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 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 45 |
Something is off about this article in my mind. There's only one source that confirms the ship's existence (though it has a different length), and the rest are offline newspaper articles. The image is of a different ship's figurehead. So, can someone confirm that this ship did, in fact, exist as the article describes? I just find it hard to believe an article on what would seem to be an important ship (a) wasn't created before and/or (b) wasn't linked from anywhere before and/or (c) [especially] wasn't previously listed at List of shipwrecks in 1881 if it was that well-known. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello
I've been looking at the
Free Belgian navy during WW2, and in particular
HMS Godetia (K226). Evidence from original photos
(see here) indicates that the state flag, rather than the later naval ensign or national flag, was used on Free Belgian ships, but I cannot get the flag to work for the ship's infobox... anyone have any ideas on how to fix this?
Thanks! ---
Brigade Piron (
talk)
10:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
MV Golden Jubilee, which barely squeaks inside the project's scope (according to Lloyd's), has been nominated for deletion.
has been nominated for deletion. -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 11:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
The information for this ship was significantly lacking the official version of how it came into the Southwest Pacific Area command's permanent local fleet and under U.S. Army control and then a Dutch hospital ship, not Australian. Talk:AHS Tasman contains an outline of the information and the full documents are large .pdf files available for download. I've made changes in the article reflecting those references and strongly recommend a move of the article itself from the erroneous "AHS" title to something along the lines of "SS Tasman to reflect the facts and also provide a general ship title for expansion with pre/post war information. Request other eyes on the topic. The bones of that issue also apply to all the 21 KPM ships in the SWPA fleet, but full detail of "how" is almost an article in itself. Palmeira ( talk) 03:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm finding a few mis-titled items in the new British Library collection of Canadiana in the Commons, I'm thinking
File:General View of Kakabeka Falls and Gorge (HS85-10-14158).jpg (
File:Tug-of-war (HS85-10-17534).jpg) is mis-titled, unless there's a naval history/terminology reference I'm missing. The year is 1906, that looks to be Esquimalt Harbour, and that's most definitely not a tug, it's a battleship isn't it? Bigger than a destroyer, no? but I don't know what other classifications of vessels there are.. The
high-res version isn't sufficient to read any name on the ship that I can see. Maybe it's recognizable from its profile, or by knowing what ships were stationed at, or visiting, Esquimalt in 1906.
Skookum1 (
talk)
17:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, if the file is misnumbered then all the metadata will be wrong - title, caption, date, author, etc. (It's pure chance that this one was almost plausible and not, eg, titled "Sixteen Views of Toronto, 1921"). Andrew Gray ( talk) 11:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Back in April, the article steamship was split from existing content in steamboat. The distinction made here is that steamships are ocean-faring vessels and steamboats are smaller lake/river vessels. I don't really see the point of having separate articles that share so much content in terms of history and technology especially since the steamboat article was of reasonable size before the split. More importantly, the terms steamboats, steamships and steamers are (whether one likes it or not) often used interchangeably in various sources and in Wikipedia articles. Splitting the two articles thus leads to confusion and further problems since many incoming links to steamship should really be links to steamboat and vice-versa. It makes more sense to merge the two articles back into one in which the lede clearly explains the distinction. Pichpich ( talk) 18:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Can anybody help please with a query that I posted over at the Humanities Ref Desk; WP:RD/H#City_of_Benares_sinking? Alansplodge ( talk) 19:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I am planning on writing an article about a sailing vessel. How do I get the article to display the article name partly italicized? Do I need an infobox? The vessel is a so-called open-sea sailboat, I don't think she qualifies as a sail ship. Regards, Iselilja ( talk) 13:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
{{
italic title}}
. More complex article titles may require the magic word
{{DISPLAYTITLE}}
.I have nominated a project scope article Splash Class for deletion. Tupsumato ( talk) 05:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
It has been years since I was known as Simesa here -- Now I've spotted a major problem (which I first contacted user:Slambo about, and so have found you).
I can't find anything in Wikipedia on "Mississippi riverboats" or any similarly-named topic. I've explored a fair amount, and I can find a tiny article on "Riverboat casinos" and a couple on now-defunct modern steamboat replicas, but no articles on the core topic.
This would be a pretty big article (for example, some riverboats were used as "tinclad rams" in the American Civil War), and I'm not sure what to request. 68.80.191.1 ( talk) 15:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you all -- I inserted two wikilinks in appropriate places for others to follow. 68.80.191.1 ( talk) 00:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I just came across a hook over at DYK, that says "... that despite the superstition it is bad luck to change a ship's name, the cargo vessel SS Gallic had her name changed seven times during her 37 years in service?". Is it considered bad luck to change a ship's name, though? Many if not most of the ships I've written articles for have had their names changed at some point in their careers. Manxruler ( talk) 09:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
The wording in the proposed hook (now rejected) and in the article itself says that the name was changed "despite" or "in spite of" the superstition, which implies that those changing the name were aware of the belief and changed the name anyway. That seems to me to be a type of original research, for the purpose of having a catchy "hook". Kablammo ( talk) 13:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I have a nomination for a good topic of the four Milwaukee-class monitors of the Union Navy over at the GTC page in which one editor is questioning why the individual ships each deserve their own article (He'd prefer to see them folded into the main class article). Your comments are invited.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 03:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
File:Canadian Ramped Cargo Lighter.jpg is under discussion concerning its copyright status at WP:NFCR -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 06:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
In light of recent news, I am playing with this table in my sandbox. Do any of you Smart People have any idea how to proceed? Is there any site that might provide a source for such a list?
North Korean merchant ships
Name | Type | Length | Last observed |
---|---|---|---|
Chong Chon Gang | Bulk cargo | 155 metres (509 ft) | July 2013 [1] |
Dai Hong Dan | Bulk cargo | 122 metres (400 ft)122m | 2008 |
Kang Nam 1 | General cargo | 86 metres (282 ft) | 2012 |
Ra Nam 3 | Cargo | 81 metres (266 ft) | July 2013 |
Mangyongbong-92 | Ferry | 162 metres (531 ft) | July 2013 |
Mi Yang 8 | Cargo | 85 metres (279 ft) | July 2013 |
Oun Chong Nyon Ho | Cargo | 118 metres (387 ft) | [1] |
Paul, in Saudi ( talk) 13:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The usage of Wale ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Wale (rapper) -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 06:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
image:P&O European Ferries Logo.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 02:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
image:US Postage Stamp Monitor & Virginia.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 03:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Just wondering: I noticed that lifeboats and the organizations responsible for them have been edited out of the project as per not in the project's scope. Since they are literally a life and death issue for sailors I would like to know which WikiProject caters for them if not WPSHIPS. ÄDA - DÄP VA ( talk) 19:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Was there such a ship please? Kittybrewster ☎ 22:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
· CORNER, Robert - Commission dd. 21 Aug 1790. Appeared on 13 Oct.1790; received £33.1s.6d advance pay; paid £110.12s. ‘neat wages’ on 26 Oct.1792 · Age 37; from London. Prior to his appointment as 2nd. Lt to the Pandora, he was CO of a press gang operating from HMS Richard in the North Sea. It is interesting to note that a number of men in Corner’s press gang and from the Richard’s crew appear to have followed him to the Pandora (Adm. 36/11092) Hamilton (1793:27) mentions that Corner had been commissioned “in the land service” before joining the RN; Corner was first commissioned as an RN lieutenant in 1779 – at age 26. He was promoted to 1st Lieutenant of HMS Terrible in 1792 and also served as 1st lieutenant (1798-1802) in HMS Victory under Horatio Nelson’s command*. He ended his career as Superintendent of Marine Police in Malta; and was buried in February 1819, aged 66, in St Paul’s Cathedral (Valetta)
* But he was not on board the Victory at Trafalgar! Kittybrewster ☎ 14:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
There are currently nearly 1,000 articles in Category:Ship articles without infoboxes.
How about a dedicated drive during August to reduce the number of articles in this category to none? Mjroots ( talk) 20:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Just a quick hint for editors who want to help but don't know how to get started: one of the easiest ways to fill an infobox for existing ships is first to find out the classification society with e.g. Equasis (free subscription required) and then see if the classification society has a public database. The database entries often contain enough information to fill out the general characteristics section and at least current owner, port of registry etc. I did a bunch of CMA CGM container ships this morning in this way.
Also, don't forget the infobox guide and {{ cite ship register}}.
However, I can't help but wonder if all those ships need their own articles. Sure, they are big as heck, but is there anything else in them? Often, the article body consists of just one or two sentences... Tupsumato ( talk) 17:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Category:Royal Navy courts martial is under discussion here. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
This is now as done as it is likely to get. Many ships thought to be PDRK are flagged in Panama and elsewhere. One database says a certain ship is scrapped, another does not agree. In all case, I tried to stick to the sure things as much as possible. I hope you ship people will feel free to add this article anywhere it needs to be listed. For me it was an exercise to learn tables, I am unschooled in the wise ways of this project. Paul, in Saudi ( talk) 13:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite ship register}}
.<ref>{{cite ship register|register=E|id=7632955|shipname=Pho Thae|accessdate=2013-07-20}}</ref>
<ref>Equasis data base accessed July 2013</ref>
(or August), use this template. Putting the IMO number in |id=
, the ship's name in |shipname=
, and the date you saw the source data in |accessdate=
:
<ref>{{cite ship register|register=E|id=|shipname=|accessdate=}}</ref>
{{cite ship register|register=E|id=7712975|shipname=Al Iman|accessdate=2013-07-21}}
image:HMT Alvis at sea.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 02:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
{{
holdon|reasoning}}
on the file page then. --
76.65.128.222 (
talk)
00:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
image:APT AmaKaterina Cruise Ship.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 01:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
A possible change from year built to year captured has been raised at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships) Davidships ( talk) 09:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I am adding references to Lloyd's Register for the articles about some Second World War merchant ships. One for SS Blairspey has generated the scarlet admonition "Cite error: The named reference LR40 was invoked but never defined". As far as I can see I have applied exactly the same format as in other citations that are displaying properly. Applying the principle that it is easier to proof-read another person's work than one's own, someone please check the format and tell me where I went wrong? Thanks, Motacilla ( talk) 15:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Aaargh! No wonder I couldn't see the mistake. Thanks for fixing it. Best wishes, Motacilla ( talk) 13:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey all, just to note, there's a gallery of images of ships (among many other things) available online here. They are all PD-Canada (which means for the vast majority of them, they are also PD-US-URAA). There are many of the Canadian steamer SS Cayuga, which does not currently have an article. If some go-getter out there would like to write that article, he or she would have a plethora of images to use to illustrate it. Parsecboy ( talk) 17:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Anyone know about this? The article is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circular arc hull. How many ships use this, do you know of the names of any that have used this at any time in history, is it taught in ship schools, found in any university level textbooks? Dream Focus 23:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Please see
§Returning to formatting at {{
infobox ship begin}}
.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 23:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
The fate of the article HMCS Saskatchewan (H70) is under discussion, see Talk:HMS Fortune (H70) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 06:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The Royal Australian Navy is hosting an International Fleet Review at the start of October in Sydney Harbour. It's running from 3 to 11 October, and I'm taking most of that off work to get photographs of the ships attending. I'll be aiming to get general shots of all attending warships and tall ships, but if anyone needs a particular image (for example, from a particular view, or a closeup of a particular feature), let me know and I'll see what I can do for you.
I've put a list of attending ships up at User:Saberwyn/2013 RAN IFR ships. List any photo requests you have under the particular ship's section, along with any details I may need to get the shot you want. -- saberwyn 23:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you've noticed that the four templates, {{
GT}}
, {{
GRT}}
, {{
NetT}}
, {{
NRT}}
, while ostensibly similar, have dissimilar outputs given the same inputs:
Code | Renders as | Comments |
---|---|---|
|first=yes
| ||
{{GT|36000|first=yes}} |
36,000 GT | Improper output of units tons for a unitless specification; unformatted numerical value |
{{GRT|36000|first=yes}} |
36,000 GRT | |
{{NetT|36000|first=yes}} |
36,000 NT | tons units; unformatted |
{{NRT|36000|first=yes}} |
36,000 NRT | |
|first=short
| ||
{{GT|36000|first=short}} |
36,000 GT | Unformatted numerical value |
{{GRT|36000|first=short}} |
36,000 GRT | |
{{NetT|36000|first=short}} |
36,000 NT | Unformatted |
{{NRT|36000|first=short}} |
36,000 NRT | |
|first=<empty> or omitted
| ||
{{GT|36000|first=}} |
36,000 GT | Abbreviation linked; unformatted numerical value |
{{GRT|36000|first=}} |
36,000 GRT | |
{{NetT|36000|first=}} |
36,000 NT | Abbreviation linked; unformatted |
{{NRT|36000|first=}} |
36,000 NRT |
So I set about finding a way to have the templates produce similar outputs when given the same inputs. Also, |first=
has always bothered me. As a parameter name it is essentially meaningless since one cannot know what it means when assigned the value yes
(or any other value for that matter). To maintain legacy comparability, I have created a new parameter, |disp=
, that can have one of three values: long
, short
, and adj
. I also created a second parameter that modifies the output of the templates when |disp=long
or |disp=adj
. This parameter, |link=off
, turns off the wikilink when either of |disp=long
or |disp=adj
is specified.
The numerical value is now always formatted with comma separators.
Code | Renders as | |
---|---|---|
|disp=long
| ||
{{GT/sandbox|36000|disp=long}} |
36,000 gross tonnage (GT) | |
{{GRT/sandbox|36000|disp=long}} |
36,000 gross register tons (GRT) | |
{{NetT/sandbox|36000|disp=long}} |
36,000 net tonnage (NT) | |
{{NRT/sandbox|36000|disp=long}} |
36,000 net register tons (NRT) | |
|disp=short
| ||
{{GT/sandbox|36000|disp=short}} |
36,000
GT |disp=short
| |
{{GRT/sandbox|36000|disp=short}} |
36,000
GRT |disp=short
| |
{{NetT/sandbox|36000|disp=short}} |
36,000
NT |disp=short
| |
{{NRT/sandbox|36000|disp=short}} |
36,000
NRT |disp=short
| |
|disp=adj
| ||
{{GT/sandbox|36000|disp=adj}} |
36,000- gross tonnage (GT) | |
{{GRT/sandbox|36000|disp=adj}} |
36,000- gross register ton (GRT) | |
{{NetT/sandbox|36000|disp=adj}} |
36,000- net tonnage (NT) | |
{{NRT/sandbox|36000|disp=adj}} |
36,000- net register ton (NRT) | |
|disp=<empty> or omitted
| ||
{{GT/sandbox|36000|disp=}} |
36,000 GT | |
{{GRT/sandbox|36000|disp=}} |
36,000 GRT | |
{{NetT/sandbox|36000|disp=}} |
36,000 NT | |
{{NRT/sandbox|36000|disp=}} |
36,000 NRT | |
|disp=<empty> or omitted |link=off
| ||
{{GT/sandbox|36000|disp=|link=off}} |
36,000 GT | |
{{GRT/sandbox|36000|disp=|link=off}} |
36,000 GRT | |
{{NetT/sandbox|36000|disp=|link=off}} |
36,000 NT | |
{{NRT/sandbox|36000|disp=|link=off}} |
36,000 NRT | |
|disp=long |link=off
| ||
{{GT/sandbox|36000|disp=long|link=off}} |
36,000 gross tonnage (GT) | |
{{GRT/sandbox|36000|disp=long|link=off}} |
36,000 gross register tons (GRT) | |
{{NetT/sandbox|36000|disp=long|link=off}} |
36,000 net tonnage (NT) | |
{{NRT/sandbox|36000|disp=long|link=off}} |
36,000 net register tons (NRT) | |
|disp=adj |link=off
| ||
{{GT/sandbox|36000|disp=adj|link=off}} |
36,000-gross tonnage (GT) | |
{{GRT/sandbox|36000|disp=adj|link=off}} |
36,000-gross register ton (GRT) | |
{{NetT/sandbox|36000|disp=adj|link=off}} |
36,000-net tonnage (NT) | |
{{NRT/sandbox|36000|disp=adj|link=off}} |
36,000-net register ton (NRT) |
More complete examination of the new parameters as well as the legacy parameters can be found on the template testcases pages: {{
GT/testcases}}
, {{
GRT/testcases}}
, {{
NetT/testcases}}
, {{
NRT/testcases}}
.
Questions? Comments, Opinions?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 20:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
|disp=long
or |disp=adj
? I can imagine that in certain circumstances an editor may want to write something akin to "HMS Nonesuch, a 36,000,000-
gross tonnage stone frigate, sank at her moorings" or "there are very few stone frigates of 36,000,000
gross tonnage, HMS Nonesuch being an exemplar of the type." (I know, awkward, but ...)|first=yes
) in {{
GT/sandbox}}
and {{
NetT/sandbox}}
both output "gross(net) tonnage of <value>":
|first=yes
) is that the outputs no longer use the term "tons" (and <value> is comma formatted). In the current and proposed compatible versions of the templates, the parenthetical GT and NT simply identify GT and NT as initialisms of gross and net tonnage.{{
GT/sandbox}}
and {{
NetT/sandbox}}
to output gross tonnage and net tonnage instead of gross tons and net tons.|disp=long
, "<value> GT" for |disp=short
(or no parameter), links on by default, and drop the adjectives completely? Also, which parameter gives the output of "a gross tonnage (GT) of <value>"? I recall writing that out in some articles...{{GT|36000|first=short}}
: 36,000 GT (
gross tonnage). That functionality isn't going away. I think it's incorrectly worded because the parenthetical should be the inititalism not the definition, but since it's legacy code I won't change it unless there is a compelling reason to do so.|disp=short
. The links are off for no parameters. I chose to have links off as the default because if the template is used multiple times in the article, it's more work for the editor to turn-off the links of the many rather than turn on the link of the one and so avoid overlinking.{{GT|36000|first=yes}}
:
gross tonnage (GT) of 36,000.|disp=short
if they use any parameters other than <value>.|link=off
to unlink.Similar to the above, {{
DWT/sandbox}}
adds the same features: |disp=long
, |disp=adj
, both supporting |link=off
, and |disp=short
. The positional parameter (also called |units=
supports values metric
and long
which controls how the DWT units are displayed. When the {{{2}}}
/ |units=
is not present or empty, {{DWT}}
falls back to the generic tons.
Code | Renders as | |
---|---|---|
|disp=long
| ||
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|disp=long}} |
36,000 tons deadweight (DWT) | |
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|metric|disp=long}} |
36,000 tonnes deadweight (DWT) | |
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|long|disp=long}} |
36,000 long tons deadweight (DWT) | |
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|disp=long|link=off}} |
36,000 tons deadweight (DWT) | |
|disp=adj
| ||
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|disp=adj}} |
36,000-ton deadweight (DWT) | |
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|metric|disp=adj}} |
36,000-tonne deadweight (DWT) | |
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|long|disp=adj}} |
36,000-long ton deadweight (DWT) | |
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|disp=adj|link=off}} |
36,000-ton deadweight (DWT) | |
|disp=short
| ||
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|disp=short}} |
36,000 |disp=short
| |
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|metric|disp=short}} |
36,000 |disp=short
| |
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|long|disp=short}} |
36,000 |disp=short
| |
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|disp=short|link=off}} |
36,000 |disp=short
| |
|disp=<empty>
| ||
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|disp=}} |
36,000 DWT | |
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|metric|disp=}} |
36,000 t DWT | |
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|long|disp=}} |
36,000 LT DWT | |
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|disp=|link=off}} |
36,000 DWT |
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 17:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
|link=off
to unlink.Thanks to you two for taking this on. Consistency and simplicity are needed. We should not return "tonnage" for one measure and "tons" for another. Make it tonnage for both, or (my personal preference) "x gross tons", "x net register tons", etc. I agree with Tupsumato in his penultimate point: the plural (tons) is indicated when it follows the figure. Kablammo ( talk) 16:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
|adj=
version is intended to be used much the same way that we would write a 30-meter sloop but not write a 30-meters sloop. So, we would write a 36,000-gross tonnage (GT) skow, or a 36,000-gross register ton (GRT) skow, or a 36,000-tonne deadweight (DWT) skow but not write a 36,000 gross tonnage (GT) skow, a 36,000 gross register tons (GRT) skow, or a 36,000 tons deadweight (DWT) skow.Could the experts here please examine the suggestion made at
Talk:Man-of-war#Delete Man-of-war article? If the assessment given there is correct, the easiest solution might be to turn the article
Man-of-war into a redirect to
Warship, add a mention of the term there and remove the links to the article from navigation boxes and the like. The etymology should be moved to
wikt:man-of-war, where there is currently none. I don't know enough about naval terminology, myself, I only just stumbled over the article and saw all the templates plastered over the page, so I checked the talk page and saw the assertions that man-of-war lacks an agreed-on definition and is mostly just an archaic expression for battleships warships. --
Florian Blaschke (
talk)
14:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
The number of unassessed ships articles suddently went up from less than one hundred to over 300. Since I check the category almost daily, it must have happened overnight or, at most, within the past few days I've been busy. Most of these new articles seem to be redirects to existing and assessed articles. Whoever did this or does this in the future, if you create a large number of redirects and tag them for the project(s), could you also add |class=redirect
to the project template so that someone else wouldn't have to go through each talk page and assess them individually?
Tupsumato (
talk)
06:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
file:Santisima Trinidad harried by Terpsichore.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 ( talk) 07:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
image:MV Kidjang.JPG has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 ( talk) 07:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
File:Aramoana1976.jpg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 ( talk) 04:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
In light of that I'd support keeping the image. Palmeira ( talk) 20:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)You can copy this item for personal use, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It cannot be used commercially without permission, please ask us for advice. If reproducing this item, please maintain the integrity of the image (i.e. don't crop, recolour or overprint it), and ensure the following credit accompanies it: Spray on the bow of Cook Strait ferry the Aramoana, Wellington Heads. Further negatives of the Evening Post newspaper. Ref: EP/1976/4101/21A-F. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. http://natlib.govt.nz/records/22464652
There is currently a discussion at Talk:Aircraft carrier#To include, or not to include... about what the scope of the Aircraft carrier article should be, especeally as to whether or not amphibious assault ships that operate STOVL aircraft should be included. Any help in reaching a clear consensus about this issue would be appreciated, as would any links to previous project discussions on the issue. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 04:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
image:French Guichen.jpg has been nominated fo rdeletion -- 70.24.249.39 ( talk) 22:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Image:CCGS Labrador.gif has been nominated fordeletion --- 70.24.249.39 ( talk) 22:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I recently cleaned up and added links to Hamilton and Scourge – 1982 Survey Expedition. I'm almost certain the page is at the wrong title. However, I am unacquainted with the naming conventions for ships, archaeology, etc. and a quick browse through the relevant categories didn't yield anything useful. Anyone know or have a good suggestion? Ideally something that doesn't involve short horizontal lines. -- erachima talk 00:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of Classes of Anti Aircraft Warfare Ships something that is useful to have in the Encyclopedia? If so, please either accept it (turn on the "Yet Another AFC Helper Script" gadget in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets to make it easy) or add an {{ afc comment}} below the existing comment(s) and an AFC reviewer will accept it for you. If it's not suitable, reject it or add an "afc comment" saying so. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 22:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
User:Yankeesman312 moved MS Costa Allegra to MS Annie Johnson. The move should be reverted as per WP:NC-SHIPS. There's a link to the move discussion on the talk page — please comment. Tupsumato ( talk) 04:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
A dilemma - The newspaper article (ref.1) about the 1940 sinking of Mona's Queen does not appear to be available online from from the original source. However, I have a copy of it (because I am related to Captain Holkham) and have reproduced the text on a (non-commercial) genealogical page of my (commercial) website.
As the article contains a great deal of information, including the names, addresses and fates of Mona's Queen's crew at the time of the sinking, and also details about the King Orry (also sunk at Dunkirk) I thought it would be helpful to have a link to the full text. Strictly speaking this would be an external link to my website but I would still like to make the content of the article available. I could put the whole text in the article, but would that be too much information? Any thoughts gratefully received. Thanks. Tony Holkham ( talk) 21:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
image:RMS Queen Mary Southampton 1965.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.181.39 ( talk) 02:59, 25 September 2013 (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 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 45 |
Something is off about this article in my mind. There's only one source that confirms the ship's existence (though it has a different length), and the rest are offline newspaper articles. The image is of a different ship's figurehead. So, can someone confirm that this ship did, in fact, exist as the article describes? I just find it hard to believe an article on what would seem to be an important ship (a) wasn't created before and/or (b) wasn't linked from anywhere before and/or (c) [especially] wasn't previously listed at List of shipwrecks in 1881 if it was that well-known. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello
I've been looking at the
Free Belgian navy during WW2, and in particular
HMS Godetia (K226). Evidence from original photos
(see here) indicates that the state flag, rather than the later naval ensign or national flag, was used on Free Belgian ships, but I cannot get the flag to work for the ship's infobox... anyone have any ideas on how to fix this?
Thanks! ---
Brigade Piron (
talk)
10:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
MV Golden Jubilee, which barely squeaks inside the project's scope (according to Lloyd's), has been nominated for deletion.
has been nominated for deletion. -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 11:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
The information for this ship was significantly lacking the official version of how it came into the Southwest Pacific Area command's permanent local fleet and under U.S. Army control and then a Dutch hospital ship, not Australian. Talk:AHS Tasman contains an outline of the information and the full documents are large .pdf files available for download. I've made changes in the article reflecting those references and strongly recommend a move of the article itself from the erroneous "AHS" title to something along the lines of "SS Tasman to reflect the facts and also provide a general ship title for expansion with pre/post war information. Request other eyes on the topic. The bones of that issue also apply to all the 21 KPM ships in the SWPA fleet, but full detail of "how" is almost an article in itself. Palmeira ( talk) 03:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm finding a few mis-titled items in the new British Library collection of Canadiana in the Commons, I'm thinking
File:General View of Kakabeka Falls and Gorge (HS85-10-14158).jpg (
File:Tug-of-war (HS85-10-17534).jpg) is mis-titled, unless there's a naval history/terminology reference I'm missing. The year is 1906, that looks to be Esquimalt Harbour, and that's most definitely not a tug, it's a battleship isn't it? Bigger than a destroyer, no? but I don't know what other classifications of vessels there are.. The
high-res version isn't sufficient to read any name on the ship that I can see. Maybe it's recognizable from its profile, or by knowing what ships were stationed at, or visiting, Esquimalt in 1906.
Skookum1 (
talk)
17:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, if the file is misnumbered then all the metadata will be wrong - title, caption, date, author, etc. (It's pure chance that this one was almost plausible and not, eg, titled "Sixteen Views of Toronto, 1921"). Andrew Gray ( talk) 11:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Back in April, the article steamship was split from existing content in steamboat. The distinction made here is that steamships are ocean-faring vessels and steamboats are smaller lake/river vessels. I don't really see the point of having separate articles that share so much content in terms of history and technology especially since the steamboat article was of reasonable size before the split. More importantly, the terms steamboats, steamships and steamers are (whether one likes it or not) often used interchangeably in various sources and in Wikipedia articles. Splitting the two articles thus leads to confusion and further problems since many incoming links to steamship should really be links to steamboat and vice-versa. It makes more sense to merge the two articles back into one in which the lede clearly explains the distinction. Pichpich ( talk) 18:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Can anybody help please with a query that I posted over at the Humanities Ref Desk; WP:RD/H#City_of_Benares_sinking? Alansplodge ( talk) 19:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I am planning on writing an article about a sailing vessel. How do I get the article to display the article name partly italicized? Do I need an infobox? The vessel is a so-called open-sea sailboat, I don't think she qualifies as a sail ship. Regards, Iselilja ( talk) 13:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
{{
italic title}}
. More complex article titles may require the magic word
{{DISPLAYTITLE}}
.I have nominated a project scope article Splash Class for deletion. Tupsumato ( talk) 05:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
It has been years since I was known as Simesa here -- Now I've spotted a major problem (which I first contacted user:Slambo about, and so have found you).
I can't find anything in Wikipedia on "Mississippi riverboats" or any similarly-named topic. I've explored a fair amount, and I can find a tiny article on "Riverboat casinos" and a couple on now-defunct modern steamboat replicas, but no articles on the core topic.
This would be a pretty big article (for example, some riverboats were used as "tinclad rams" in the American Civil War), and I'm not sure what to request. 68.80.191.1 ( talk) 15:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you all -- I inserted two wikilinks in appropriate places for others to follow. 68.80.191.1 ( talk) 00:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I just came across a hook over at DYK, that says "... that despite the superstition it is bad luck to change a ship's name, the cargo vessel SS Gallic had her name changed seven times during her 37 years in service?". Is it considered bad luck to change a ship's name, though? Many if not most of the ships I've written articles for have had their names changed at some point in their careers. Manxruler ( talk) 09:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
The wording in the proposed hook (now rejected) and in the article itself says that the name was changed "despite" or "in spite of" the superstition, which implies that those changing the name were aware of the belief and changed the name anyway. That seems to me to be a type of original research, for the purpose of having a catchy "hook". Kablammo ( talk) 13:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I have a nomination for a good topic of the four Milwaukee-class monitors of the Union Navy over at the GTC page in which one editor is questioning why the individual ships each deserve their own article (He'd prefer to see them folded into the main class article). Your comments are invited.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 03:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
File:Canadian Ramped Cargo Lighter.jpg is under discussion concerning its copyright status at WP:NFCR -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 06:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
In light of recent news, I am playing with this table in my sandbox. Do any of you Smart People have any idea how to proceed? Is there any site that might provide a source for such a list?
North Korean merchant ships
Name | Type | Length | Last observed |
---|---|---|---|
Chong Chon Gang | Bulk cargo | 155 metres (509 ft) | July 2013 [1] |
Dai Hong Dan | Bulk cargo | 122 metres (400 ft)122m | 2008 |
Kang Nam 1 | General cargo | 86 metres (282 ft) | 2012 |
Ra Nam 3 | Cargo | 81 metres (266 ft) | July 2013 |
Mangyongbong-92 | Ferry | 162 metres (531 ft) | July 2013 |
Mi Yang 8 | Cargo | 85 metres (279 ft) | July 2013 |
Oun Chong Nyon Ho | Cargo | 118 metres (387 ft) | [1] |
Paul, in Saudi ( talk) 13:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The usage of Wale ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Wale (rapper) -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 06:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
image:P&O European Ferries Logo.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 02:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
image:US Postage Stamp Monitor & Virginia.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 03:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Just wondering: I noticed that lifeboats and the organizations responsible for them have been edited out of the project as per not in the project's scope. Since they are literally a life and death issue for sailors I would like to know which WikiProject caters for them if not WPSHIPS. ÄDA - DÄP VA ( talk) 19:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Was there such a ship please? Kittybrewster ☎ 22:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
· CORNER, Robert - Commission dd. 21 Aug 1790. Appeared on 13 Oct.1790; received £33.1s.6d advance pay; paid £110.12s. ‘neat wages’ on 26 Oct.1792 · Age 37; from London. Prior to his appointment as 2nd. Lt to the Pandora, he was CO of a press gang operating from HMS Richard in the North Sea. It is interesting to note that a number of men in Corner’s press gang and from the Richard’s crew appear to have followed him to the Pandora (Adm. 36/11092) Hamilton (1793:27) mentions that Corner had been commissioned “in the land service” before joining the RN; Corner was first commissioned as an RN lieutenant in 1779 – at age 26. He was promoted to 1st Lieutenant of HMS Terrible in 1792 and also served as 1st lieutenant (1798-1802) in HMS Victory under Horatio Nelson’s command*. He ended his career as Superintendent of Marine Police in Malta; and was buried in February 1819, aged 66, in St Paul’s Cathedral (Valetta)
* But he was not on board the Victory at Trafalgar! Kittybrewster ☎ 14:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
There are currently nearly 1,000 articles in Category:Ship articles without infoboxes.
How about a dedicated drive during August to reduce the number of articles in this category to none? Mjroots ( talk) 20:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Just a quick hint for editors who want to help but don't know how to get started: one of the easiest ways to fill an infobox for existing ships is first to find out the classification society with e.g. Equasis (free subscription required) and then see if the classification society has a public database. The database entries often contain enough information to fill out the general characteristics section and at least current owner, port of registry etc. I did a bunch of CMA CGM container ships this morning in this way.
Also, don't forget the infobox guide and {{ cite ship register}}.
However, I can't help but wonder if all those ships need their own articles. Sure, they are big as heck, but is there anything else in them? Often, the article body consists of just one or two sentences... Tupsumato ( talk) 17:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Category:Royal Navy courts martial is under discussion here. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
This is now as done as it is likely to get. Many ships thought to be PDRK are flagged in Panama and elsewhere. One database says a certain ship is scrapped, another does not agree. In all case, I tried to stick to the sure things as much as possible. I hope you ship people will feel free to add this article anywhere it needs to be listed. For me it was an exercise to learn tables, I am unschooled in the wise ways of this project. Paul, in Saudi ( talk) 13:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite ship register}}
.<ref>{{cite ship register|register=E|id=7632955|shipname=Pho Thae|accessdate=2013-07-20}}</ref>
<ref>Equasis data base accessed July 2013</ref>
(or August), use this template. Putting the IMO number in |id=
, the ship's name in |shipname=
, and the date you saw the source data in |accessdate=
:
<ref>{{cite ship register|register=E|id=|shipname=|accessdate=}}</ref>
{{cite ship register|register=E|id=7712975|shipname=Al Iman|accessdate=2013-07-21}}
image:HMT Alvis at sea.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 02:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
{{
holdon|reasoning}}
on the file page then. --
76.65.128.222 (
talk)
00:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
image:APT AmaKaterina Cruise Ship.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 01:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
A possible change from year built to year captured has been raised at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships) Davidships ( talk) 09:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I am adding references to Lloyd's Register for the articles about some Second World War merchant ships. One for SS Blairspey has generated the scarlet admonition "Cite error: The named reference LR40 was invoked but never defined". As far as I can see I have applied exactly the same format as in other citations that are displaying properly. Applying the principle that it is easier to proof-read another person's work than one's own, someone please check the format and tell me where I went wrong? Thanks, Motacilla ( talk) 15:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Aaargh! No wonder I couldn't see the mistake. Thanks for fixing it. Best wishes, Motacilla ( talk) 13:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey all, just to note, there's a gallery of images of ships (among many other things) available online here. They are all PD-Canada (which means for the vast majority of them, they are also PD-US-URAA). There are many of the Canadian steamer SS Cayuga, which does not currently have an article. If some go-getter out there would like to write that article, he or she would have a plethora of images to use to illustrate it. Parsecboy ( talk) 17:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Anyone know about this? The article is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circular arc hull. How many ships use this, do you know of the names of any that have used this at any time in history, is it taught in ship schools, found in any university level textbooks? Dream Focus 23:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Please see
§Returning to formatting at {{
infobox ship begin}}
.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 23:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
The fate of the article HMCS Saskatchewan (H70) is under discussion, see Talk:HMS Fortune (H70) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 06:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The Royal Australian Navy is hosting an International Fleet Review at the start of October in Sydney Harbour. It's running from 3 to 11 October, and I'm taking most of that off work to get photographs of the ships attending. I'll be aiming to get general shots of all attending warships and tall ships, but if anyone needs a particular image (for example, from a particular view, or a closeup of a particular feature), let me know and I'll see what I can do for you.
I've put a list of attending ships up at User:Saberwyn/2013 RAN IFR ships. List any photo requests you have under the particular ship's section, along with any details I may need to get the shot you want. -- saberwyn 23:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you've noticed that the four templates, {{
GT}}
, {{
GRT}}
, {{
NetT}}
, {{
NRT}}
, while ostensibly similar, have dissimilar outputs given the same inputs:
Code | Renders as | Comments |
---|---|---|
|first=yes
| ||
{{GT|36000|first=yes}} |
36,000 GT | Improper output of units tons for a unitless specification; unformatted numerical value |
{{GRT|36000|first=yes}} |
36,000 GRT | |
{{NetT|36000|first=yes}} |
36,000 NT | tons units; unformatted |
{{NRT|36000|first=yes}} |
36,000 NRT | |
|first=short
| ||
{{GT|36000|first=short}} |
36,000 GT | Unformatted numerical value |
{{GRT|36000|first=short}} |
36,000 GRT | |
{{NetT|36000|first=short}} |
36,000 NT | Unformatted |
{{NRT|36000|first=short}} |
36,000 NRT | |
|first=<empty> or omitted
| ||
{{GT|36000|first=}} |
36,000 GT | Abbreviation linked; unformatted numerical value |
{{GRT|36000|first=}} |
36,000 GRT | |
{{NetT|36000|first=}} |
36,000 NT | Abbreviation linked; unformatted |
{{NRT|36000|first=}} |
36,000 NRT |
So I set about finding a way to have the templates produce similar outputs when given the same inputs. Also, |first=
has always bothered me. As a parameter name it is essentially meaningless since one cannot know what it means when assigned the value yes
(or any other value for that matter). To maintain legacy comparability, I have created a new parameter, |disp=
, that can have one of three values: long
, short
, and adj
. I also created a second parameter that modifies the output of the templates when |disp=long
or |disp=adj
. This parameter, |link=off
, turns off the wikilink when either of |disp=long
or |disp=adj
is specified.
The numerical value is now always formatted with comma separators.
Code | Renders as | |
---|---|---|
|disp=long
| ||
{{GT/sandbox|36000|disp=long}} |
36,000 gross tonnage (GT) | |
{{GRT/sandbox|36000|disp=long}} |
36,000 gross register tons (GRT) | |
{{NetT/sandbox|36000|disp=long}} |
36,000 net tonnage (NT) | |
{{NRT/sandbox|36000|disp=long}} |
36,000 net register tons (NRT) | |
|disp=short
| ||
{{GT/sandbox|36000|disp=short}} |
36,000
GT |disp=short
| |
{{GRT/sandbox|36000|disp=short}} |
36,000
GRT |disp=short
| |
{{NetT/sandbox|36000|disp=short}} |
36,000
NT |disp=short
| |
{{NRT/sandbox|36000|disp=short}} |
36,000
NRT |disp=short
| |
|disp=adj
| ||
{{GT/sandbox|36000|disp=adj}} |
36,000- gross tonnage (GT) | |
{{GRT/sandbox|36000|disp=adj}} |
36,000- gross register ton (GRT) | |
{{NetT/sandbox|36000|disp=adj}} |
36,000- net tonnage (NT) | |
{{NRT/sandbox|36000|disp=adj}} |
36,000- net register ton (NRT) | |
|disp=<empty> or omitted
| ||
{{GT/sandbox|36000|disp=}} |
36,000 GT | |
{{GRT/sandbox|36000|disp=}} |
36,000 GRT | |
{{NetT/sandbox|36000|disp=}} |
36,000 NT | |
{{NRT/sandbox|36000|disp=}} |
36,000 NRT | |
|disp=<empty> or omitted |link=off
| ||
{{GT/sandbox|36000|disp=|link=off}} |
36,000 GT | |
{{GRT/sandbox|36000|disp=|link=off}} |
36,000 GRT | |
{{NetT/sandbox|36000|disp=|link=off}} |
36,000 NT | |
{{NRT/sandbox|36000|disp=|link=off}} |
36,000 NRT | |
|disp=long |link=off
| ||
{{GT/sandbox|36000|disp=long|link=off}} |
36,000 gross tonnage (GT) | |
{{GRT/sandbox|36000|disp=long|link=off}} |
36,000 gross register tons (GRT) | |
{{NetT/sandbox|36000|disp=long|link=off}} |
36,000 net tonnage (NT) | |
{{NRT/sandbox|36000|disp=long|link=off}} |
36,000 net register tons (NRT) | |
|disp=adj |link=off
| ||
{{GT/sandbox|36000|disp=adj|link=off}} |
36,000-gross tonnage (GT) | |
{{GRT/sandbox|36000|disp=adj|link=off}} |
36,000-gross register ton (GRT) | |
{{NetT/sandbox|36000|disp=adj|link=off}} |
36,000-net tonnage (NT) | |
{{NRT/sandbox|36000|disp=adj|link=off}} |
36,000-net register ton (NRT) |
More complete examination of the new parameters as well as the legacy parameters can be found on the template testcases pages: {{
GT/testcases}}
, {{
GRT/testcases}}
, {{
NetT/testcases}}
, {{
NRT/testcases}}
.
Questions? Comments, Opinions?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 20:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
|disp=long
or |disp=adj
? I can imagine that in certain circumstances an editor may want to write something akin to "HMS Nonesuch, a 36,000,000-
gross tonnage stone frigate, sank at her moorings" or "there are very few stone frigates of 36,000,000
gross tonnage, HMS Nonesuch being an exemplar of the type." (I know, awkward, but ...)|first=yes
) in {{
GT/sandbox}}
and {{
NetT/sandbox}}
both output "gross(net) tonnage of <value>":
|first=yes
) is that the outputs no longer use the term "tons" (and <value> is comma formatted). In the current and proposed compatible versions of the templates, the parenthetical GT and NT simply identify GT and NT as initialisms of gross and net tonnage.{{
GT/sandbox}}
and {{
NetT/sandbox}}
to output gross tonnage and net tonnage instead of gross tons and net tons.|disp=long
, "<value> GT" for |disp=short
(or no parameter), links on by default, and drop the adjectives completely? Also, which parameter gives the output of "a gross tonnage (GT) of <value>"? I recall writing that out in some articles...{{GT|36000|first=short}}
: 36,000 GT (
gross tonnage). That functionality isn't going away. I think it's incorrectly worded because the parenthetical should be the inititalism not the definition, but since it's legacy code I won't change it unless there is a compelling reason to do so.|disp=short
. The links are off for no parameters. I chose to have links off as the default because if the template is used multiple times in the article, it's more work for the editor to turn-off the links of the many rather than turn on the link of the one and so avoid overlinking.{{GT|36000|first=yes}}
:
gross tonnage (GT) of 36,000.|disp=short
if they use any parameters other than <value>.|link=off
to unlink.Similar to the above, {{
DWT/sandbox}}
adds the same features: |disp=long
, |disp=adj
, both supporting |link=off
, and |disp=short
. The positional parameter (also called |units=
supports values metric
and long
which controls how the DWT units are displayed. When the {{{2}}}
/ |units=
is not present or empty, {{DWT}}
falls back to the generic tons.
Code | Renders as | |
---|---|---|
|disp=long
| ||
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|disp=long}} |
36,000 tons deadweight (DWT) | |
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|metric|disp=long}} |
36,000 tonnes deadweight (DWT) | |
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|long|disp=long}} |
36,000 long tons deadweight (DWT) | |
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|disp=long|link=off}} |
36,000 tons deadweight (DWT) | |
|disp=adj
| ||
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|disp=adj}} |
36,000-ton deadweight (DWT) | |
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|metric|disp=adj}} |
36,000-tonne deadweight (DWT) | |
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|long|disp=adj}} |
36,000-long ton deadweight (DWT) | |
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|disp=adj|link=off}} |
36,000-ton deadweight (DWT) | |
|disp=short
| ||
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|disp=short}} |
36,000 |disp=short
| |
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|metric|disp=short}} |
36,000 |disp=short
| |
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|long|disp=short}} |
36,000 |disp=short
| |
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|disp=short|link=off}} |
36,000 |disp=short
| |
|disp=<empty>
| ||
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|disp=}} |
36,000 DWT | |
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|metric|disp=}} |
36,000 t DWT | |
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|long|disp=}} |
36,000 LT DWT | |
{{DWT/sandbox|36000|disp=|link=off}} |
36,000 DWT |
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 17:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
|link=off
to unlink.Thanks to you two for taking this on. Consistency and simplicity are needed. We should not return "tonnage" for one measure and "tons" for another. Make it tonnage for both, or (my personal preference) "x gross tons", "x net register tons", etc. I agree with Tupsumato in his penultimate point: the plural (tons) is indicated when it follows the figure. Kablammo ( talk) 16:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
|adj=
version is intended to be used much the same way that we would write a 30-meter sloop but not write a 30-meters sloop. So, we would write a 36,000-gross tonnage (GT) skow, or a 36,000-gross register ton (GRT) skow, or a 36,000-tonne deadweight (DWT) skow but not write a 36,000 gross tonnage (GT) skow, a 36,000 gross register tons (GRT) skow, or a 36,000 tons deadweight (DWT) skow.Could the experts here please examine the suggestion made at
Talk:Man-of-war#Delete Man-of-war article? If the assessment given there is correct, the easiest solution might be to turn the article
Man-of-war into a redirect to
Warship, add a mention of the term there and remove the links to the article from navigation boxes and the like. The etymology should be moved to
wikt:man-of-war, where there is currently none. I don't know enough about naval terminology, myself, I only just stumbled over the article and saw all the templates plastered over the page, so I checked the talk page and saw the assertions that man-of-war lacks an agreed-on definition and is mostly just an archaic expression for battleships warships. --
Florian Blaschke (
talk)
14:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
The number of unassessed ships articles suddently went up from less than one hundred to over 300. Since I check the category almost daily, it must have happened overnight or, at most, within the past few days I've been busy. Most of these new articles seem to be redirects to existing and assessed articles. Whoever did this or does this in the future, if you create a large number of redirects and tag them for the project(s), could you also add |class=redirect
to the project template so that someone else wouldn't have to go through each talk page and assess them individually?
Tupsumato (
talk)
06:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
file:Santisima Trinidad harried by Terpsichore.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 ( talk) 07:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
image:MV Kidjang.JPG has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 ( talk) 07:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
File:Aramoana1976.jpg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 ( talk) 04:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
In light of that I'd support keeping the image. Palmeira ( talk) 20:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)You can copy this item for personal use, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It cannot be used commercially without permission, please ask us for advice. If reproducing this item, please maintain the integrity of the image (i.e. don't crop, recolour or overprint it), and ensure the following credit accompanies it: Spray on the bow of Cook Strait ferry the Aramoana, Wellington Heads. Further negatives of the Evening Post newspaper. Ref: EP/1976/4101/21A-F. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. http://natlib.govt.nz/records/22464652
There is currently a discussion at Talk:Aircraft carrier#To include, or not to include... about what the scope of the Aircraft carrier article should be, especeally as to whether or not amphibious assault ships that operate STOVL aircraft should be included. Any help in reaching a clear consensus about this issue would be appreciated, as would any links to previous project discussions on the issue. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 04:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
image:French Guichen.jpg has been nominated fo rdeletion -- 70.24.249.39 ( talk) 22:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Image:CCGS Labrador.gif has been nominated fordeletion --- 70.24.249.39 ( talk) 22:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I recently cleaned up and added links to Hamilton and Scourge – 1982 Survey Expedition. I'm almost certain the page is at the wrong title. However, I am unacquainted with the naming conventions for ships, archaeology, etc. and a quick browse through the relevant categories didn't yield anything useful. Anyone know or have a good suggestion? Ideally something that doesn't involve short horizontal lines. -- erachima talk 00:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of Classes of Anti Aircraft Warfare Ships something that is useful to have in the Encyclopedia? If so, please either accept it (turn on the "Yet Another AFC Helper Script" gadget in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets to make it easy) or add an {{ afc comment}} below the existing comment(s) and an AFC reviewer will accept it for you. If it's not suitable, reject it or add an "afc comment" saying so. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 22:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
User:Yankeesman312 moved MS Costa Allegra to MS Annie Johnson. The move should be reverted as per WP:NC-SHIPS. There's a link to the move discussion on the talk page — please comment. Tupsumato ( talk) 04:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
A dilemma - The newspaper article (ref.1) about the 1940 sinking of Mona's Queen does not appear to be available online from from the original source. However, I have a copy of it (because I am related to Captain Holkham) and have reproduced the text on a (non-commercial) genealogical page of my (commercial) website.
As the article contains a great deal of information, including the names, addresses and fates of Mona's Queen's crew at the time of the sinking, and also details about the King Orry (also sunk at Dunkirk) I thought it would be helpful to have a link to the full text. Strictly speaking this would be an external link to my website but I would still like to make the content of the article available. I could put the whole text in the article, but would that be too much information? Any thoughts gratefully received. Thanks. Tony Holkham ( talk) 21:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
image:RMS Queen Mary Southampton 1965.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.181.39 ( talk) 02:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)