![]() | 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 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | → | Archive 45 |
USNS 1st. Lt. Harry L. Martin (T-AK-3015) hit a bridge in Jacksonville, FL today. Any chance this red link could be turned blue? - The Bushranger One ping only 21:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
image:Voice-of-peace-ship.jpg has been nominmated for deletion -- 65.92.181.39 ( talk) 05:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
File:OldKyle.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.181.39 ( talk) 03:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
image:Medina-maiden-voyage.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.181.39 ( talk) 03:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi all. I've been taking and uploading photographs of the ongoing RAN International Fleet review, but I need the help of other editors to categorise, sort, and caption them all, because at the moment I've not got time to do more than upload and run. I've been collating the image at User:Saberwyn/2013 RAN IFR ships, or alternately, look at my Commons contributions (which at the moment is nothing but IFR uploads). Any assistance would be greatly appreciated!
Also, if I've failed to upload photos of any of the attending vessels, or if there's a particular ship or piece of equipment you want a shot of for an article, let me know and I'll do what I can. -- saberwyn 20:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
image:Grand Fleet sails.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.129.3 ( talk) 05:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello. Another editor and I are in a dispute whether the word "continental" should be added to SMS Gneisenau to refer to the mainland coast of Chile (as opposed to Easter Island) - the edit in question is here. This has been brought up for discussion here, and I invite others to share their opinions. Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 14:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
So far as I'm aware, WPSHIPS is the only part of Wikipedia that bans bullets in infoboxes. Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines states "Bullet points should never be used in infoboxes. If it is necessary to create a list of items within an infobox, for example, a list of a ship's weapons, the items should be separated using the HTML markup <br />, or the {{br}} or {{plainlist}} templates."
I know there used to be a technical reason (bullets didn't work well in infoboxes way back when), but that was resolved years ago. Given that there's no technical reason why we shouldn't use bullets in infoboxes, I guess the only remaining reason would be style. I find it odd that this particular style quirk applies only at WPSHIPS, and in any case, there are thousands of ship articles that do in fact use bullets in infoboxes (like HMS Daring (D32)) without detracting from the impact - and in fact, it's a powerful way to present a host of technical data (compare the block of incomprehensible data at USS Nimitz (CVN-68)). If it's good enough for Nelson, surely it's good enough for his ships?
Even the navigation bar on the left of my Wikipedia page uses bullets (I know it's not an infobox, but it serves the same purpose in a similar format). The Main Page uses bullets in a style similar to an infobox. An example of other types of page that use bullets in infoboxes would include TV programmes (eg. Q Who), places ( Le Cailar, Berkshire), military units ( Para Commandos (India)) and planets ( Uranus).
Many projects divide their infoboxes up like tables, making bullets unnecessary to separate blocks of technical data (elements; eg. Hydrogen). Others use icons instead of bullets to do the same (transportation; eg. Ontario Highway 17). WPSHIPS does not use these approaches.
Given that this MOS guidance is often ignored, I would like understand if there is any reason to maintain this widely-flouted rule. I for one consider that the bullets actually enhance the readability of the lists of technical information, and would want to remove the rule for that reason alone.
Thoughts? Shem ( talk) 19:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi all, if you've got a minute, could you review the FLC candidacy of List of battleships of Italy? It's been up for a month and has only garnered one review so far. Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 15:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
What is the correct article title for Vladivostok (Russian ship)? It was moved in July from Russian ship Vladivostok (Mistral class). Its sister ship is still at Russian ship Sevastopol (Mistral class). Also, does the class name need to be included in the title? When or when not?
Also, are there any guidleines regarding ship classes, and when ships purchased by other navies should be considered to be of separate class or sub-classes? Vladivostok and Sevastopol are both included in the Mistral-class amphibious assault ship article, while the Canberra-class landing helicopter dock ships aren't considered to be Juan Carlos I. I do understand that the Russian Navy doesn't name its ship classes after the lead ship in the Western tradition, but most WP articles on Russian ship classes do use the lead ship's name. Exampleas are the Kuznetsov-class aircraft carrier and Kiev-class aircraft carrier articles. Also, should we have a separate class article on the Vladivostok-class amphibious assault ships? Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 15:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I am told by an experienced editor that flag icons are acceptable in Ship infoboxes. Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide#Infobox ship career states "The nation of registry should be expressed as text, not as a flag symbol. A flag symbol may be used in addition, but only if such usage meets Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons." This section of the MOS states "Avoid flag icons in infoboxes ... Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text." Have I missed something? Should this exception for Ship infoboxes be explicitly stated? I don't have a strong feeling for or against flagicons, but would like a clearer statement of policy. Finavon ( talk) 17:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Per the above discussion, I propose to add an exclusion at WP:MOSFLAG stating that the use of flags in ship infoboxes is accepted practice. Will do so at the weekend unless there are any serious objections. Mjroots ( talk) 19:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Done
Mjroots (
talk) 15:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Quick question:
In Alexander's case this is to separate her from other ships of the same name. In Friendship's case there are no other civilian ship articles of the same name, so the reason for using the suffix (date) instead of (ship) is unclear. Note that these were not Royal Navy vessels and their existence predates the 1939 naming system referred to Ship prefix. Interested in views on a consistent naming approach for these vessels:
I prefer option 1 but won't die in a ditch about it. Any opinions? Euryalus ( talk) 03:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Please could one or more people from this project have a look at the current move requests listed at Talk:USS_General_Harry_Taylor_(AP-145) and Talk:USS_General_R._E._Callan_(AP-139)? It appears as if the ships have had two names at different times in their history, and I don't know if WP Ships has any policy on which name to choose in these circumstances. So far there has been no response at all to the requests in three weeks of listing! Thanks — Amakuru ( talk) 09:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MV Seaman Guard Ohio incident may be of interest to the project. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Template:sclass- is currently showing "Unrecognized format value" and "ERROR: invalid option 6" under format option 6. Could somebody have a look at it? Shem ( talk) 20:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
{{
sclass-}}
has always only recognized format parameter values 0–5. On the documentation page, format parameter 6 is intended to illustrate that that value is invalid and to show what happens when it is used. There was no reason to support the {{
sclass}}
format parameter 6 which itself is deprecated because it produced incorrect output. That is fixed in the current version which merely duplicates the functionality available with format parameter 1.{{scalss-}}
with format parameter 6?There is a current discussion at Talk:Motor_Torpedo_Boat#Requested_move_20_October_2013 relating to a proposed move from Motor Torpedo Boat to Motor torpedo boat that also relates to proposed moves for Steam Gun Boat, Motor Gun Boat and to the uncapitalized forms, and may also touch upon the capitalization in other articles ( Sea Control Ship, Landing Craft Assault for instance). GraemeLeggett ( talk) 23:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
This AfD may be of interest to the project. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Is this a painting of USRC Hamilton (1830)? Don't want to add it to the article in error. Thanks, Calliopejen1 ( talk) 19:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
The SS William S. Ladd article was almost entirely written by Buster40004 ( talk · contribs). We can safely assume that there are major copyright issues here.
Therefore I propose that the article is deleted, leaving the title free for an editor in good standing to write a new article. Any volunteers? Mjroots ( talk) 20:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. User:Mjroots asked my opinion here. :) First, I'd like to say how grateful I am that you guys are looking at this. The copyright problems backlog is horrendous, and it's tremendously helpful to have people who know the field pitching in. In terms of handling, either approach is valid. As a general rule of thumb, I prefer not to delete what I don't have to, but CCIs are complicated. I sometimes determine my own approach after seeing the general pattern evolve with the CCI. When a CCI subject uses a lot of offline resources, for instance, and can be shown to have copied major articles repeatedly, I'm more likely to presumptively delete, as provided in WP:CV. (" If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately.") If their pattern is generally more one of close paraphrasing, I try not to do that.
What worries me about User:Buster40004 is his use of offline resources. As noted at Talk:Gun_carriage, he has taken major passages from books, and the only way I have to discover that is if those books are at least preview accessible on Google books and if those previews sample the relevant section. That can be really hard to work with. :/ (He does seem to have relied heavily on PD sources as well, though, which is helpful, as they only need proper attribution per WP:Plagiarism.) I believe he is generally citing his sources, but I could not say yet if that can be fully relied upon. My gut says that he meant no harm and probably can be trusted to have said where he got the material. This is not the pattern I usually see when a contributor is deliberately flaunting the copyright rules. But only after a few more issues are disclosed will that pattern become more certain. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar is offered to any editor who is willing to write a new article on the SS William S. Ladd. Online sources uses by Buster40004 -
Book sources used by Buster40004 -
Other sources mentioned by Buster40004 -
Additional source
If you start an article in your sandbox, it can be moved once the current article is deleted. Mjroots ( talk) 21:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
A new article, Glenn Marine Group, has just been created, not by me, primarily in connection with a bribery investigation by the USN's NCIS. I have no idea how to categorize the article, or what projects should be covered by. Anyone hsve any ideas? Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 08:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
While (probably?) not within the project's scope, this AfD may be of interest to its members. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Members of this Project may be interested in a proposal to improve the article on the clipper ship City of Adelaide in time for the ship's planned arrival in Australia in February. See Talk:City of Adelaide (1864). Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck ( talk) 11:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
An anon is claiming that ships do not take the definite article. As an example, in HMS Terror (1813), he/she changed:
to
Is this accurate? I tend to doubt it, per The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
This may be of interest to the project. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
A dynamic IP is adding long, rambling (and repeated) OR-laden NOTFORUM violations here. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Can anyone identify this Peruvian ship, for the benefit of the Ecuadorian–Peruvian War article? Thanks! Brigade Piron ( talk) 07:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I recently discovered that there was once a ship of the same name as my home village. After a bit of research I've managed to knock up an article. One thing bothers me though, the year of her building. A source claims she was built in 1814, whilst an advert of 1817 describes her as "new built". It is possible that the advert is nearer the truth and that 1814 is a typo (easily done on the numeric keypad). Is there anyone who can decipher the Lloyd's register entry or find another source for her date of building and make the necessary amendment. Mjroots ( talk) 09:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
The online editions of Lloyd's Register of Shipping (links from http://www.lr.org/about_us/shipping_information/Lloyds_Register_of_Ships_online.aspx) seem to point to a build in 1813 (she was described as "5 years old" in the 1818 edition and this is consistent through to her being 10 years old in 1823 edition. She is not in the 1813 edition (including the "new entries" supplement near the end). Unfortunately 1814-1817 are missing (unless you can see the images of the 1815 pages). This may not have been the only Hadlow - LR did not list anything like every vessel - but she is the one covered by the article. A search of the original London registers for the 1813-1814 should confirm when in fact she was built and the builder (though that would be OR). The earlier LRs have owner as Buckles & Co, changing it later to Parker & Co. On her fate, LR 1824 & 1825 give master as Pounder. Perhaps the 9/1823 reference refers to a different Hadlow? A good source to clarify would be Lloyd's List newspaper [not available online]. Davidships ( talk) 23:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
The article mentioned just above mentions USS Cyane (1815), which is the same vessel as HMS Cyane (1806) These are separate articles, and the latter has some content on the vessel's career with the USN which is not in the former. I don't know if a merger is appropriate under current policy (and I don't advocate one, as the careers with the RN and USN could support two articles) but if anyone wants to do more to separate the two careers, have at it! (I do not have the sources.) Kablammo ( talk) 16:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I've been looking at these and working on them on and off for several years. I just took a fairly deep look, and I see that things need some work. I'm willing and able to do the work, but I'm wondering if there are others who are interested in helping, advising, etc.
I got into this when I became aware that recent changes in shipbuilding have obsoleted some very old procedures and ceremonies. I don't yet have sources for this, but I learned it from conversations with shipbuilders.
The milestones in construction of a modern U.S. Navy ship are, or at least seem to be:
The various articles need to be updated to show these changes. Also the existing articles often combine shipbuilding aspects with ceremonial aspects, which doesn't always make for smooth flow.
There's a template at the bottom of many ship articles. It's helpful, but sometimes confusing. The entries are:
There are probably other articles that could be referenced from the template. One is Naval Vessel Register.
I mention all this stuff, not necessarily with specific suggestions, but as a guide for possible improvement in the template. Lou Sander ( talk) 17:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
It has always seemed improper for {{
navsource}}
to blindly italicize the whole of a ship's name:
{{navsource|04/081/04081|USS Houston (CA-30)}}
→
Photo gallery of USS Houston (CA-30) at NavSource Naval HistoryThat can be gotten 'round by the judicious use of {{
noitalics}}
but I'd really rather not:
{{navsource|04/081/04081|{{noitalics|USS}} Houston {{noitalics|(CA-30)}}}}
→
Photo gallery of USS Houston (CA-30) at NavSource Naval History no nationality or prefix;So, in {{
navsource/sandbox}}
is the fix to that. This version takes either the name that is given in positional parameter {{{2}}}
or, if no name is provided, the page name, and formats it in the same way that {{
infobox ship begin}}
formats a page title.
{{navsource/sandbox|04/081/04081|Houston}}
→
Photo gallery of Houston at NavSource Naval History no nationality or prefix;{{navsource/sandbox|04/081/04081|USS Houston}}
→
Photo gallery of USS Houston at NavSource Naval History{{navsource/sandbox|04/081/04081|USS Houston (CA-30)}}
→
Photo gallery of USS Houston (CA-30) at NavSource Naval HistoryAnd taking the name of this page, here is the great ship WikiProject Ships:
{{navsource/sandbox|04/081/04081}}
→
Photo gallery of WikiProject Ships/Archive 39 at NavSource Naval History no nationality or prefix;It should be noted that this doesn't work (empty positional parameter {{{2}}}
):
{{navsource/sandbox|04/081/04081|}}
→
Photo gallery of WikiProject Ships/Archive 39 at NavSource Naval History no nationality or prefix;I'll work on that.
This, however, does work so there shouldn't be much downside to implementing the sandbox version once I fix the problem noted above:
{{navsource/sandbox|04/081/04081|{{noitalics|USS}} Houston {{noitalics|(CA-30)}}}}
→
Photo gallery of USS Houston (CA-30) at NavSource Naval History no nationality or prefix;— Trappist the monk ( talk) 21:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
{{
navsource}}
from the sandbox.Thoughts? [3]
Should submarine speeds be presented as:
15.6 kn (28.9 km/h) surfaced 17.2 kn (31.9 km/h) submerged [1] 6.1 kn (11.3 km/h) (silent running motors) |
or as:
15.6 kn (28.9 km/h) ↑ 17.2 kn (31.9 km/h) ↓ [1] 6.1 kn (11.3 km/h) (silent running motors) |
To my mind, the arrows are barely visible and are much less clear as to why we have two speeds. Andy Dingley ( talk) 20:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
On a side note, please use the conversion template without attributes ("{{convert|12|kn}}" → "12 knots (22 km/h; 14 mph)") in the infobox. Tupsumato ( talk) 13:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I have renewed the proposal to move Minesweeper (ship) to Minesweeper, due to hundreds of links to Minesweeper referring to the ship. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 01:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Before I propose this article for deletion, can anybody think of a reason for keeping it? Am I, perhaps, being overzealous? Shem ( talk) 19:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll put it up for deletion and post a notification here. Shem ( talk) 16:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The article Super battleship (warship) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Shem (
talk) 16:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The MV Bni Nsar article has bee nominated for deletion. Mjroots ( talk) 10:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be an ideal goal to use templates like Template:USS and Template:HMS everywhere that a ship is identified (or should be identified) with a presentation that these templates support. This will insure that ship names are properly italicized, and that the presentation of these names will be consistent throughout Wikipedia in a variety of formats (for example, with or without the leading USS or HMS), and that if a change is needed in that format, it can be made systemwide instantly. It has been suggested to me that we could have a bot template all the ship names like this, if WikiProject Ships supports that as a goal. Does this sound like a good idea? - WPGA2345 - ☛ 05:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I have tagged HMS Strongbow (1916) for speedy deletion as a copyvio of http://www.hmsstrongbow.org.uk/sinking.htm. Nigel Ish ( talk) 18:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi all. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of light cruisers of Germany/archive1 has been up for a month and a half and has only garnered one review so far. If you have the time, I'd greatly appreciate it if you could review the list against the Featured List criteria. The list is the capstone to this otherwise finished 71-article Good Topic. Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 14:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I have just created a new article, SS Abukir. Old copies of Lloyd's Register cite the power of ocean-going ships as NHP, but for very small ships they tend to give "RHP" (Rated Horsepower) instead. What is Rated Horsepower, and should Wikipedia's Horsepower article be expanded to include a section explaining it?
Best wishes, Motacilla ( talk) 13:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I struggle to find non-copyright photos of old merchant ships. I'd be very grateful to anyone who can help me to find ones of SS Abukir and SS Oropesa (1920) for their new articles. Alternatively, is it allowed to use WP:NONFREE photos on the basis that the subjects were sunk or scrapped decades ago and there's scant chance of finding a non-copyright photo of them? Wikimedia does not allow non-free content, so how does one upload such photos to Wikipedia?
Best wishes, Motacilla ( talk) 13:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
A stub M/V Plancius and a bit better piece on the same vessel at HNLMS Tydeman (A906) should be merged or perhaps the first just deleted by someone interested in this vessel. Ran across duplication while looking for references to WW II era KPM ship SS Plancius (1923) that was in convoy BM.12 along with RMS Empress of Asia bringing the last troops into Singapore, acted as a "hotel" during the seige and carried refugees from Singapore and Java to Colombo under escort by HMS Durban (D99). That vessel is a potential subject with a prewar history involving Singapore and the NEI and a photo in Commons so future disambiguation might be considered. Palmeira ( talk) 15:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Staygyro ( talk) recently made multiple moves of this article and its talk page, breaking the link with its history and between the talk page and its proper article page. Can I get an admin to revert all of those pointless and damaging changes?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 20:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
The S/V Rembrandt van Rijn article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots ( talk) 09:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The above AfD discussion has shown that we really need to lay down a notability guideline for ships. Military vessels are held to be inherently notable per WP:MILUNIT. Merchant vessels can be harder to argue the notability for.
As far as I understand it, this WP holds that ships of over 100' long or 100 ton(ne)s measurement (undefined) fall under the scope of this WP and are capable of sustaining articles subject to coverage in independent reliable sources. Shipping registers such as Lloyd's and the Danish Handelsministeriet count as independent and reliable.
Vessels under 100/100 fall outside the scope of this WP, but may still be capable of sustaining articles subject to the above. Mjroots ( talk) 10:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Tupsumato's approach and agree that notability cannot rely on size, but an individual ship needs to have some inherantly notable aspect - not necessarily a particular event, may also be the vessel's characteristics (eg prototype, largest, age), presence in the public eye (a cruise ship) etc. Non-notable ships can still have their place in appropriate articles (eg shipyard lists, ship-class and shipowner articles). There are enough notable ships to keep us busy for our lifetimes. Davidships ( talk) 11:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment: Size does not matter, I would say. Pinta falls short of the 100/100 rule but I don't think anyone objects of her being included in the project. Notability is best answered by the fact that a ship is mentioned in reliable sources. With the usual leeway. But rather than duplicating registers of shipping, there should be some story to tell other than sailed from X to Y carrying a cargo of Z. ÄDA - DÄP VA ( talk) 13:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Tupsumato's approach is one I have proposed before resulting in complete rejection. It needs reconsideration and ÄDA - DÄP makes a good point about "articles" just duplicating registry entries. I dislike some of the "drive by" delete tagging for ships appearing to have noting notable without any effort to do a proper search, i.e., simply checking for other names and IMO number searches, yet the fact remains that even an expert search for many commercial vessels will turn up nothing except basic registry facts of existence and characteristics. The recent case is of a ferry that of late is notable only in its disrepute with some rather flagrant detentions for sanitary and safety issues that caused me to somewhat reluctantly recommend "Keep" largely because someone with local sources might develop that angle. Nothing can change the fact that most commercial vessels go from delivery to breakers plodding along and even if we got into corporate records we would find nothing more interesting that port calls, tons or passengers or catch landed along with maintenance stuff. Other ships, as with some of the small and obscure vessels of the first part of the 20th century, have one brief period of real notability that I think makes them worthy of an article—wartime service and mention in histories—sufficient to be a pass for them. Actually, the same goes for most naval vessels and individual "articles" about patrol, yard and district type craft make little sense. If the U.S. Navy's ship loving Histories Branch cannot come up with more than one or two very short paragraphs on such a vessel even the military exception makes no sense and a listing, for those so inclined, would be more than sufficient.
Consideration should be given to approval of the system now in use for Empire ships for the ships without more notability than facts of existence. That would provide a place holder that would satisfy searches, though I would propose expansion accommodating dimensions in brief format such as L x B x D. Then, if someone found citeable records of true note, the entry could sustain a "Main article" link and a full entry. Another example can be seen in List of Australian hospital ships and certainly one I would take if I ever get around to more extensive coverage of the KPM ships that served so vitally under U.S. Army SWPA control in 1942 and throughout the war as even those critical workhorses largely plodded along without much "mention in dispatches" that remain available. For existing stub "articles" someone could usefully merge such stubs into logical groupings by builder, nationality, line or other such designation. Palmeira ( talk) 14:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
In random passing, help appreciated in where to look for sources on HMAS Kiama's 24 years in the RNZN (1952-1976). The remainder of the article is sourced but a little sparse. This section however covers the longest period of the ship's existence and has rightly been tagged as unsourced for more than five years. Am not an expert on NZ naval history but keen on improving this article nonetheless.
Suggestions and pointers gratefully received. Euryalus ( talk)
A proposal to merge the articles USCGC Jarvis (WHEC-725) and BNS Somudro Joy (F-28) has been suggested. Discussion can be found on the talk page Talk:USCGC Jarvis (WHEC-725). Interested editors please take note. Cuprum17 ( talk) 17:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I suggest that this wikiproject implement the new "Draft"-class and categorize into Category: Draft-Class Ships articles, for pages in the WP:Drafts namespace that was recently initiated. This would allow tracking of articles related to this wikiproject that are in draft form, which members of this wikiproject may wish to improve and move into the mainspace. -- 76.65.128.112 ( talk) 00:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering if there shouldn't he a separate article for the icebound icebreakers in Antarctica saga, now that multiple ships need rescuing. And what title such an article should have. -- 76.65.128.112 ( talk) 23:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello all. I just found these. Can they be used as they do not display any copyright protection and are available for the press to use? MrDerails ( talk) 20:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I note that someone has updated the Algoma Montrealais article based on some comments with one of the pictures on the shipspotting.com webpage. Personally, I have not seen an official notice that this ship will be scrapped, so think that these comments should be considered personal opinion or rumours (admittedly well spread rumours).
My question is "are comments like these considered factual enough for Wiki?" Thanks Cpfan776 ( talk) 20:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Is HMAS Beryl II ex HMS Beryl of the First World War? Could someone look into this and provide references and expand if this is the case? Regards Newm30 ( talk) 21:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at this DYK nomination? The initial reviewer has dropped off the radar. Thanks. EricSerge ( talk) 14:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Not a part of this group, but was just doing some family history reasearch on an ancestor who came to Australia with the 46th Regiment of foot in 1814, and came across some history for the ship that is not on the wiki page, I think it could be the same ship and thought someone might like to add it to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_ship_Lautaro_(1818)
source:- 46th foot.com www.hargreave-mawson.demon.co.uk/46th.html
cheers Jodie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.200.205.120 ( talk) 18:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
The article Lucinda (steamboat) is tagged as needing geo-coordinates. What does location(s) do you use for this purpose (ships being somewhat mobile)? Kerry ( talk) 06:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster ( talk) 23:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC).
During WWII, Germany built a number of standard cargo vessels, their equivalent of the Liberty ships. These were the Hansa A type cargo ship, Hansa B type cargo ship and the Hansa C type cargo ship. Has anyone got the sources to write the articles? There are apparently some German books on the subject. Mjroots ( talk) 11:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Please be aware that Portuguese merchant ships in service between 1830 and 1910 should be flagged with {{Flag|Portugal|civil}} (
) and not {{flag|Portugal|1830}}(
). I've now amended the relevant template to support the civil flag, which it didn't previously.
Mjroots (
talk) 08:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I have posed a question on the identity of one of the vessels shown in File:Australia Station Squadron (AWM 304426).jpg at the talk page at Commons. At least according to our article, HMS Alert (1856), the ship in question, was nowhere near Australia when the image was taken. Nick-D, Rcbutcher or anyone else, can you shed any light on this question? Many thanks. Kablammo ( talk) 18:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I love history but I'm really not a naval guru on that aspect. I really like the Eastern front during World War 2 and the cliche Allied drive from Normandy, and i came across a article request for Ships of the United States during World War II and i instantly thought that someone in this wikiproject would know more about it and would like to do this. The article request can be seen here and it is under the category "United States military history" towards the bottom of the page. Thanks, Jcfrommn ( talk) 23:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Whilst we're discussing lists of ships, would it be worth having a similar set-up to List of aircraft by tail number for ships that have articles on Wikipedia. Obviously with so many ships, we'd need to split into 25 lists (W and X would combine). Lists could have such info as ship name, builder, year of launch, code letters, call sign, Official Number, IMO Number, MMSI Number as applicable. These lists would only be for vessels that have an article, not those with list entries only. Mjroots ( talk) 22:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
While outside the scope of the project, Mini-Cup has been nominated for deletion, which may be of interest to project members. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
What is the current fate of the 12 Naval Infantry Brigade of the Yugoslav navy? In the article there is no direct indication that it disbanded. 90.189.106.180 ( talk) 02:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi WikiProject Ships. Is there any reason the ship names aren't italicized in the titles of Anglona (clipper), Bristol (1866), Charles H. Marshall (ship) and Coronet (yacht)? It was my understanding that ship names should be italicized in article titles (as they are in the body of the articles) but when I found so many articles where that wasn't the case, I thought there might be a reason. Any enlightenment you could provide would be appreciated. Thanks. DH85868993 ( talk) 01:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
{{
italic title}}
adds an extra processing step between the an unitalicized title and {{DISPLAYTITLE}}
(the
behavior switch, not the template) but that's trivial. For some titles, it may be necessary to use {{DISPLAYTITLE}}
.{{italic title}}
or {{DISPLAYTITLE}}
right at the top with {{
use dmy dates}}
or other similar templates and ahead of {{
Infobox ship begin}}
. As far as I know,
WP:SHIPS doesn't take a position on this.Can we get some insight on this article subject at its deletion discussion please? Candleabracadabra ( talk) 18:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
New article Endeavour II (barque). Be glad if any of you all would give it the once over. -Arb. ( talk) 19:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).
Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.
If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot ( talk) (for Mr. Z-man) 05:25, 23 February 2014 (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 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | → | Archive 45 |
USNS 1st. Lt. Harry L. Martin (T-AK-3015) hit a bridge in Jacksonville, FL today. Any chance this red link could be turned blue? - The Bushranger One ping only 21:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
image:Voice-of-peace-ship.jpg has been nominmated for deletion -- 65.92.181.39 ( talk) 05:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
File:OldKyle.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.181.39 ( talk) 03:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
image:Medina-maiden-voyage.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.181.39 ( talk) 03:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi all. I've been taking and uploading photographs of the ongoing RAN International Fleet review, but I need the help of other editors to categorise, sort, and caption them all, because at the moment I've not got time to do more than upload and run. I've been collating the image at User:Saberwyn/2013 RAN IFR ships, or alternately, look at my Commons contributions (which at the moment is nothing but IFR uploads). Any assistance would be greatly appreciated!
Also, if I've failed to upload photos of any of the attending vessels, or if there's a particular ship or piece of equipment you want a shot of for an article, let me know and I'll do what I can. -- saberwyn 20:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
image:Grand Fleet sails.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.129.3 ( talk) 05:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello. Another editor and I are in a dispute whether the word "continental" should be added to SMS Gneisenau to refer to the mainland coast of Chile (as opposed to Easter Island) - the edit in question is here. This has been brought up for discussion here, and I invite others to share their opinions. Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 14:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
So far as I'm aware, WPSHIPS is the only part of Wikipedia that bans bullets in infoboxes. Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines states "Bullet points should never be used in infoboxes. If it is necessary to create a list of items within an infobox, for example, a list of a ship's weapons, the items should be separated using the HTML markup <br />, or the {{br}} or {{plainlist}} templates."
I know there used to be a technical reason (bullets didn't work well in infoboxes way back when), but that was resolved years ago. Given that there's no technical reason why we shouldn't use bullets in infoboxes, I guess the only remaining reason would be style. I find it odd that this particular style quirk applies only at WPSHIPS, and in any case, there are thousands of ship articles that do in fact use bullets in infoboxes (like HMS Daring (D32)) without detracting from the impact - and in fact, it's a powerful way to present a host of technical data (compare the block of incomprehensible data at USS Nimitz (CVN-68)). If it's good enough for Nelson, surely it's good enough for his ships?
Even the navigation bar on the left of my Wikipedia page uses bullets (I know it's not an infobox, but it serves the same purpose in a similar format). The Main Page uses bullets in a style similar to an infobox. An example of other types of page that use bullets in infoboxes would include TV programmes (eg. Q Who), places ( Le Cailar, Berkshire), military units ( Para Commandos (India)) and planets ( Uranus).
Many projects divide their infoboxes up like tables, making bullets unnecessary to separate blocks of technical data (elements; eg. Hydrogen). Others use icons instead of bullets to do the same (transportation; eg. Ontario Highway 17). WPSHIPS does not use these approaches.
Given that this MOS guidance is often ignored, I would like understand if there is any reason to maintain this widely-flouted rule. I for one consider that the bullets actually enhance the readability of the lists of technical information, and would want to remove the rule for that reason alone.
Thoughts? Shem ( talk) 19:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi all, if you've got a minute, could you review the FLC candidacy of List of battleships of Italy? It's been up for a month and has only garnered one review so far. Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 15:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
What is the correct article title for Vladivostok (Russian ship)? It was moved in July from Russian ship Vladivostok (Mistral class). Its sister ship is still at Russian ship Sevastopol (Mistral class). Also, does the class name need to be included in the title? When or when not?
Also, are there any guidleines regarding ship classes, and when ships purchased by other navies should be considered to be of separate class or sub-classes? Vladivostok and Sevastopol are both included in the Mistral-class amphibious assault ship article, while the Canberra-class landing helicopter dock ships aren't considered to be Juan Carlos I. I do understand that the Russian Navy doesn't name its ship classes after the lead ship in the Western tradition, but most WP articles on Russian ship classes do use the lead ship's name. Exampleas are the Kuznetsov-class aircraft carrier and Kiev-class aircraft carrier articles. Also, should we have a separate class article on the Vladivostok-class amphibious assault ships? Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 15:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I am told by an experienced editor that flag icons are acceptable in Ship infoboxes. Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide#Infobox ship career states "The nation of registry should be expressed as text, not as a flag symbol. A flag symbol may be used in addition, but only if such usage meets Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons." This section of the MOS states "Avoid flag icons in infoboxes ... Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text." Have I missed something? Should this exception for Ship infoboxes be explicitly stated? I don't have a strong feeling for or against flagicons, but would like a clearer statement of policy. Finavon ( talk) 17:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Per the above discussion, I propose to add an exclusion at WP:MOSFLAG stating that the use of flags in ship infoboxes is accepted practice. Will do so at the weekend unless there are any serious objections. Mjroots ( talk) 19:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Done
Mjroots (
talk) 15:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Quick question:
In Alexander's case this is to separate her from other ships of the same name. In Friendship's case there are no other civilian ship articles of the same name, so the reason for using the suffix (date) instead of (ship) is unclear. Note that these were not Royal Navy vessels and their existence predates the 1939 naming system referred to Ship prefix. Interested in views on a consistent naming approach for these vessels:
I prefer option 1 but won't die in a ditch about it. Any opinions? Euryalus ( talk) 03:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Please could one or more people from this project have a look at the current move requests listed at Talk:USS_General_Harry_Taylor_(AP-145) and Talk:USS_General_R._E._Callan_(AP-139)? It appears as if the ships have had two names at different times in their history, and I don't know if WP Ships has any policy on which name to choose in these circumstances. So far there has been no response at all to the requests in three weeks of listing! Thanks — Amakuru ( talk) 09:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MV Seaman Guard Ohio incident may be of interest to the project. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Template:sclass- is currently showing "Unrecognized format value" and "ERROR: invalid option 6" under format option 6. Could somebody have a look at it? Shem ( talk) 20:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
{{
sclass-}}
has always only recognized format parameter values 0–5. On the documentation page, format parameter 6 is intended to illustrate that that value is invalid and to show what happens when it is used. There was no reason to support the {{
sclass}}
format parameter 6 which itself is deprecated because it produced incorrect output. That is fixed in the current version which merely duplicates the functionality available with format parameter 1.{{scalss-}}
with format parameter 6?There is a current discussion at Talk:Motor_Torpedo_Boat#Requested_move_20_October_2013 relating to a proposed move from Motor Torpedo Boat to Motor torpedo boat that also relates to proposed moves for Steam Gun Boat, Motor Gun Boat and to the uncapitalized forms, and may also touch upon the capitalization in other articles ( Sea Control Ship, Landing Craft Assault for instance). GraemeLeggett ( talk) 23:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
This AfD may be of interest to the project. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Is this a painting of USRC Hamilton (1830)? Don't want to add it to the article in error. Thanks, Calliopejen1 ( talk) 19:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
The SS William S. Ladd article was almost entirely written by Buster40004 ( talk · contribs). We can safely assume that there are major copyright issues here.
Therefore I propose that the article is deleted, leaving the title free for an editor in good standing to write a new article. Any volunteers? Mjroots ( talk) 20:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. User:Mjroots asked my opinion here. :) First, I'd like to say how grateful I am that you guys are looking at this. The copyright problems backlog is horrendous, and it's tremendously helpful to have people who know the field pitching in. In terms of handling, either approach is valid. As a general rule of thumb, I prefer not to delete what I don't have to, but CCIs are complicated. I sometimes determine my own approach after seeing the general pattern evolve with the CCI. When a CCI subject uses a lot of offline resources, for instance, and can be shown to have copied major articles repeatedly, I'm more likely to presumptively delete, as provided in WP:CV. (" If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately.") If their pattern is generally more one of close paraphrasing, I try not to do that.
What worries me about User:Buster40004 is his use of offline resources. As noted at Talk:Gun_carriage, he has taken major passages from books, and the only way I have to discover that is if those books are at least preview accessible on Google books and if those previews sample the relevant section. That can be really hard to work with. :/ (He does seem to have relied heavily on PD sources as well, though, which is helpful, as they only need proper attribution per WP:Plagiarism.) I believe he is generally citing his sources, but I could not say yet if that can be fully relied upon. My gut says that he meant no harm and probably can be trusted to have said where he got the material. This is not the pattern I usually see when a contributor is deliberately flaunting the copyright rules. But only after a few more issues are disclosed will that pattern become more certain. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar is offered to any editor who is willing to write a new article on the SS William S. Ladd. Online sources uses by Buster40004 -
Book sources used by Buster40004 -
Other sources mentioned by Buster40004 -
Additional source
If you start an article in your sandbox, it can be moved once the current article is deleted. Mjroots ( talk) 21:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
A new article, Glenn Marine Group, has just been created, not by me, primarily in connection with a bribery investigation by the USN's NCIS. I have no idea how to categorize the article, or what projects should be covered by. Anyone hsve any ideas? Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 08:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
While (probably?) not within the project's scope, this AfD may be of interest to its members. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Members of this Project may be interested in a proposal to improve the article on the clipper ship City of Adelaide in time for the ship's planned arrival in Australia in February. See Talk:City of Adelaide (1864). Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck ( talk) 11:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
An anon is claiming that ships do not take the definite article. As an example, in HMS Terror (1813), he/she changed:
to
Is this accurate? I tend to doubt it, per The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
This may be of interest to the project. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
A dynamic IP is adding long, rambling (and repeated) OR-laden NOTFORUM violations here. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Can anyone identify this Peruvian ship, for the benefit of the Ecuadorian–Peruvian War article? Thanks! Brigade Piron ( talk) 07:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I recently discovered that there was once a ship of the same name as my home village. After a bit of research I've managed to knock up an article. One thing bothers me though, the year of her building. A source claims she was built in 1814, whilst an advert of 1817 describes her as "new built". It is possible that the advert is nearer the truth and that 1814 is a typo (easily done on the numeric keypad). Is there anyone who can decipher the Lloyd's register entry or find another source for her date of building and make the necessary amendment. Mjroots ( talk) 09:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
The online editions of Lloyd's Register of Shipping (links from http://www.lr.org/about_us/shipping_information/Lloyds_Register_of_Ships_online.aspx) seem to point to a build in 1813 (she was described as "5 years old" in the 1818 edition and this is consistent through to her being 10 years old in 1823 edition. She is not in the 1813 edition (including the "new entries" supplement near the end). Unfortunately 1814-1817 are missing (unless you can see the images of the 1815 pages). This may not have been the only Hadlow - LR did not list anything like every vessel - but she is the one covered by the article. A search of the original London registers for the 1813-1814 should confirm when in fact she was built and the builder (though that would be OR). The earlier LRs have owner as Buckles & Co, changing it later to Parker & Co. On her fate, LR 1824 & 1825 give master as Pounder. Perhaps the 9/1823 reference refers to a different Hadlow? A good source to clarify would be Lloyd's List newspaper [not available online]. Davidships ( talk) 23:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
The article mentioned just above mentions USS Cyane (1815), which is the same vessel as HMS Cyane (1806) These are separate articles, and the latter has some content on the vessel's career with the USN which is not in the former. I don't know if a merger is appropriate under current policy (and I don't advocate one, as the careers with the RN and USN could support two articles) but if anyone wants to do more to separate the two careers, have at it! (I do not have the sources.) Kablammo ( talk) 16:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I've been looking at these and working on them on and off for several years. I just took a fairly deep look, and I see that things need some work. I'm willing and able to do the work, but I'm wondering if there are others who are interested in helping, advising, etc.
I got into this when I became aware that recent changes in shipbuilding have obsoleted some very old procedures and ceremonies. I don't yet have sources for this, but I learned it from conversations with shipbuilders.
The milestones in construction of a modern U.S. Navy ship are, or at least seem to be:
The various articles need to be updated to show these changes. Also the existing articles often combine shipbuilding aspects with ceremonial aspects, which doesn't always make for smooth flow.
There's a template at the bottom of many ship articles. It's helpful, but sometimes confusing. The entries are:
There are probably other articles that could be referenced from the template. One is Naval Vessel Register.
I mention all this stuff, not necessarily with specific suggestions, but as a guide for possible improvement in the template. Lou Sander ( talk) 17:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
It has always seemed improper for {{
navsource}}
to blindly italicize the whole of a ship's name:
{{navsource|04/081/04081|USS Houston (CA-30)}}
→
Photo gallery of USS Houston (CA-30) at NavSource Naval HistoryThat can be gotten 'round by the judicious use of {{
noitalics}}
but I'd really rather not:
{{navsource|04/081/04081|{{noitalics|USS}} Houston {{noitalics|(CA-30)}}}}
→
Photo gallery of USS Houston (CA-30) at NavSource Naval History no nationality or prefix;So, in {{
navsource/sandbox}}
is the fix to that. This version takes either the name that is given in positional parameter {{{2}}}
or, if no name is provided, the page name, and formats it in the same way that {{
infobox ship begin}}
formats a page title.
{{navsource/sandbox|04/081/04081|Houston}}
→
Photo gallery of Houston at NavSource Naval History no nationality or prefix;{{navsource/sandbox|04/081/04081|USS Houston}}
→
Photo gallery of USS Houston at NavSource Naval History{{navsource/sandbox|04/081/04081|USS Houston (CA-30)}}
→
Photo gallery of USS Houston (CA-30) at NavSource Naval HistoryAnd taking the name of this page, here is the great ship WikiProject Ships:
{{navsource/sandbox|04/081/04081}}
→
Photo gallery of WikiProject Ships/Archive 39 at NavSource Naval History no nationality or prefix;It should be noted that this doesn't work (empty positional parameter {{{2}}}
):
{{navsource/sandbox|04/081/04081|}}
→
Photo gallery of WikiProject Ships/Archive 39 at NavSource Naval History no nationality or prefix;I'll work on that.
This, however, does work so there shouldn't be much downside to implementing the sandbox version once I fix the problem noted above:
{{navsource/sandbox|04/081/04081|{{noitalics|USS}} Houston {{noitalics|(CA-30)}}}}
→
Photo gallery of USS Houston (CA-30) at NavSource Naval History no nationality or prefix;— Trappist the monk ( talk) 21:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
{{
navsource}}
from the sandbox.Thoughts? [3]
Should submarine speeds be presented as:
15.6 kn (28.9 km/h) surfaced 17.2 kn (31.9 km/h) submerged [1] 6.1 kn (11.3 km/h) (silent running motors) |
or as:
15.6 kn (28.9 km/h) ↑ 17.2 kn (31.9 km/h) ↓ [1] 6.1 kn (11.3 km/h) (silent running motors) |
To my mind, the arrows are barely visible and are much less clear as to why we have two speeds. Andy Dingley ( talk) 20:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
On a side note, please use the conversion template without attributes ("{{convert|12|kn}}" → "12 knots (22 km/h; 14 mph)") in the infobox. Tupsumato ( talk) 13:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I have renewed the proposal to move Minesweeper (ship) to Minesweeper, due to hundreds of links to Minesweeper referring to the ship. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 01:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Before I propose this article for deletion, can anybody think of a reason for keeping it? Am I, perhaps, being overzealous? Shem ( talk) 19:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll put it up for deletion and post a notification here. Shem ( talk) 16:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The article Super battleship (warship) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Shem (
talk) 16:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The MV Bni Nsar article has bee nominated for deletion. Mjroots ( talk) 10:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be an ideal goal to use templates like Template:USS and Template:HMS everywhere that a ship is identified (or should be identified) with a presentation that these templates support. This will insure that ship names are properly italicized, and that the presentation of these names will be consistent throughout Wikipedia in a variety of formats (for example, with or without the leading USS or HMS), and that if a change is needed in that format, it can be made systemwide instantly. It has been suggested to me that we could have a bot template all the ship names like this, if WikiProject Ships supports that as a goal. Does this sound like a good idea? - WPGA2345 - ☛ 05:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I have tagged HMS Strongbow (1916) for speedy deletion as a copyvio of http://www.hmsstrongbow.org.uk/sinking.htm. Nigel Ish ( talk) 18:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi all. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of light cruisers of Germany/archive1 has been up for a month and a half and has only garnered one review so far. If you have the time, I'd greatly appreciate it if you could review the list against the Featured List criteria. The list is the capstone to this otherwise finished 71-article Good Topic. Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 14:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I have just created a new article, SS Abukir. Old copies of Lloyd's Register cite the power of ocean-going ships as NHP, but for very small ships they tend to give "RHP" (Rated Horsepower) instead. What is Rated Horsepower, and should Wikipedia's Horsepower article be expanded to include a section explaining it?
Best wishes, Motacilla ( talk) 13:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I struggle to find non-copyright photos of old merchant ships. I'd be very grateful to anyone who can help me to find ones of SS Abukir and SS Oropesa (1920) for their new articles. Alternatively, is it allowed to use WP:NONFREE photos on the basis that the subjects were sunk or scrapped decades ago and there's scant chance of finding a non-copyright photo of them? Wikimedia does not allow non-free content, so how does one upload such photos to Wikipedia?
Best wishes, Motacilla ( talk) 13:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
A stub M/V Plancius and a bit better piece on the same vessel at HNLMS Tydeman (A906) should be merged or perhaps the first just deleted by someone interested in this vessel. Ran across duplication while looking for references to WW II era KPM ship SS Plancius (1923) that was in convoy BM.12 along with RMS Empress of Asia bringing the last troops into Singapore, acted as a "hotel" during the seige and carried refugees from Singapore and Java to Colombo under escort by HMS Durban (D99). That vessel is a potential subject with a prewar history involving Singapore and the NEI and a photo in Commons so future disambiguation might be considered. Palmeira ( talk) 15:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Staygyro ( talk) recently made multiple moves of this article and its talk page, breaking the link with its history and between the talk page and its proper article page. Can I get an admin to revert all of those pointless and damaging changes?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 20:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
The S/V Rembrandt van Rijn article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots ( talk) 09:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The above AfD discussion has shown that we really need to lay down a notability guideline for ships. Military vessels are held to be inherently notable per WP:MILUNIT. Merchant vessels can be harder to argue the notability for.
As far as I understand it, this WP holds that ships of over 100' long or 100 ton(ne)s measurement (undefined) fall under the scope of this WP and are capable of sustaining articles subject to coverage in independent reliable sources. Shipping registers such as Lloyd's and the Danish Handelsministeriet count as independent and reliable.
Vessels under 100/100 fall outside the scope of this WP, but may still be capable of sustaining articles subject to the above. Mjroots ( talk) 10:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Tupsumato's approach and agree that notability cannot rely on size, but an individual ship needs to have some inherantly notable aspect - not necessarily a particular event, may also be the vessel's characteristics (eg prototype, largest, age), presence in the public eye (a cruise ship) etc. Non-notable ships can still have their place in appropriate articles (eg shipyard lists, ship-class and shipowner articles). There are enough notable ships to keep us busy for our lifetimes. Davidships ( talk) 11:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment: Size does not matter, I would say. Pinta falls short of the 100/100 rule but I don't think anyone objects of her being included in the project. Notability is best answered by the fact that a ship is mentioned in reliable sources. With the usual leeway. But rather than duplicating registers of shipping, there should be some story to tell other than sailed from X to Y carrying a cargo of Z. ÄDA - DÄP VA ( talk) 13:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Tupsumato's approach is one I have proposed before resulting in complete rejection. It needs reconsideration and ÄDA - DÄP makes a good point about "articles" just duplicating registry entries. I dislike some of the "drive by" delete tagging for ships appearing to have noting notable without any effort to do a proper search, i.e., simply checking for other names and IMO number searches, yet the fact remains that even an expert search for many commercial vessels will turn up nothing except basic registry facts of existence and characteristics. The recent case is of a ferry that of late is notable only in its disrepute with some rather flagrant detentions for sanitary and safety issues that caused me to somewhat reluctantly recommend "Keep" largely because someone with local sources might develop that angle. Nothing can change the fact that most commercial vessels go from delivery to breakers plodding along and even if we got into corporate records we would find nothing more interesting that port calls, tons or passengers or catch landed along with maintenance stuff. Other ships, as with some of the small and obscure vessels of the first part of the 20th century, have one brief period of real notability that I think makes them worthy of an article—wartime service and mention in histories—sufficient to be a pass for them. Actually, the same goes for most naval vessels and individual "articles" about patrol, yard and district type craft make little sense. If the U.S. Navy's ship loving Histories Branch cannot come up with more than one or two very short paragraphs on such a vessel even the military exception makes no sense and a listing, for those so inclined, would be more than sufficient.
Consideration should be given to approval of the system now in use for Empire ships for the ships without more notability than facts of existence. That would provide a place holder that would satisfy searches, though I would propose expansion accommodating dimensions in brief format such as L x B x D. Then, if someone found citeable records of true note, the entry could sustain a "Main article" link and a full entry. Another example can be seen in List of Australian hospital ships and certainly one I would take if I ever get around to more extensive coverage of the KPM ships that served so vitally under U.S. Army SWPA control in 1942 and throughout the war as even those critical workhorses largely plodded along without much "mention in dispatches" that remain available. For existing stub "articles" someone could usefully merge such stubs into logical groupings by builder, nationality, line or other such designation. Palmeira ( talk) 14:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
In random passing, help appreciated in where to look for sources on HMAS Kiama's 24 years in the RNZN (1952-1976). The remainder of the article is sourced but a little sparse. This section however covers the longest period of the ship's existence and has rightly been tagged as unsourced for more than five years. Am not an expert on NZ naval history but keen on improving this article nonetheless.
Suggestions and pointers gratefully received. Euryalus ( talk)
A proposal to merge the articles USCGC Jarvis (WHEC-725) and BNS Somudro Joy (F-28) has been suggested. Discussion can be found on the talk page Talk:USCGC Jarvis (WHEC-725). Interested editors please take note. Cuprum17 ( talk) 17:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I suggest that this wikiproject implement the new "Draft"-class and categorize into Category: Draft-Class Ships articles, for pages in the WP:Drafts namespace that was recently initiated. This would allow tracking of articles related to this wikiproject that are in draft form, which members of this wikiproject may wish to improve and move into the mainspace. -- 76.65.128.112 ( talk) 00:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering if there shouldn't he a separate article for the icebound icebreakers in Antarctica saga, now that multiple ships need rescuing. And what title such an article should have. -- 76.65.128.112 ( talk) 23:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello all. I just found these. Can they be used as they do not display any copyright protection and are available for the press to use? MrDerails ( talk) 20:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I note that someone has updated the Algoma Montrealais article based on some comments with one of the pictures on the shipspotting.com webpage. Personally, I have not seen an official notice that this ship will be scrapped, so think that these comments should be considered personal opinion or rumours (admittedly well spread rumours).
My question is "are comments like these considered factual enough for Wiki?" Thanks Cpfan776 ( talk) 20:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Is HMAS Beryl II ex HMS Beryl of the First World War? Could someone look into this and provide references and expand if this is the case? Regards Newm30 ( talk) 21:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at this DYK nomination? The initial reviewer has dropped off the radar. Thanks. EricSerge ( talk) 14:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Not a part of this group, but was just doing some family history reasearch on an ancestor who came to Australia with the 46th Regiment of foot in 1814, and came across some history for the ship that is not on the wiki page, I think it could be the same ship and thought someone might like to add it to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_ship_Lautaro_(1818)
source:- 46th foot.com www.hargreave-mawson.demon.co.uk/46th.html
cheers Jodie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.200.205.120 ( talk) 18:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
The article Lucinda (steamboat) is tagged as needing geo-coordinates. What does location(s) do you use for this purpose (ships being somewhat mobile)? Kerry ( talk) 06:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster ( talk) 23:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC).
During WWII, Germany built a number of standard cargo vessels, their equivalent of the Liberty ships. These were the Hansa A type cargo ship, Hansa B type cargo ship and the Hansa C type cargo ship. Has anyone got the sources to write the articles? There are apparently some German books on the subject. Mjroots ( talk) 11:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Please be aware that Portuguese merchant ships in service between 1830 and 1910 should be flagged with {{Flag|Portugal|civil}} (
) and not {{flag|Portugal|1830}}(
). I've now amended the relevant template to support the civil flag, which it didn't previously.
Mjroots (
talk) 08:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I have posed a question on the identity of one of the vessels shown in File:Australia Station Squadron (AWM 304426).jpg at the talk page at Commons. At least according to our article, HMS Alert (1856), the ship in question, was nowhere near Australia when the image was taken. Nick-D, Rcbutcher or anyone else, can you shed any light on this question? Many thanks. Kablammo ( talk) 18:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I love history but I'm really not a naval guru on that aspect. I really like the Eastern front during World War 2 and the cliche Allied drive from Normandy, and i came across a article request for Ships of the United States during World War II and i instantly thought that someone in this wikiproject would know more about it and would like to do this. The article request can be seen here and it is under the category "United States military history" towards the bottom of the page. Thanks, Jcfrommn ( talk) 23:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Whilst we're discussing lists of ships, would it be worth having a similar set-up to List of aircraft by tail number for ships that have articles on Wikipedia. Obviously with so many ships, we'd need to split into 25 lists (W and X would combine). Lists could have such info as ship name, builder, year of launch, code letters, call sign, Official Number, IMO Number, MMSI Number as applicable. These lists would only be for vessels that have an article, not those with list entries only. Mjroots ( talk) 22:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
While outside the scope of the project, Mini-Cup has been nominated for deletion, which may be of interest to project members. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
What is the current fate of the 12 Naval Infantry Brigade of the Yugoslav navy? In the article there is no direct indication that it disbanded. 90.189.106.180 ( talk) 02:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi WikiProject Ships. Is there any reason the ship names aren't italicized in the titles of Anglona (clipper), Bristol (1866), Charles H. Marshall (ship) and Coronet (yacht)? It was my understanding that ship names should be italicized in article titles (as they are in the body of the articles) but when I found so many articles where that wasn't the case, I thought there might be a reason. Any enlightenment you could provide would be appreciated. Thanks. DH85868993 ( talk) 01:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
{{
italic title}}
adds an extra processing step between the an unitalicized title and {{DISPLAYTITLE}}
(the
behavior switch, not the template) but that's trivial. For some titles, it may be necessary to use {{DISPLAYTITLE}}
.{{italic title}}
or {{DISPLAYTITLE}}
right at the top with {{
use dmy dates}}
or other similar templates and ahead of {{
Infobox ship begin}}
. As far as I know,
WP:SHIPS doesn't take a position on this.Can we get some insight on this article subject at its deletion discussion please? Candleabracadabra ( talk) 18:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
New article Endeavour II (barque). Be glad if any of you all would give it the once over. -Arb. ( talk) 19:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).
Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.
If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot ( talk) (for Mr. Z-man) 05:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)