![]() | 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 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | → | Archive 45 |
I have no expertise in this subject area, but I just came across Supramax which lead me to Handymax and the template there led me to Handysize. Is there really a need for three separate articles? -- Derek Andrews ( talk) 14:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
These redirects have been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 1; it currently points to Panamax ports, but this doesn't make sense, Post-Panamax ports are deepwater ports, and many non-Panamax ports are deepwater ports. -- 70.50.151.11 ( talk) 07:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
While reading the class assessment log, I noticed that in late February a large number of ship class articles were reassessed as list-class articles by User:Thewellman. Was this done according to some new policy? Tupsumato ( talk) 18:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
There's a new move request at Talk:Kirov-class battlecruiser; many of the WP:SHIPS community already debated this at length in August 2011, but it's been raised again. Shem ( talk) 19:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
On the one hand we've got User:Parsecboy moving ships to remove unnecessary disambiguation (like this) and on the other we've got User:BilCat moving ships to include the disambiguation (like this). You tell tell what side of the argument I fall on since I did the original RM for INS Vikramaditya (R33) to move to INS Vikramaditya, and I added the note to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) indicating that "If there is only one ship of the name, it is wrong to disambiguate, per WP:PRECISE." IMHO the line "Articles about a ship class should follow standard Wikipedia naming conventions" makes it quite clear that we should not over-disambiguate - but at the moment we have (at least) two highly regarded admins and editors making contradictory moves. I propose we get a bit of consensus and save some nugatory effort. Shem ( talk) 19:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Related: why can't we have an all-encompassing naming system of "Country shiptype Name" and a parenthetical launch year if needed for disambiguation? Our current system is entirely haphazard, it's not consistent, and it leads to confusion, as exemplified above. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
RSS Steadfast, RSS Victory and MV Swift Rescue (RSS Swift Rescue?) are all in need of articles. Mjroots2 ( talk) 11:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
New article SS Telefon. Would once again be glad if you all would give it the once over. -Arb. ( talk) 14:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Another new article for your kind attention: SS Denebola. -Arb. ( talk) 17:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks to all who improved the Telefon and Denebola articles. You may also be interested in Holm & Molzen, the ship management company responsible for Denebola and many others. -Arb. ( talk) 10:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Cuchullain ( talk · contribs) has moved Essex (whaleship) to Whaleship Essex, with no discussion, citing WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURALDIS. This was briefly discussed in 2008 on the article's talk page when someone moved the article in the same way. Anyone want to weigh in? This seems to me to be an unnecessary move. — Diiscool ( talk) 15:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks once again to all who helped improve my recent new ship articles. Here's another (with a DYK nomination this time) that would benefit from the once over by experienced ship editors. -Arb. ( talk) 18:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
And another, somewhat related and perhaps slightly contentious. -Arb. ( talk) 18:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
This was on Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Transport. A once over would be appreciated. -Arb. ( talk) 00:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Last one for tonight. -Arb. ( talk) 00:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I've noticed that we have Category:Troop ships of the Royal Navy and Category:Troop ships of the United Kingdom. Is there a good reason for this? Alansplodge ( talk) 21:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey all, I currently have SMS Kaiser Wilhelm II at FAC ( see here) and I've had a hard time finding reviewers - I'd hate to see it archived for lack of reviews. If you have the time and interest, please offer suggestions for improvement, I'd be very grateful. Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 12:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I've noticed that we have Category:Troop ships of the Royal Navy and Category:Troop ships of the United Kingdom. Is there a good reason for this? Alansplodge ( talk) 21:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I would like some assistance in checking this statement, because the source I have is not particularly reliable:
The Iquique Another possibility is that the boat Burley found was from the H. Fölsch Co, Hamburg's, 899 ton barque Iquique. She the went missing in 1883 after being spoken to at Cape Horn. The Iquique had originally been called the Marlborough. The Iquique had sailed from Newcastle On Tyne in February 1883 under Captain G Eduard Jessen with a load of coal for Iquique, Chile. In particular I need a source for the renaming from Marlborough to Iquique, when and where it was last spoken to and the name of the ship, plus anything else which might add to the story. The other information I am seeking is when was the life saving station set up in or about Good Success Bay. NealeFamily ( talk) 09:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
All references now found NealeFamily ( talk) 09:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey all, I currently have SMS Kaiser Wilhelm II at FAC ( see here) and I've had a hard time finding reviewers - I'd hate to see it archived for lack of reviews. If you have the time and interest, please offer suggestions for improvement, I'd be very grateful. Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 12:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
New article for review. -Arb. ( talk) 18:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
The USS Monitor article has just been nominated for GA and reviewers/opinions are needed. To start the review and/or comment please go to the GA nomination page, under the Warfare section. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 19:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone know of any details as to the capture of Lady Penrhyn (ship) in 1811 in the West Indies? Regards Newm30 ( talk) 02:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I've requested a peer review for the article about the Swedish late 17th-century warship Kronan. My goal is to take make it an FA and I believe feedback from members of this project would be very helpful. If you think something is missing or could be improved, please comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Kronan (ship)/archive1. Your input would be much appreciated!
Peter Isotalo 17:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Please see
Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Port/dock terminology, (version of
20:50, 2 April 2014).
—
Wavelength (
talk) 21:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an 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) 00:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC).
Shouldn't SMS Amazone be a set index? I notice that RMS Amazon is one of two ships, and there are two SMS Amazones with articles. -- 70.24.250.235 ( talk) 06:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
See categorization proposal here. Alekksandr ( talk) 19:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
An issue has arisen over the display of ship names. The discussion is at talk:List of shipwrecks in 1828. You are welcome to contribute there. Mjroots ( talk) 05:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi all. I wanted to drop a line and ask for some help fixing SS Californian, a fairly lengthy article that appears to be about 90% OR. It's been tagged for years and I posted a note on the talk page last spring saying the article needed to be sourced or I was prepared to start deleting things. Anyways long story short, it fell off my radar screen but I am again looking at the article. So far though I am having little luck sourcing most of the material. I really don't want to turn what looks like a well worded and fairly lengthy article on a very notable subject into a stub, but that is about all that we have right now that is backed by RS sources. I am going to keep looking for a bit and will hold off for a couple more days before doing anything drastic. But after that I will, with much regret, start swinging the Wiki meat cleaver. Any help with sourcing would be greatly appreciated. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I also just noticed that this article is rated as B Class by the project. I don't see how that rating can be justified given the lack of sources. -
Ad Orientem (
talk) 01:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
24.49.4.19 has deleted the names and hull numbers from all of the US battleship articles. He's added some worthwhile material to the articles so I'm disinclined to revert his edits wholesale, but I've restored them to BBs 1-10 and 39. I'll leave the others to those with faster internet connections. I left a message on his talk page, but we'll have to see if he persists in his obnoxious behavior.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 06:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I believe you are referring to me and i'm sorry for the unneeded edits. I just saw them as redundant being on the top of the page but I have since refrained from removing them. I have had another user say that instead of adding the name and/or hull id I should add them into the "ship caption" section instead? Either way I will go back and add to the other articles when I can. Sorry for the trouble.--
85 GT Kid (
talk) 13:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I just nominated Kronan for FAC. Since the article is included in the scope of this project, I'm posting a reminder here.
Looking forward to your comments!
Peter Isotalo 15:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't the ferry that recently capsized have an article separate from the disaster article? It's a fairly large ship, being about half the size of Titanic, according to CNN -- 65.94.77.36 ( talk) 06:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I had a user say something about my use of the ship's badge pictures that I have been adding. From what I have read on the guidelines (and I am no lawyer) but it seems like I am in the parameters of fair use. The picture isn't even even copyrighted AFAIK and it has a small foot print so I thought it would be ok. Any thoughts?-- 85 GT Kid ( talk) 14:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Wasn't sure if I should throw your name out like that lol. I am really sorry I can't believe I missed that copyright there. Should they be taken down? I don't know of any free sources for something so small (ship's badges are not popular).-- 85 GT Kid ( talk) 15:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Should the sub-categories be in the format of "Category:Maritime incidents in fooian waters"? For example, Category:Maritime incidents in Albania should be Category:Maritime incidents in Albanian waters. And Category:Maritime incidents in Switzerland just looks wrong! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Trappist the monk ( talk · contribs) has made an undiscussed change to the ship infobox documentation by adding provision for a caption to the infobox and has begun implementing this, again, with no discussion. See French cruiser Sully for an example of what it looks like. I'm dislike the the caption and have begun reverting his changes to articles that I've watchlisted and started a discussion over at Template talk:Infobox ship begin#Infobox caption to see what the members of the community think about his unilateral change. I think that he has perhaps forgotten that silence is only consent if the issue has been raised.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 19:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
One discussion in one place please.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 00:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I think this is the related WikiProject? -- This article could do with some improvement, especially as it's in the news right now, due to MH370 and Bluefin-21 search -- 65.94.77.36 ( talk) 05:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
This category tree seems to be a mess... is Category: Robotic submarines for optionally manned vehicles? or is it the container for ROVs and AUVs? The current contents could do with diffusion, depending on how the category tree is cleaned up. -- 65.94.77.36 ( talk) 05:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I have had a discussion with an individual about the removal of HMCS/HMS in the infobox on several Canadian warship articles. I argue that it demonstrates that a ship was commissioned ship in compared to a non-commissioned ship and all that entails under maritime law. I was just curious as to what the procedure is. Can I leave it in? Does it have to be removed? Foxxraven ( talk) 11:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
|Ship name=
parameter in {{
infobox ship career}}
. Our conversation is
here.|Ship name=
parameter in {{
infobox ship career}}
templates since Editor Foxxraven's first post on my talk page. If you have evidence to the contrary, please show it.|ship name=
, there is no need to include the prefix to that field. The prefix is not part of the ship's name.
Tupsumato (
talk) 20:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)History | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Name | list error: <br /> list (
help) Using break 1 Using break 2 |
Namesake |
|
History | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Name |
|
In the infobox Usage guide under the heading
Diverse stylistic issues, the use of bulleted lists is proscribed. The preferred method for listing multiple items in a single parameter is to separate each item with <br />
markup. There are problems with some implementations of that method. When each item is on a separate line, the rendered display for that parameter's value in the right column is slightly lower than its title in the left column and, there is a larger separation between the last two items. I asked about this at
WP:VPT who have supplied a better solution than the one I came up with.
The infoboxes at right have lists:
<br />
markup with items on separate lines (shows the vertical offset and the gap between the last two items):
|Ship name=Using break 1<br />
- Using break 2<br />
- Using break 3<br />
- Using break 4<br />
- Using break 5<br />
Using break 6
|Ship namesake=*Standard * list 1
- *Standard * list 2
- *Standard * list 3
- **Standard * list 4
- *Standard * list 5
*Standard * list 6
|Ship name=*Plainlist css class 1
- *Plainlist css class 2
- *Plainlist css class 3
- **Plainlist css class 4
- *Plainlist css class 5
*Plainlist css class 6
There is an artifact to this: in normal * list markup, the ** markup indents the list item. This does not appear to work with the plainlist class (it doesn't work in the
{{
plainlist}}
template either). A workaround is to insert
between the * and the list item value.
It would seem that we could, perhaps should:
{{
infobox ship career}}
and {{
infobox ship characteristics}}
to use the plainlist class for those parameters where lists are permissible<br />
formatting and to specify the use of * list markup as the preferred list method<br />
formatting with * list markup and also remove existing {{
plainlist}}
templates.— Trappist the monk ( talk) 13:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
A fix to common.css now makes plainlist act like the normal * list markup where ** indents one level from the item above it.
I have made these parameters 'listable': |Ship name=
, |Ship identification=
, |Ship owner=
, |Ship operator=
, |Ship registry=
, |Ship refit=
, |Ship honours=
, |Ship honors=
. Clearly not all parameters should contain lists, |Ship launched=
is an example. Are there others that should be listable?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a proposed move under discussion at Talk:Hulk_(comics)#Requested_move, changing what is now a disambiguation page ( Hulk) to an article on the comic character. The discussion there mentions nautical use of the term, Hulk (ship). There was an article alert for the Comics project but not for this project. Kablammo ( talk) 00:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
The infobox on 1950 USS Missouri grounding incident is a bare transclusion of {{ infobox}}. Is there a better box to use, other than perhaps {{ infobox event}}? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() | |
History | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Name | Ship name |
Namesake | Ship namesake |
Owner | Ship owner |
Operator | Ship operator |
Port of registry | Ship registry |
Route | Ship route |
Ordered | Ship ordered |
Awarded | Ship awarded |
Builder | Ship builder |
Cost | Ship original cost |
Yard number | Ship yard number |
Way number | Ship way number |
Laid down | Ship laid down |
Launched | Ship launched |
Sponsored by | Ship sponsor |
Christened | Ship christened |
Completed | Ship completed |
Acquired | Ship acquired |
Commissioned | Ship commissioned |
Recommissioned | Ship recommissioned |
Decommissioned | Ship decommissioned |
Maiden voyage | Ship maiden voyage |
In service | Ship in service |
Out of service | Ship out of service |
Renamed | Ship renamed |
Reclassified | Ship reclassified |
Refit | Ship refit |
Stricken | Ship struck |
Reinstated | Ship reinstated |
Homeport | Ship homeport |
Identification | Ship identification |
Motto | Ship motto |
Nickname(s) | Ship nickname |
Honours and awards | Ship honours Error: has synonymous parameter ( help) |
Honors and awards | Ship honors Error: has synonymous parameter ( help) |
Captured | Ship captured |
Fate | Ship fate |
Status | Ship status |
Notes | Ship notes |
Badge | Ship badge |
Does it not seem odd that when a ship infobox uses |Ship renamed=
it is displayed between |Ship out of service=
and |Ship reclassified=
which is often several lines below |Ship name=
? Am I missing something? Shouldn't the new name directly follow the old name?
From the template code, here are the {{
infobox ship career}}
parameters in the order of their display. Besides |Ship renamed=
, are there any others that should be moved? What about the order of the groupings of these parameters in general? Name or identification information; owner/operator information; construction details; in commission / service life dates; etc. Are they correct? I've listed other possible changes below.
{{infobox ship career}}
nor included in any of the template skeletons. Should it be removed?|Ship launched=
?|Ship name=
?|Ship name=
/|Ship renamed=
?|Ship decommissioned=
?|Ship name=
/|Ship renamed=
?|Ship badge=
?|Ship name=
/|Ship renamed=
?— Trappist the monk ( talk) 13:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
|Ship renamed=
is, in my opinion, primarily intended to indicate the year when the ship was renamed. This is also reflected in the
usage guide although the alternative way of using the field is also described. Personally, I don't use this field and instead collect the names to |Ship name=
field with corresponding year ranges. In my eyes, it's a redundant field as the |Ship name=
should reflect also the current name of the ship and could perhaps be phased out/depreciated.|Ship class=
should indeed be removed. I agree with your proposal to move |Ship christened=
, |Ship struck=
and perhaps |Ship identification=
.|Ship homeport=
instead of |Ship registry=
. Also, we could move the way people describe civilian ship careers away from naval ships (e.g. no separate career boxes for multiple owners). On the other hand, I also like the current system, so perhaps that would just add complexity without providing anything worth the trouble...
Tupsumato (
talk) 18:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC){{
infobox ship career}}
template. I think what you are referring to is the template skeletons in the documentation page. Each of those is simply a subset of the available template parameters that were selected to cover most cases for those particular groups of ships.At right is a infobox with the parameter position changes I suggested. You all should play with it and see what changes should be undone, or what other changes should be made.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 00:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
|Ship renamed=
field. How are you supposed to use it together with |Ship name=
? Also, |Ship reclassified=
should come after |Ship commissioned=
because if that field is used to indicate year, it would happen chronologically after |Ship commissioned=
. Also, |Ship refit=
also usually occurs somewhere between commissioning and decommissioning. |Ship homeport=
could be placed after |Ship registry=
because these fields are used for nearly the same purpose, but rarely if ever for the same vessel (naval vs. civilian). |Hono(u)rs and awards=
should come after badge, IMHO. I mentally group it with |Ship motto=
and |Ship badge=
instead of the group where it is now.
Tupsumato (
talk) 04:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)|Ship renamed=
. Perhaps it has no value and should be deprecated and removed.|recommissioned=
, |refit=
, |renamed=
, |reclassified=
, |reinstated=
, etc. In some cases these imply multiple associated events: a ship might be commissioned, decommissioned, placed in inactive reserve, reactivated, recommissioned, decommissioned, struck, scrapped. It seems to me that we might adapt {{
infobox ship career}}
to support some number of multiples of these kinds of parameters, perhaps three shall be the number. Then we might write:
|Ship commissioned=16 July 1954
|Ship decommissioned=21 September 1959
|Ship commissioned2=31 October 1963
|Ship decommissioned2=5 March 1965
|Ship recommissioned=
is deprecated in favor of |Ship commissioned2=
.|Ship name=
though the number should be somewhat larger, perhaps ten.|Ship refit=
. Is it not true that ships go through refit several times in a lifetime? Are these maintenance periods important enough to warrant a place in the infobox. If so, which one do we select, or do we allow for several as I've suggested above?|Ship honours=
and |Ship honors=
can both be displayed simultaneously but probably shouldn't. We can make one of them the default so that if both have a value only that selected one displays; or we can hide both when both have values. Lest we upset anyone in the pro-British English / pro-American English language camps I'm more in favor of the latter choice. Whatever the decision, this same rule should also apply to the {{
infobox ship characteristics}}
parameters |armor=
, |armour=
, |draft=
, and |draught=
.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
|Ship honours=
and |Ship honors=
have values, neither are displayed. When only one has a value, that one is displayed. You can see this at work in the infobox at right. Both |Ship honours=
and |Ship honors=
have values so neither are displayed.I recall that we have discussed the header before. Here is a possible solution that wan't discussed at the time.
This solution uses the |Hide header=
parameter. When |Hide header=<blank>
or |Hide header=no
then the header is displayed with a horizontal bar that reads Career with country and flag below that. When |Hide header=bar
, all you see is the country and flag header. This is useful for the last option which is |Hide header=plural
which changes text in the career header bar to Careers. I did this because it never seemed right to me that the country is listed parenthetically in the header. So, to give it more space and prominence, this solution occurred to me.
History | |
---|---|
![]() Hungary | |
Name | Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand |
History | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Name | Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand |
History | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Name | Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand |
History | |
![]() | |
Name | Sin Nombre |
Name | Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand |
I'd like to find a better set of parameter values for |Hide header=
and an alias that could ultimately replace |Hide header=
but I haven't yet thought of anything suitable.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 00:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
{{
infobox ship career}}
template added to the infobox carries the Career (country) header which amounts to Career 1, Career 2, Career 3, ... So what you are really saying this: the Career term in the header is unnecessary, right? Every time {{infobox ship career}}
is included in the infobox, the rendered output should look something like the |Hide header=bar
example.|Hide header=yes
is useful for those occasions where duplicate fields a desirable. It isn't often used but it is done. I see no reason to take that functionality away. Nor do I think that these parameters will be misused; and if they are? fixes are easy.{{
infobox ship career}}
templates, what is a better word? History? Curriculum vitæ?|Hide header=plural
is disabled and I've changed the title bar to History.I have proposed Project 21956 for deletion. The entry can be found here. Tupsumato ( talk) 14:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
FYI, if anyone was looking for some ships to start articles on, at Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370#Search asset list displayed by two collapsible wikitables are some redlinked ships that have been involved in the search. -- 65.94.171.206 ( talk) 06:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Should seaplane tenders be included at List of aircraft carriers of Germany; or experiments in the development of aircraft carriers? See talk:List of aircraft carriers of Germany -- 65.94.171.206 ( talk) 04:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I just looked on Prince of Wales (disambiguation), it's not there. The HBC had many vessels, I hadn't heard of this one before; it came up redlink just now in the name origin section of Compton Island, re its namesake. Anyone familiar maybe with HBC vessels able to provide more on it for a stub/start? Skookum1 ( talk) 14:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
The NNS Okpabana article is seriously in need of referencing, expansion and updating. Plenty of material available (link on talk page). Therefore a bounty of a barnstar is offered to any editor(s) who bring the article up to GA standard. Mjroots ( talk) 19:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi all. Sander1453 drew my attention to the SS Espagne (Anversois, 1909). It looks like an unusually detailed article about a Belgian freighter sunk during World War II. The Dutch wiki article is supposedly in AfD. Here are my concerns... It cites no sources and I have serious doubts about the notability of the ship. The first ten pages or so of a Google search failed to yield anything that really rings the notability bell. Named warships, ocean liners and cruise ships I believe have gained a de facto acceptance of notability from the community provided there is reliable evidence of their existence. But I don't think this extends to smaller ships. A freighter or tanker would need to have some independent claim to notability and I can't find much at all to support it. I have tagged the article for notability and am seriously considering AfD. If you do a search be aware, there is a CGT passenger ship from 1910 with the same name. Thanks for any help. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that smaller ships are non-notable. It's just been my understanding that by precedent and consensus a presumption of notability applies to named warships and large passenger/cruise liners, again presuming reliable sources attest to their existence. I think the smaller merchant ships absolutely can be notable if they meet GNG or some other notability conferring criteria. But finding RS sources for this ship is proving to be a real bear. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Tanks to everyone for their help. And I agree that we have enough now to keep the article. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 13:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I have added the SS Espagne (Provence, 1909) to the List of ocean liners. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Please see Talk:HMS_Pandora#Other_Pandoras; the Pandora became the Jeanette, which has an article, HMS Pandora (1858) does not; doesn't seem it should be just a redirect, but I don't know practices with such successive names; there's a large number of places named for the Pandora and her crew (see Drury Inlet for starters), and I know more is out there in various older histories of BC and the Pacific Station and in some more modern ones. Skookum1 ( talk) 15:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (
talk) 10:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Ship articles seem to have a very strange system of infoboxes. There might be a better (faster, less complex) way to handle these. Can anyone tell me how this system came to be used (because perhaps I'm overlooking something critical)? Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 21:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
{|
wikitable markup inside {{
infobox ship begin}}
would require a matching {{infobox ship end}}
for the closing |}
markup.{{
infobox ship begin}}
that has the {|
markup{|{{Infobox ship begin}}
in all articles that use {{infobox ship begin}}
with {{Infobox ship begin/interim}}
and at the same time replace the closing |}
with {{Infobox ship end}}
{|
to {{infobox ship begin}}
{{Infobox ship begin/interim}}
with {{Infobox ship begin}}
{{Infobox ship begin/interim}}
Related question: Does anyone know if there are any other infoboxes structured sort of like this? Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 18:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
{{
Infobox flag}}
Hi all, you may be interested in this AfD on an article that falls within the project's scope. Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 18:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#HMS Adamant as Reserve Fleet Flagship we have a report that the information about the career of this ship is inaccurate. In fact there are next to no specific citations in this article, and the references listed either don't exist or don't provide this information. I haven't been able to find such information either. If someone could address these issues I would appreciate it; otherwise I'm inclined to stub the article down to the bare essentials. Mangoe ( talk) 18:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
When I come across articles like Pacific Squadron that I think should be part of the WP:Ships should I just add them? This article seems like it would be of interest to the project.-- Plmerry ( talk) 05:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
A quick FYI to anyone interested, Brianboulton has created SS Arctic disaster as a sub article to SS Arctic. Granted it is still under construction, but so far it looks promising. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
AFC would appreciate any expert help in improving and reviewing this draft: Draft:The Cunard Queens. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 19:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should we include routine and non-notable "lost at sea", "missing person", "suicide attempt", and other similar incidents in articles on the ships where they occurred? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahecht ( talk • contribs) 22:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Recently, an IP editor has added "lost at sea", "missing person", and "suicide attempt" incidents to dozens of cruise ship articles. As morbid as it is, these incidents are almost routine, and most aren't really notable. Given that many of these ships have as many people as a small town or a large building, and that we don't include a list of routine crime and missing person incidents in articles on towns and buildings, I feel that most of the non-notable incidents shouldn't be including in the ship article. The exceptions would be:
I didn't want to go ahead and mass revert these additions without gaining some sort of consensus on the issue first. --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE) 22:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I have nominated the article LX(R) for deletion. Please participate in the discussion here. Tupsumato ( talk) 06:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Without looking it up, can you guys give me your first guess what "landing ship minelayer" means? This will help me answer a copyediting question. - Dank ( push to talk) 19:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Is Debark (ship) within the project's scope? - The Bushranger One ping only
![]() | 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 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | → | Archive 45 |
I have no expertise in this subject area, but I just came across Supramax which lead me to Handymax and the template there led me to Handysize. Is there really a need for three separate articles? -- Derek Andrews ( talk) 14:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
These redirects have been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 1; it currently points to Panamax ports, but this doesn't make sense, Post-Panamax ports are deepwater ports, and many non-Panamax ports are deepwater ports. -- 70.50.151.11 ( talk) 07:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
While reading the class assessment log, I noticed that in late February a large number of ship class articles were reassessed as list-class articles by User:Thewellman. Was this done according to some new policy? Tupsumato ( talk) 18:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
There's a new move request at Talk:Kirov-class battlecruiser; many of the WP:SHIPS community already debated this at length in August 2011, but it's been raised again. Shem ( talk) 19:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
On the one hand we've got User:Parsecboy moving ships to remove unnecessary disambiguation (like this) and on the other we've got User:BilCat moving ships to include the disambiguation (like this). You tell tell what side of the argument I fall on since I did the original RM for INS Vikramaditya (R33) to move to INS Vikramaditya, and I added the note to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) indicating that "If there is only one ship of the name, it is wrong to disambiguate, per WP:PRECISE." IMHO the line "Articles about a ship class should follow standard Wikipedia naming conventions" makes it quite clear that we should not over-disambiguate - but at the moment we have (at least) two highly regarded admins and editors making contradictory moves. I propose we get a bit of consensus and save some nugatory effort. Shem ( talk) 19:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Related: why can't we have an all-encompassing naming system of "Country shiptype Name" and a parenthetical launch year if needed for disambiguation? Our current system is entirely haphazard, it's not consistent, and it leads to confusion, as exemplified above. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
RSS Steadfast, RSS Victory and MV Swift Rescue (RSS Swift Rescue?) are all in need of articles. Mjroots2 ( talk) 11:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
New article SS Telefon. Would once again be glad if you all would give it the once over. -Arb. ( talk) 14:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Another new article for your kind attention: SS Denebola. -Arb. ( talk) 17:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks to all who improved the Telefon and Denebola articles. You may also be interested in Holm & Molzen, the ship management company responsible for Denebola and many others. -Arb. ( talk) 10:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Cuchullain ( talk · contribs) has moved Essex (whaleship) to Whaleship Essex, with no discussion, citing WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURALDIS. This was briefly discussed in 2008 on the article's talk page when someone moved the article in the same way. Anyone want to weigh in? This seems to me to be an unnecessary move. — Diiscool ( talk) 15:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks once again to all who helped improve my recent new ship articles. Here's another (with a DYK nomination this time) that would benefit from the once over by experienced ship editors. -Arb. ( talk) 18:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
And another, somewhat related and perhaps slightly contentious. -Arb. ( talk) 18:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
This was on Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Transport. A once over would be appreciated. -Arb. ( talk) 00:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Last one for tonight. -Arb. ( talk) 00:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I've noticed that we have Category:Troop ships of the Royal Navy and Category:Troop ships of the United Kingdom. Is there a good reason for this? Alansplodge ( talk) 21:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey all, I currently have SMS Kaiser Wilhelm II at FAC ( see here) and I've had a hard time finding reviewers - I'd hate to see it archived for lack of reviews. If you have the time and interest, please offer suggestions for improvement, I'd be very grateful. Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 12:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I've noticed that we have Category:Troop ships of the Royal Navy and Category:Troop ships of the United Kingdom. Is there a good reason for this? Alansplodge ( talk) 21:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I would like some assistance in checking this statement, because the source I have is not particularly reliable:
The Iquique Another possibility is that the boat Burley found was from the H. Fölsch Co, Hamburg's, 899 ton barque Iquique. She the went missing in 1883 after being spoken to at Cape Horn. The Iquique had originally been called the Marlborough. The Iquique had sailed from Newcastle On Tyne in February 1883 under Captain G Eduard Jessen with a load of coal for Iquique, Chile. In particular I need a source for the renaming from Marlborough to Iquique, when and where it was last spoken to and the name of the ship, plus anything else which might add to the story. The other information I am seeking is when was the life saving station set up in or about Good Success Bay. NealeFamily ( talk) 09:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
All references now found NealeFamily ( talk) 09:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey all, I currently have SMS Kaiser Wilhelm II at FAC ( see here) and I've had a hard time finding reviewers - I'd hate to see it archived for lack of reviews. If you have the time and interest, please offer suggestions for improvement, I'd be very grateful. Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 12:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
New article for review. -Arb. ( talk) 18:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
The USS Monitor article has just been nominated for GA and reviewers/opinions are needed. To start the review and/or comment please go to the GA nomination page, under the Warfare section. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 19:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone know of any details as to the capture of Lady Penrhyn (ship) in 1811 in the West Indies? Regards Newm30 ( talk) 02:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I've requested a peer review for the article about the Swedish late 17th-century warship Kronan. My goal is to take make it an FA and I believe feedback from members of this project would be very helpful. If you think something is missing or could be improved, please comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Kronan (ship)/archive1. Your input would be much appreciated!
Peter Isotalo 17:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Please see
Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Port/dock terminology, (version of
20:50, 2 April 2014).
—
Wavelength (
talk) 21:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an 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) 00:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC).
Shouldn't SMS Amazone be a set index? I notice that RMS Amazon is one of two ships, and there are two SMS Amazones with articles. -- 70.24.250.235 ( talk) 06:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
See categorization proposal here. Alekksandr ( talk) 19:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
An issue has arisen over the display of ship names. The discussion is at talk:List of shipwrecks in 1828. You are welcome to contribute there. Mjroots ( talk) 05:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi all. I wanted to drop a line and ask for some help fixing SS Californian, a fairly lengthy article that appears to be about 90% OR. It's been tagged for years and I posted a note on the talk page last spring saying the article needed to be sourced or I was prepared to start deleting things. Anyways long story short, it fell off my radar screen but I am again looking at the article. So far though I am having little luck sourcing most of the material. I really don't want to turn what looks like a well worded and fairly lengthy article on a very notable subject into a stub, but that is about all that we have right now that is backed by RS sources. I am going to keep looking for a bit and will hold off for a couple more days before doing anything drastic. But after that I will, with much regret, start swinging the Wiki meat cleaver. Any help with sourcing would be greatly appreciated. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I also just noticed that this article is rated as B Class by the project. I don't see how that rating can be justified given the lack of sources. -
Ad Orientem (
talk) 01:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
24.49.4.19 has deleted the names and hull numbers from all of the US battleship articles. He's added some worthwhile material to the articles so I'm disinclined to revert his edits wholesale, but I've restored them to BBs 1-10 and 39. I'll leave the others to those with faster internet connections. I left a message on his talk page, but we'll have to see if he persists in his obnoxious behavior.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 06:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I believe you are referring to me and i'm sorry for the unneeded edits. I just saw them as redundant being on the top of the page but I have since refrained from removing them. I have had another user say that instead of adding the name and/or hull id I should add them into the "ship caption" section instead? Either way I will go back and add to the other articles when I can. Sorry for the trouble.--
85 GT Kid (
talk) 13:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I just nominated Kronan for FAC. Since the article is included in the scope of this project, I'm posting a reminder here.
Looking forward to your comments!
Peter Isotalo 15:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't the ferry that recently capsized have an article separate from the disaster article? It's a fairly large ship, being about half the size of Titanic, according to CNN -- 65.94.77.36 ( talk) 06:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I had a user say something about my use of the ship's badge pictures that I have been adding. From what I have read on the guidelines (and I am no lawyer) but it seems like I am in the parameters of fair use. The picture isn't even even copyrighted AFAIK and it has a small foot print so I thought it would be ok. Any thoughts?-- 85 GT Kid ( talk) 14:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Wasn't sure if I should throw your name out like that lol. I am really sorry I can't believe I missed that copyright there. Should they be taken down? I don't know of any free sources for something so small (ship's badges are not popular).-- 85 GT Kid ( talk) 15:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Should the sub-categories be in the format of "Category:Maritime incidents in fooian waters"? For example, Category:Maritime incidents in Albania should be Category:Maritime incidents in Albanian waters. And Category:Maritime incidents in Switzerland just looks wrong! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Trappist the monk ( talk · contribs) has made an undiscussed change to the ship infobox documentation by adding provision for a caption to the infobox and has begun implementing this, again, with no discussion. See French cruiser Sully for an example of what it looks like. I'm dislike the the caption and have begun reverting his changes to articles that I've watchlisted and started a discussion over at Template talk:Infobox ship begin#Infobox caption to see what the members of the community think about his unilateral change. I think that he has perhaps forgotten that silence is only consent if the issue has been raised.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 19:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
One discussion in one place please.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 00:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I think this is the related WikiProject? -- This article could do with some improvement, especially as it's in the news right now, due to MH370 and Bluefin-21 search -- 65.94.77.36 ( talk) 05:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
This category tree seems to be a mess... is Category: Robotic submarines for optionally manned vehicles? or is it the container for ROVs and AUVs? The current contents could do with diffusion, depending on how the category tree is cleaned up. -- 65.94.77.36 ( talk) 05:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I have had a discussion with an individual about the removal of HMCS/HMS in the infobox on several Canadian warship articles. I argue that it demonstrates that a ship was commissioned ship in compared to a non-commissioned ship and all that entails under maritime law. I was just curious as to what the procedure is. Can I leave it in? Does it have to be removed? Foxxraven ( talk) 11:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
|Ship name=
parameter in {{
infobox ship career}}
. Our conversation is
here.|Ship name=
parameter in {{
infobox ship career}}
templates since Editor Foxxraven's first post on my talk page. If you have evidence to the contrary, please show it.|ship name=
, there is no need to include the prefix to that field. The prefix is not part of the ship's name.
Tupsumato (
talk) 20:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)History | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Name | list error: <br /> list (
help) Using break 1 Using break 2 |
Namesake |
|
History | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Name |
|
In the infobox Usage guide under the heading
Diverse stylistic issues, the use of bulleted lists is proscribed. The preferred method for listing multiple items in a single parameter is to separate each item with <br />
markup. There are problems with some implementations of that method. When each item is on a separate line, the rendered display for that parameter's value in the right column is slightly lower than its title in the left column and, there is a larger separation between the last two items. I asked about this at
WP:VPT who have supplied a better solution than the one I came up with.
The infoboxes at right have lists:
<br />
markup with items on separate lines (shows the vertical offset and the gap between the last two items):
|Ship name=Using break 1<br />
- Using break 2<br />
- Using break 3<br />
- Using break 4<br />
- Using break 5<br />
Using break 6
|Ship namesake=*Standard * list 1
- *Standard * list 2
- *Standard * list 3
- **Standard * list 4
- *Standard * list 5
*Standard * list 6
|Ship name=*Plainlist css class 1
- *Plainlist css class 2
- *Plainlist css class 3
- **Plainlist css class 4
- *Plainlist css class 5
*Plainlist css class 6
There is an artifact to this: in normal * list markup, the ** markup indents the list item. This does not appear to work with the plainlist class (it doesn't work in the
{{
plainlist}}
template either). A workaround is to insert
between the * and the list item value.
It would seem that we could, perhaps should:
{{
infobox ship career}}
and {{
infobox ship characteristics}}
to use the plainlist class for those parameters where lists are permissible<br />
formatting and to specify the use of * list markup as the preferred list method<br />
formatting with * list markup and also remove existing {{
plainlist}}
templates.— Trappist the monk ( talk) 13:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
A fix to common.css now makes plainlist act like the normal * list markup where ** indents one level from the item above it.
I have made these parameters 'listable': |Ship name=
, |Ship identification=
, |Ship owner=
, |Ship operator=
, |Ship registry=
, |Ship refit=
, |Ship honours=
, |Ship honors=
. Clearly not all parameters should contain lists, |Ship launched=
is an example. Are there others that should be listable?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a proposed move under discussion at Talk:Hulk_(comics)#Requested_move, changing what is now a disambiguation page ( Hulk) to an article on the comic character. The discussion there mentions nautical use of the term, Hulk (ship). There was an article alert for the Comics project but not for this project. Kablammo ( talk) 00:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
The infobox on 1950 USS Missouri grounding incident is a bare transclusion of {{ infobox}}. Is there a better box to use, other than perhaps {{ infobox event}}? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() | |
History | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Name | Ship name |
Namesake | Ship namesake |
Owner | Ship owner |
Operator | Ship operator |
Port of registry | Ship registry |
Route | Ship route |
Ordered | Ship ordered |
Awarded | Ship awarded |
Builder | Ship builder |
Cost | Ship original cost |
Yard number | Ship yard number |
Way number | Ship way number |
Laid down | Ship laid down |
Launched | Ship launched |
Sponsored by | Ship sponsor |
Christened | Ship christened |
Completed | Ship completed |
Acquired | Ship acquired |
Commissioned | Ship commissioned |
Recommissioned | Ship recommissioned |
Decommissioned | Ship decommissioned |
Maiden voyage | Ship maiden voyage |
In service | Ship in service |
Out of service | Ship out of service |
Renamed | Ship renamed |
Reclassified | Ship reclassified |
Refit | Ship refit |
Stricken | Ship struck |
Reinstated | Ship reinstated |
Homeport | Ship homeport |
Identification | Ship identification |
Motto | Ship motto |
Nickname(s) | Ship nickname |
Honours and awards | Ship honours Error: has synonymous parameter ( help) |
Honors and awards | Ship honors Error: has synonymous parameter ( help) |
Captured | Ship captured |
Fate | Ship fate |
Status | Ship status |
Notes | Ship notes |
Badge | Ship badge |
Does it not seem odd that when a ship infobox uses |Ship renamed=
it is displayed between |Ship out of service=
and |Ship reclassified=
which is often several lines below |Ship name=
? Am I missing something? Shouldn't the new name directly follow the old name?
From the template code, here are the {{
infobox ship career}}
parameters in the order of their display. Besides |Ship renamed=
, are there any others that should be moved? What about the order of the groupings of these parameters in general? Name or identification information; owner/operator information; construction details; in commission / service life dates; etc. Are they correct? I've listed other possible changes below.
{{infobox ship career}}
nor included in any of the template skeletons. Should it be removed?|Ship launched=
?|Ship name=
?|Ship name=
/|Ship renamed=
?|Ship decommissioned=
?|Ship name=
/|Ship renamed=
?|Ship badge=
?|Ship name=
/|Ship renamed=
?— Trappist the monk ( talk) 13:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
|Ship renamed=
is, in my opinion, primarily intended to indicate the year when the ship was renamed. This is also reflected in the
usage guide although the alternative way of using the field is also described. Personally, I don't use this field and instead collect the names to |Ship name=
field with corresponding year ranges. In my eyes, it's a redundant field as the |Ship name=
should reflect also the current name of the ship and could perhaps be phased out/depreciated.|Ship class=
should indeed be removed. I agree with your proposal to move |Ship christened=
, |Ship struck=
and perhaps |Ship identification=
.|Ship homeport=
instead of |Ship registry=
. Also, we could move the way people describe civilian ship careers away from naval ships (e.g. no separate career boxes for multiple owners). On the other hand, I also like the current system, so perhaps that would just add complexity without providing anything worth the trouble...
Tupsumato (
talk) 18:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC){{
infobox ship career}}
template. I think what you are referring to is the template skeletons in the documentation page. Each of those is simply a subset of the available template parameters that were selected to cover most cases for those particular groups of ships.At right is a infobox with the parameter position changes I suggested. You all should play with it and see what changes should be undone, or what other changes should be made.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 00:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
|Ship renamed=
field. How are you supposed to use it together with |Ship name=
? Also, |Ship reclassified=
should come after |Ship commissioned=
because if that field is used to indicate year, it would happen chronologically after |Ship commissioned=
. Also, |Ship refit=
also usually occurs somewhere between commissioning and decommissioning. |Ship homeport=
could be placed after |Ship registry=
because these fields are used for nearly the same purpose, but rarely if ever for the same vessel (naval vs. civilian). |Hono(u)rs and awards=
should come after badge, IMHO. I mentally group it with |Ship motto=
and |Ship badge=
instead of the group where it is now.
Tupsumato (
talk) 04:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)|Ship renamed=
. Perhaps it has no value and should be deprecated and removed.|recommissioned=
, |refit=
, |renamed=
, |reclassified=
, |reinstated=
, etc. In some cases these imply multiple associated events: a ship might be commissioned, decommissioned, placed in inactive reserve, reactivated, recommissioned, decommissioned, struck, scrapped. It seems to me that we might adapt {{
infobox ship career}}
to support some number of multiples of these kinds of parameters, perhaps three shall be the number. Then we might write:
|Ship commissioned=16 July 1954
|Ship decommissioned=21 September 1959
|Ship commissioned2=31 October 1963
|Ship decommissioned2=5 March 1965
|Ship recommissioned=
is deprecated in favor of |Ship commissioned2=
.|Ship name=
though the number should be somewhat larger, perhaps ten.|Ship refit=
. Is it not true that ships go through refit several times in a lifetime? Are these maintenance periods important enough to warrant a place in the infobox. If so, which one do we select, or do we allow for several as I've suggested above?|Ship honours=
and |Ship honors=
can both be displayed simultaneously but probably shouldn't. We can make one of them the default so that if both have a value only that selected one displays; or we can hide both when both have values. Lest we upset anyone in the pro-British English / pro-American English language camps I'm more in favor of the latter choice. Whatever the decision, this same rule should also apply to the {{
infobox ship characteristics}}
parameters |armor=
, |armour=
, |draft=
, and |draught=
.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
|Ship honours=
and |Ship honors=
have values, neither are displayed. When only one has a value, that one is displayed. You can see this at work in the infobox at right. Both |Ship honours=
and |Ship honors=
have values so neither are displayed.I recall that we have discussed the header before. Here is a possible solution that wan't discussed at the time.
This solution uses the |Hide header=
parameter. When |Hide header=<blank>
or |Hide header=no
then the header is displayed with a horizontal bar that reads Career with country and flag below that. When |Hide header=bar
, all you see is the country and flag header. This is useful for the last option which is |Hide header=plural
which changes text in the career header bar to Careers. I did this because it never seemed right to me that the country is listed parenthetically in the header. So, to give it more space and prominence, this solution occurred to me.
History | |
---|---|
![]() Hungary | |
Name | Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand |
History | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Name | Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand |
History | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Name | Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand |
History | |
![]() | |
Name | Sin Nombre |
Name | Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand |
I'd like to find a better set of parameter values for |Hide header=
and an alias that could ultimately replace |Hide header=
but I haven't yet thought of anything suitable.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 00:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
{{
infobox ship career}}
template added to the infobox carries the Career (country) header which amounts to Career 1, Career 2, Career 3, ... So what you are really saying this: the Career term in the header is unnecessary, right? Every time {{infobox ship career}}
is included in the infobox, the rendered output should look something like the |Hide header=bar
example.|Hide header=yes
is useful for those occasions where duplicate fields a desirable. It isn't often used but it is done. I see no reason to take that functionality away. Nor do I think that these parameters will be misused; and if they are? fixes are easy.{{
infobox ship career}}
templates, what is a better word? History? Curriculum vitæ?|Hide header=plural
is disabled and I've changed the title bar to History.I have proposed Project 21956 for deletion. The entry can be found here. Tupsumato ( talk) 14:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
FYI, if anyone was looking for some ships to start articles on, at Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370#Search asset list displayed by two collapsible wikitables are some redlinked ships that have been involved in the search. -- 65.94.171.206 ( talk) 06:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Should seaplane tenders be included at List of aircraft carriers of Germany; or experiments in the development of aircraft carriers? See talk:List of aircraft carriers of Germany -- 65.94.171.206 ( talk) 04:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I just looked on Prince of Wales (disambiguation), it's not there. The HBC had many vessels, I hadn't heard of this one before; it came up redlink just now in the name origin section of Compton Island, re its namesake. Anyone familiar maybe with HBC vessels able to provide more on it for a stub/start? Skookum1 ( talk) 14:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
The NNS Okpabana article is seriously in need of referencing, expansion and updating. Plenty of material available (link on talk page). Therefore a bounty of a barnstar is offered to any editor(s) who bring the article up to GA standard. Mjroots ( talk) 19:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi all. Sander1453 drew my attention to the SS Espagne (Anversois, 1909). It looks like an unusually detailed article about a Belgian freighter sunk during World War II. The Dutch wiki article is supposedly in AfD. Here are my concerns... It cites no sources and I have serious doubts about the notability of the ship. The first ten pages or so of a Google search failed to yield anything that really rings the notability bell. Named warships, ocean liners and cruise ships I believe have gained a de facto acceptance of notability from the community provided there is reliable evidence of their existence. But I don't think this extends to smaller ships. A freighter or tanker would need to have some independent claim to notability and I can't find much at all to support it. I have tagged the article for notability and am seriously considering AfD. If you do a search be aware, there is a CGT passenger ship from 1910 with the same name. Thanks for any help. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that smaller ships are non-notable. It's just been my understanding that by precedent and consensus a presumption of notability applies to named warships and large passenger/cruise liners, again presuming reliable sources attest to their existence. I think the smaller merchant ships absolutely can be notable if they meet GNG or some other notability conferring criteria. But finding RS sources for this ship is proving to be a real bear. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Tanks to everyone for their help. And I agree that we have enough now to keep the article. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 13:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I have added the SS Espagne (Provence, 1909) to the List of ocean liners. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Please see Talk:HMS_Pandora#Other_Pandoras; the Pandora became the Jeanette, which has an article, HMS Pandora (1858) does not; doesn't seem it should be just a redirect, but I don't know practices with such successive names; there's a large number of places named for the Pandora and her crew (see Drury Inlet for starters), and I know more is out there in various older histories of BC and the Pacific Station and in some more modern ones. Skookum1 ( talk) 15:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (
talk) 10:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Ship articles seem to have a very strange system of infoboxes. There might be a better (faster, less complex) way to handle these. Can anyone tell me how this system came to be used (because perhaps I'm overlooking something critical)? Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 21:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
{|
wikitable markup inside {{
infobox ship begin}}
would require a matching {{infobox ship end}}
for the closing |}
markup.{{
infobox ship begin}}
that has the {|
markup{|{{Infobox ship begin}}
in all articles that use {{infobox ship begin}}
with {{Infobox ship begin/interim}}
and at the same time replace the closing |}
with {{Infobox ship end}}
{|
to {{infobox ship begin}}
{{Infobox ship begin/interim}}
with {{Infobox ship begin}}
{{Infobox ship begin/interim}}
Related question: Does anyone know if there are any other infoboxes structured sort of like this? Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 18:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
{{
Infobox flag}}
Hi all, you may be interested in this AfD on an article that falls within the project's scope. Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 18:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#HMS Adamant as Reserve Fleet Flagship we have a report that the information about the career of this ship is inaccurate. In fact there are next to no specific citations in this article, and the references listed either don't exist or don't provide this information. I haven't been able to find such information either. If someone could address these issues I would appreciate it; otherwise I'm inclined to stub the article down to the bare essentials. Mangoe ( talk) 18:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
When I come across articles like Pacific Squadron that I think should be part of the WP:Ships should I just add them? This article seems like it would be of interest to the project.-- Plmerry ( talk) 05:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
A quick FYI to anyone interested, Brianboulton has created SS Arctic disaster as a sub article to SS Arctic. Granted it is still under construction, but so far it looks promising. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
AFC would appreciate any expert help in improving and reviewing this draft: Draft:The Cunard Queens. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 19:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should we include routine and non-notable "lost at sea", "missing person", "suicide attempt", and other similar incidents in articles on the ships where they occurred? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahecht ( talk • contribs) 22:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Recently, an IP editor has added "lost at sea", "missing person", and "suicide attempt" incidents to dozens of cruise ship articles. As morbid as it is, these incidents are almost routine, and most aren't really notable. Given that many of these ships have as many people as a small town or a large building, and that we don't include a list of routine crime and missing person incidents in articles on towns and buildings, I feel that most of the non-notable incidents shouldn't be including in the ship article. The exceptions would be:
I didn't want to go ahead and mass revert these additions without gaining some sort of consensus on the issue first. --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE) 22:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I have nominated the article LX(R) for deletion. Please participate in the discussion here. Tupsumato ( talk) 06:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Without looking it up, can you guys give me your first guess what "landing ship minelayer" means? This will help me answer a copyediting question. - Dank ( push to talk) 19:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Is Debark (ship) within the project's scope? - The Bushranger One ping only