS abbreviation is used on that registry's web site and on it's Wikipedia page). I then went through all of the article-space pages that link to {{cite ship register}}
and changed the templates that used Clyebuilt (none), Equasis, and Mirimar to use the new abbreviations. All of the long-form names have been removed from the sandbox version; the documentation page now reflects the abbreviations supported by the sandbox version; the testcases page no longer tests long-form name versions of the live and sandbox templates.
Since the community has been mute on this topic for a week now, I am inclined to replace the live version of the template with the sandbox version and will do so tomorrow unless there is sufficient reason not to do so.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 17:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Has this progressed? Tupsumato ( talk) 16:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite ship register}}
(my version) "went live" 22 February 2013.I've been meaning to do this for a long time, but it slipped my mind until now. Nautilus-class submarine (1914) is an article about a single submarine, rather than a class. Only one vessel was ever built, or planned for that matter, so under our usual standards the article should be at HMS Nautilus (1914). I'd have been bold and moved it myself long ago, but a redirect with history at that title continues to block the move. Perhaps an admin could delete it to facilitate the move? This move has been sitting around for 6 years now. Must be a record. Benea ( talk) 20:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
{{
sclass}}
and {{
sclass2}}
edit requests. I'd be ever so appreciative.