![]() | 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 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | → | Archive 45 |
Hi all, I currently have a ship list up for review at WP:FLC, and it's only garnered one review in almost 2 months. If you have the time, I'd appreciate it if you could drop by and take a look. The review page is here. Thanks much. Parsecboy ( talk) 13:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Please note: This is an updated version of a previous post that I made.
Hi all,
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:
• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film
• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.
• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.
• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____
• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (
talk) 15:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The name of Debark (ship) is under discussion, see talk:Debark (ship) -- 65.94.171.126 ( talk) 04:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi guys, I've inherited a about a dozen photos showing the interior of RN submarine L33 while it was on active service around the Chinese coast in the 1920s. Views of hydroplane operators' station, main engines, electric motors, officers' mess, ship's motto in wardroom, loading torpedoes etc. Studio shot of the crewmember
if of interest email me at projects@lassco.co.uk and I can scan and send you at whatever resolution you fancy. they all have a crew member's annotations on the back explaining what they are.
unfortunately total on line muppet so unable to contribute directly to Wiki
Stefan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.235.136 ( talk) 20:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
See this discussion about whether to use the pronouns "she" or "it" to refer to ships. Nigel Ish ( talk) 15:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
There is an AfD discussion that may be of interest to members of this project here. Comments are welcome. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 13:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Are there any guidelines for notability with regard ships/boats? When does a boat/ship become sufficiently notable for inclusion in WP? Or is every ship deemed to be notable, providing WP:GNG applies? TIA Atlas-maker ( talk) 11:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Comment In my experience notability in ships of any significant size is rarely an issue. Named warships are almost always going to be notable for the reasons mentioned by Nick-D. Additionally I have no recollection of any article about an ocean liner or cruise ship being deleted. Other commercial ocean going vessels are usually going to be notable though in some cases a little digging may be needed for sources. Once you get below that in ship size you might run into questions of notability, but even with ferries and river boats it's not usually all that hard to find enough to establish N. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Atlas-maker: This is a little off-topic, but...a wise old Coast Guard Senior Chief Petty Officer once told me that the difference between a ship and a boat was that you could put a boat on a ship but you couldn't put a ship on a boat... Cheers! Cuprum17 ( talk) 21:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Meanwhile, made a start on MV Claymore II. Davidships ( talk) 10:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
As MV Claymore II now tagged per WP:GNG by user:Atlas-maker, comments welcome on the Talkpage. Davidships ( talk) 11:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Has anyone heard of the Lusitania and Mauretania being referred to as "Lusitania class" ships? I haven't, but an editor has been pushing this without sources on the two articles. This has also been pushed on the Aquitania article, though in that case I am fairly certain that the term is not applicable. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Can anyone help me with a disambiguation dilemma?
I have been writing an article on Theophilus Jones (Royal Navy officer), which involves a mutiny after which 12 sailors were hung at Portsmouth in September 1798. One of the two ships used for the execution is named in the contemporary newspapers reports as HMS Resolution.
However, the list of ships at that HMS Resolution doesn't leave me very sure about which one to link to. The possibilities are:
Of those 3 vessels, only HMS Resolution (1770) was still in the Royal Navy's possession in 1798. Before I dismabiguate the link to that ship, I thought I should check here, because the whole thing seems odd. I thought that the RN had only one ship of any given name at any point in time, and if so, this list is wrong.
Should I just conclude that my assumption was wrong, and link to HMS Resolution (1770)? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
This pleasure sailboat seems marginally documentable, but I'm not clear on the notability of these various makes and models. There are a lot of others like this, only with more words (but often with no references either). I'm dropping this message on the sailing wikiproject as well, but I'm given to understand that they are not that active. Mangoe ( talk) 13:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Please can someone review recent ship-related edits by User:94.193.131.142? They are uncited, and some remove images. There are vandal warnings on the talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I reverted a bunch of the edits by 94.193.131.142 ( talk · contribs). It looks like they just made up some of the dates though I can't find a source for most of them. There are quite a few of their edits left as "current" version if someone else could take a look at those, they are probably fake as well. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 01:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Question How do we fix the older edits? I can only see the last 500 and I am pretty sure this prolific vandal has more than that under his/her belt. On a side note, I have stopped checking the individual edits. As of right now I am treating every one as presumptive vandalism and I'm just reverting on sight. There are too many to spend time looking at them all. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
S/He is back with a new IP address. Has anyone started an SPI yet? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I have now looked at every ship related article edited by the first IP and all of the edits have been reverted,fixed or in a few cases, cleared by the SHIPS team. I haven't had a chance to look at the contrib log for the second IP yet. I wonder what kind of life someone has that they spend all their time trying to sabotage an encyclopedia? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Ships expert to assist with this query, please. Fiddle Faddle 21:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Can the 1694 Solebay mentioned here possibly be the same one found on this webpage? Timeline is the same but the service history appear to be at odds with the wiki entry. Any ideas or more reliable sources? ww2censor ( talk) 09:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I have nominated USS South Dakota (BB-49) and sister ships for deletion. Please participate in the discussion. Tupsumato ( talk) 08:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm currently working on SM U-21 (Germany) and am somewhat curious about using uboat.net as a source. I know that the current FA SM U-66 uses it, but that article passed FAC back in 2009 and I'm guessing that standards have risen since then. German Type UB I submarine, a current GA, also uses it and that wasn't questioned at its failed FAC in 2010, but that was still quite some time ago. As far as I can tell from the "about" page, none of the contributors to the site appear to be established experts that would allow the site to pass WP:SPS, but I might be wrong. Does anyone have any insight? Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 12:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I have mixed feelings about this pages. Although it is privately owned and seems to be run by an enthusiast, or a group thereof, I have found it of high-quality so far. They have done a tremendous job to make data on u-boats available in English, even correcting mistakes in German language publications. On the other hand, the fate of "u-bootwaffe.net", which disappeared a while back, leaving scores of dead links, makes me worry about the future, should "uboat.net" share the same fate. My plan for the near future is to add sources like Busch & Röll; Gröner; Hildebrand et al.; Spindler; etc. to uboat-related articles in order to "immunize" them from "disappearing sources sickness". This said, they are neither biased, nor extremist, they are reliable (as far as I can tell) and accurate, however they are not linked to an academic institution or a publisher with a reputation for fact-checking. In a FAC I would advise to track down the sources "u-boat.net" used rather than rely solely on their efforts. Should that fail, they provide a email-adress, too. ÄDA - DÄP VA ( talk) 15:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that it's fine for GA, but likely fails the highly reliable source criteria for A class or FA.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 13:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Asked this on Military History project, but no answer: Cannot find info on pre-Castro Cuban navy. Is it absent, or have I missed something? Davidships ( talk) 22:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
would be useful on HMS Peacock, where Prairieplant ( talk · contribs) has been deleting redlinks to as yet unwritten ship articles, despite having been pointed to WP:REDLINK. Benea ( talk) 23:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Ohconfucius (contribs) seems to have a vendetta against the use of flags in articles. He's been removing flags from aircrash articles and now from ship articles. I've asked him to cease and desist from such action, but there are many articles that need to be restored to their former state. These can be identified by the legend "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason" in the edit summary. Mjroots ( talk) 16:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
At the top of MS Wissenschaft, there is currently an erroneous NO TITLE]] statement that seems to originate from the infobox template, but I could not figure out how to fix this. Thanks for any pointers or patches. -- Daniel Mietchen ( talk) 23:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
{{
italic title}}
template.RMS Empress of Britain (1931) is currently dabbed by her year of maiden voyage, rather than her year of launch. Could an admin move it to RMS Empress of Britain (1930), per WP:NCSHIPS, as a redirect with history is blocking the move. Benea ( talk) 12:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Having looked back through the Talk archive of WP:NCSHIPS, it's clear that dab discussion is dominated by warship considerations, with hardly a mention of merchant ships. For the latter, the launch year is rarely used as a descriptor in written sources and is often hard to find or is even unknown; year of completion/entry into service is virtually always known and in my experience very much more widely used. Staying with the example in hand, the sources I have to hand - Musk, Lloyd's Register, Hocking - all show RMS Empress of Britain (1930) as a 1931 ship and I would be very surprised if any of the cited sources characterise her as a 1930 ship. To me, the launch year defies both logic and common usage. Davidships ( talk) 18:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
A lot of ships plans related to National Defense Reserve Fleet were uploaded as part of US historical places survey. I moved them to commons:Category:Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet. Files definitely needs better per ship categorization. They could be definitely used in articles. -- EugeneZelenko ( talk) 14:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I've been asked to help expand this article, but I'm in the middle of a move and have absolutely no time to do so. Would any of the good topic experts here be able to lend a hand? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I recently nominated hemmema as a FAC. Since the article is included in the scope of this project, I'm posting a notification here. If you have time to spare, please drop by with feedback and criticial comments.
sincerely,
Peter
Isotalo 07:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, I know the Featured List process is a little more obscure than its Featured Article counterpart, but List of cruisers of Germany has been up for review for over a month now and has garnered a whopping 0 reviews. If you could spend a few minutes to review the list against the FL Criteria, I'd be very grateful. Thanks much. Parsecboy ( talk) 15:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
In 2011 the State Library of Queensland donated 50,000 photos to Wikimedia Commons, including I think about 3,000 black and white photos of ships. There was a request to categorise them, but many have still not been properly categorised.
I have just categorised all the Blue Star Line ship photos I can find, but there is one that stumps me. Its library caption says it is Australia Star, which was an Imperial Star-class ship that Harland and Wolff built in 1935. But the name on her bow is invisible, and to me she looks like one of three replacement ships of the class that H&W built in 1946–47 to replace some of Blue Star's losses.
Post-war members of the Imperial Star class had a different bridge, masts and somewhat different superstructure. Compare this photo with those of Australia Star on the Blue Star on the Web site. I have found no evidence of Australia Star ever being modernised to loook like her 1946–47 sister ships.
I think I am right in deducing the photo is not Australia Star. But if so, what ship is she? Am I right in supposing she is either Empire Star (1946), Imperial Star (1947) or Melbourne Star (1947)? And if so, which of the three is she?
It's not a very sharp photo. If Commons had other photos of Australia Star, and photos of all three post-War Imperial Star-class sisters, it wouldn't matter. But it doesn't. Please will a contributor with a sharp eye for detail help to identify this ship?
Best wishes, Motacilla ( talk) 13:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Here's another mystery photo from the thousands that the State Library of Queensland donated to Wikimedia in 2011. The caption says only "Orion (ship)". It blatantly is not Orient Line's Orion, which had only one funnel and no dark top to its funnel. I know of no two-funneled liner Orion, but I guess it could be an old liner that was renamed as such by a later owner.
Few shipping lines had a plain-coloured funnel with a dark (presumably black) top and a capital "M" on the side. It doesn't look like Moore-McCormack: they had white-hulled passenger liners, but with a red M on a white disc on a funnel with green and yellow bands. One other clue: it looks as if there are a couple of coloured waistbands along the hull.
Please will a contributor with a compendious knowledge of liners help to identify this ship? Or if you have contacts at Ships Nostalgia, please will you ask them for their collective wisdom on this puzzle?
Thanks, Motacilla ( talk) 09:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey all, I've noticed an IP's recent edits and a comment at the bottom of Talk:SS United States#44.7 knots?. They claim that the New York Times sent a FOIA request to the US Navy while their reporter was writing an obituary for the ship's last captain. However, the comments in that section (from 2006[!]) note that the math doesn't work out. Can anyone here take a look? Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
This chap is adding unsourced overly detailed contributions to British warship articles. I would ask the opinion of the project and that an eye be kept on this. Britmax ( talk) 11:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I had the following discussion with
User:Trappist the monk on his
talk page regarding scripted edits for {{
DWT}}
:
Hello. I noticed that you were adding "clarify" tags to several articles. In international shipping, the deadweight tonnage is always measured in metric tons (this is also the figure in the classification society databases from where I source most of my tonnage figures) and thus there is IMHO no need to clarify it in Wikipedia neither in the infobox (the abbreviation is always DWT anyway) nor in the text (that is, no "metric tons deadweight"). Of course, in case of older ships such as Haudaudine it might be long tons... Tupsumato ( talk) 14:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Right, the script can't know if the ship is older or newer;
{{ DWT}}
provides a mechanism by which DWT can be properly quantified and adjusts the display accordingly. Readers may not know that nowadays DWT is uniformly metric. I think that adding the{{ clarify}}
templates is an appropriate mechanism to draw attention to the missing parameter. I did think about changing the template to emit an error message and/or add a maintenance category;{{clarify}}
seemed simpler. Have I truly done a bad thing? If you think so, perhaps this discussion would be better moved to WT:SHIPS.
- — Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- How about not running automated scripts for heavily used templates without discussing it first at WP:SHIPS? I'm not saying what you do is "truly a bad thing" and in general you're doing a good work with the project, but if it concerns thousands of articles, it would be a good idea to discuss it first with other active editors, especially if it results in some kind of tag or error message in just about every ship article.
- While I agree that readers may not know about modern shipping, in my opinion there is still no need to mention it in every ship article. The article body should contain a link to deadweight tonnage where it can be explained and properly sourced. As for the template itself, DWT is an official figure and it should not be adjusted according to user preferences (that is, there should not be any automatic conversion). Also, I've been removing "metric" from the template over the years when I've encountered it, for I see it as needless redundancy in case of modern ships ("I'm going to call you with a phone").
Since this concerns the whole project, I think it's a good idea to continue the discussion here.
Rewording my original statement: In international shipping,
deadweight tonnage is always measured in metric tons and abbreviated as "DWT". It is an official figure stated in the ship's documents and thus should be presented in Wikipedia without any kind of conversion to/from long tons or other units of tonnage. Cargo capacity, on the other hand, can be presented with {{
convert}}
if suitable figures are available. Furthermore, deadweight tonnage should be spelled out and linked in the article body when describing the general characteristics of the vessel to provide people with no deeper knowledge about maritime trade a possibility to read further into the topic.
IMHO, there is no need to specify it as metric in case of modern ships — it is "needless redundancy" — but if the tonnage is known to be measured in long tons in case of some older ships, the additional information should of course be stated ("xxx long tons deadweight"). Since it's very difficult to find the original unit for older ships, I propose that in such case the text could be left as "xxx tons deadweight" or "deadweight tonnage of xxx tons". After all, that's what pretty much anyone reading "DWT" out loud would say.
The reason I'd like to discuss this and propose the guidelines explained above is that I'm trying to avoid ending up with thousands of articles with an error message or a {{ clarify}}, some of which may never be removed. Sure, {{ DWT}} is only used in a bit over a thousand articles as of now, but it doesn't mean it shouldn't theoretically be used in just about every merchant ship article. Tupsumato ( talk) 15:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
{{
DWT}}
as much similar to its then present state as I could in keeping with the purposes of my proposed change (to get rid of the non-intuitive |first=
parameter).It should be obvious from the age of the ship whether or not imperial or metric tons are meant.Perhaps to those who are intimately versed in the archana of ship specifications, but to the general reader? How is it obvious to that person?
This conversation seems to have come adrift. The question is {{
DWT}}
and what we do about it. If we want to tlk about ship lengths and conversions then separate conversations on those topics should take place elsewhere.
What to do about {{DWT}}
?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Length over all 447-10"
- Length on designed waterline 428-9"
- Length between perpendiculars 415'-0"
- Beam, molded 60-0"
- Depth, molded to upper deck at side 34'9"
- Designed draft, molded 24-0"
- Displacement, to designed waterline 10,928 tons
- Gross tonnage. U: It seems clear to me from the above that there can be no simple resolution of this in favour of either metric or imperial interpretation, and in my view the peppering of DWT references with clarification tags is both unhelpful and inelegant. I would propose leaving the DWT template as it is, but adding in the ship article guidance that editors should be recommended to include in the article itself a definition of the tons referred to, where that is identified in the sources (perhaps also listing the practice followed by the commonest sources - eg Equasis (presumably metric), Lloyd's Register (presumably changed from imperial to metric at some point). Davidships ( talk) 13:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
. S 7035.12
- Net tonnage U. S 3523
- Cargo capacity, refrigerated 240,070 cu. ft.
- Cargo capacity, baggage, mail, etc 5,370 cu. ft.
- Fuel oil capacity 1,405 tons
- Fresh water capacity 730 tons
- Shaft horsepower, normal 10,500
- Service speed, knots 17½
Compare with Lloyds (1933—34). Dimensions are given as 415-7, 60-3 and 24-1. It appears Lloyd's length is closest to the journal's "Length between perpendiculars" here. Note too that the journal specifies tonnage as "U.S" as well, the probable difference (thought I haven't done the conversion). Pacific Marine Review, many issues on line in various formats, including full .pdf, is a useful resource for anyone looking into U.S. shipping. I keep getting diverted from my supposed search finding other interesting stuff there. There is great detail on engineering to launch ceremonies up until self censorship shut down most detail in April 1942. Palmeira ( talk) 15:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
So what is the disposition of this topic? What to do about {{
DWT}}
?
—
Trappist the monk (
talk) 11:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Sigh. Yet another conversation that produces not much.
I have run a modified version of the awb script that added the {{
clarify}}
templates to articles where {{
DWT}}
did not specify a unit of measure (long or metric). This time the script removed the {{clarify}}
templates that it had previously added.
Just for further clarification, my script never added any {{
convert}}
templates to any of the articles that use {{DWT}}
, {{
GT}}
, {{
NetT}}
, {{
GRT}}
, or {{
NRT}}
templates yet that topic appears multiple times in the above conversation.
What to do about {{DWT}}
remains unclear.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 17:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Thankyou to everyone who has helped to identified ships in photos from the State Library of Queensland collection on Wikimedia Commons. Here is another with which I would be grateful for help.
She is a small three-funneled warship on the Brisbane River, in an undated photo apparently in the early decades of the 20th century. A branch of a small tree in the foreground obscures the part of her bow where her name ought to be. I guess she is likely to be a destroyer of the Royal Navy or Royal Australian Navy. I would be grateful to anyone who can at least name her class, so that the photo can be categorised properly.
Best wishes, Motacilla ( talk) 11:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I have now joined Ships Nostalgia to seek help identifying ships in photos on Wikimedia Commons. As yet I am not finding the SN site very easy to navigate, so I would be grateful to any Wikipedian also active on SN who can help me to settle in.
Even some captions that name the ship can leave one little the wiser. I have asked SN members to help to categorise Grange Branch, a cargo ship shown in this photo in Townsville, Queensland in about 1901. A [ 1902 newspaper] calls her a "turret steamer", a [ 1908 newspaper] calls her a " turret-deck steamer" and says one of her crew was Chinese. A [ mariner's discharge book] names a Captain WR Gresser who served on her. Her name seems to follow one of those "fleet name" formulae, but whether the fleet had names all beginning with "Grange" or all ending in "Branch" I do not know. Her funnel seems to be black with four plain white hoops. The only company with such markings that I can find is Nisshin Kisen of Tokyo, which seems unlikely in her case.
I have not found Grange Branch in any other source published online: Lloyd's Register (in which there is a crucial gap online from 1899 to 1930), the Clyde-built, Tees-built or Tyne-built registers, uboat.net, shipslist.com or wrecksite.eu. If I get an answer from Ships Nostalgia I will categorise the photo accordingly. If any Wikiproject Ships members are likewise able to help, please do! Best wishes as always, Motacilla ( talk) 10:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Do any of you know about old Italian warships? Here's a photo from the State Library of Queensland of an old warship flying the Italian ensign from her stern. I guess the ship is late 19th-century. The photo is inscribed "I.G. Calipe", which the source has taken to be the name of the ship. I have found no Italian ship called Calipe, so I am wondering if it is merely someone's name written on the photo. The photo was not necessarily taken in Queensland, or indeed Australia. Any ideas what class of ship she is?
Thanks as always, Motacilla ( talk) 15:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
108.53.93.116 ( talk · contribs) is making lots of changes to various lists of shipwrecks. He or she is changing the flag icons from national ensigns to service pennants. I've reverted the edits several times on List of shipwrecks in 1913 but am approaching 3RR now. I don't have the time or energy to engage in a massive cleanup on this but wanted to bring it to the attention of the project, specifically Mjroots who works very hard on these pages. If I'm wrong in thinking we only use national ensigns on these lists, please let me know. — Diiscool ( talk) 16:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
List of shipwrecks in 1913 fails WP:MOSICON, so we should kill two birds with one stone by removing the inline flag pictures altogether, just as we have done with other articles. bobrayner ( talk) 20:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi WikiProject Ships. The editnotice for Sinking of the RMS Titanic (which advises people editing the article that the article is written in British English) expired on 1 January 2014, which means it is not currently displayed when people edit the article. We have three options:
My suggestion would be to go with option 3. What do other people think? Thanks. DH85868993 ( talk) 11:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I was just checking some changes that moved "draft" values to "depth" and see we may have a bit of an interesting problem as depth and draft are two entirely different measurements but authoritative Lloyd's uses "depth" when the same ship described in other references specify "draft" for the same (or approximately the same) value. Taking one ship as a quick example, the C-2 Mormachawk (1939):
And we know that was a Type C2 ship where that article notes:
The first C2s were 459 feet (140 m) long, 63 feet (19 m) broad, and 40 feet (12 m) deep, with a 25-foot (8 m) draft.
Maybe we need to define just what measurements Lloyd's is using there as "Depth" and whether the term is being used as we understand it. Palmeira ( talk) 16:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
That is where it gets "fun" though. How many ways can name for "draft" alone? I can think of several off hand. With regard to Lloyd's, the "Depth" value within Lloyd's "Dimensions" column is very often equal to or very closely matched "draft/draught" in other references—in fact some official documents I use frequently simply take those Lloyd's dimensions as the L x B x draft for their dimensions. As a result of closer inspection during this discussion I am now interested in just what Lloyd's is measuring—just which specific line on one of those diagrams is being represented. Taking another Lloyd's page from 1934—35 there is a ship I recently worked on here as well as some samples of those measurements. SS Antigua is on that page and there is another reference that should be authoritative (Official Organ: Pacific American Steamship Association/Shipowners' Association of the Pacific Coast) New Turbo-Electric Steamship Antigua—a ship whose sisters became naval vessels such as Ariel that here is USS Ariel (AF-22). For that ship Lloyd's "Depth" in "Dimensions" is 24-1 which is close enough to "Designed draft, molded 24-0" in that shipowner/builder's journal and sister ship's DANFS dr. 26" (military loading or different methods?). Case closed? Not at all. On that Lloyd's page drop down to Antinea and look at the "Depth" and "draught" values where the dimensions value almost splits "moulded depth" and "draught" values (Yikes! low freeboard!) and then look at that page above I "checked" and RMS Queen Mary where that "Depth" is 68-5 and "Draught" is 41-4½ and Wiki has 39 feet (earlier Lloyd's values of 38-10½). Now the rest of the ships on that page have the two values more closely matching, but just what and how is Lloyd's measuring for each thing there? I am no longer quite so sure! Unfortunately I no longer have casual access to the nautical libraries I once had for work, one that had Lloyd's volumes going back into the late 1800s, so I cannot trace the story. We "ship people" may have some fun trying to do so.
My actual point remains. We have a cloud of sometimes uncertainly defined values trying to settle into some slots in the infoboxes that are themselves not precisely and technically defined. Where possible we should explain in text, but that end result could be a huge and very technical section full of ship's architect/builder/operator specifics of little meaning or just confusing to readers. Should we begin agreeing on simplification? Palmeira ( talk) 15:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Here's another unnamed warship for you from the State Library of Queensland's archive. The caption says "circa 1920" which may tally with the clothes of the spectators in the foreground. To my untrained eye she looks like a York-class cruiser, but they were completed in 1930 and '31. Expert opinions please?
Best wishes, Motacilla ( talk) 08:40, 24 September 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 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | → | Archive 45 |
Hi all, I currently have a ship list up for review at WP:FLC, and it's only garnered one review in almost 2 months. If you have the time, I'd appreciate it if you could drop by and take a look. The review page is here. Thanks much. Parsecboy ( talk) 13:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Please note: This is an updated version of a previous post that I made.
Hi all,
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:
• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film
• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.
• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.
• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____
• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (
talk) 15:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The name of Debark (ship) is under discussion, see talk:Debark (ship) -- 65.94.171.126 ( talk) 04:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi guys, I've inherited a about a dozen photos showing the interior of RN submarine L33 while it was on active service around the Chinese coast in the 1920s. Views of hydroplane operators' station, main engines, electric motors, officers' mess, ship's motto in wardroom, loading torpedoes etc. Studio shot of the crewmember
if of interest email me at projects@lassco.co.uk and I can scan and send you at whatever resolution you fancy. they all have a crew member's annotations on the back explaining what they are.
unfortunately total on line muppet so unable to contribute directly to Wiki
Stefan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.235.136 ( talk) 20:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
See this discussion about whether to use the pronouns "she" or "it" to refer to ships. Nigel Ish ( talk) 15:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
There is an AfD discussion that may be of interest to members of this project here. Comments are welcome. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 13:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Are there any guidelines for notability with regard ships/boats? When does a boat/ship become sufficiently notable for inclusion in WP? Or is every ship deemed to be notable, providing WP:GNG applies? TIA Atlas-maker ( talk) 11:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Comment In my experience notability in ships of any significant size is rarely an issue. Named warships are almost always going to be notable for the reasons mentioned by Nick-D. Additionally I have no recollection of any article about an ocean liner or cruise ship being deleted. Other commercial ocean going vessels are usually going to be notable though in some cases a little digging may be needed for sources. Once you get below that in ship size you might run into questions of notability, but even with ferries and river boats it's not usually all that hard to find enough to establish N. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Atlas-maker: This is a little off-topic, but...a wise old Coast Guard Senior Chief Petty Officer once told me that the difference between a ship and a boat was that you could put a boat on a ship but you couldn't put a ship on a boat... Cheers! Cuprum17 ( talk) 21:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Meanwhile, made a start on MV Claymore II. Davidships ( talk) 10:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
As MV Claymore II now tagged per WP:GNG by user:Atlas-maker, comments welcome on the Talkpage. Davidships ( talk) 11:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Has anyone heard of the Lusitania and Mauretania being referred to as "Lusitania class" ships? I haven't, but an editor has been pushing this without sources on the two articles. This has also been pushed on the Aquitania article, though in that case I am fairly certain that the term is not applicable. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Can anyone help me with a disambiguation dilemma?
I have been writing an article on Theophilus Jones (Royal Navy officer), which involves a mutiny after which 12 sailors were hung at Portsmouth in September 1798. One of the two ships used for the execution is named in the contemporary newspapers reports as HMS Resolution.
However, the list of ships at that HMS Resolution doesn't leave me very sure about which one to link to. The possibilities are:
Of those 3 vessels, only HMS Resolution (1770) was still in the Royal Navy's possession in 1798. Before I dismabiguate the link to that ship, I thought I should check here, because the whole thing seems odd. I thought that the RN had only one ship of any given name at any point in time, and if so, this list is wrong.
Should I just conclude that my assumption was wrong, and link to HMS Resolution (1770)? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
This pleasure sailboat seems marginally documentable, but I'm not clear on the notability of these various makes and models. There are a lot of others like this, only with more words (but often with no references either). I'm dropping this message on the sailing wikiproject as well, but I'm given to understand that they are not that active. Mangoe ( talk) 13:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Please can someone review recent ship-related edits by User:94.193.131.142? They are uncited, and some remove images. There are vandal warnings on the talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I reverted a bunch of the edits by 94.193.131.142 ( talk · contribs). It looks like they just made up some of the dates though I can't find a source for most of them. There are quite a few of their edits left as "current" version if someone else could take a look at those, they are probably fake as well. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 01:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Question How do we fix the older edits? I can only see the last 500 and I am pretty sure this prolific vandal has more than that under his/her belt. On a side note, I have stopped checking the individual edits. As of right now I am treating every one as presumptive vandalism and I'm just reverting on sight. There are too many to spend time looking at them all. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
S/He is back with a new IP address. Has anyone started an SPI yet? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I have now looked at every ship related article edited by the first IP and all of the edits have been reverted,fixed or in a few cases, cleared by the SHIPS team. I haven't had a chance to look at the contrib log for the second IP yet. I wonder what kind of life someone has that they spend all their time trying to sabotage an encyclopedia? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Ships expert to assist with this query, please. Fiddle Faddle 21:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Can the 1694 Solebay mentioned here possibly be the same one found on this webpage? Timeline is the same but the service history appear to be at odds with the wiki entry. Any ideas or more reliable sources? ww2censor ( talk) 09:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I have nominated USS South Dakota (BB-49) and sister ships for deletion. Please participate in the discussion. Tupsumato ( talk) 08:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm currently working on SM U-21 (Germany) and am somewhat curious about using uboat.net as a source. I know that the current FA SM U-66 uses it, but that article passed FAC back in 2009 and I'm guessing that standards have risen since then. German Type UB I submarine, a current GA, also uses it and that wasn't questioned at its failed FAC in 2010, but that was still quite some time ago. As far as I can tell from the "about" page, none of the contributors to the site appear to be established experts that would allow the site to pass WP:SPS, but I might be wrong. Does anyone have any insight? Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 12:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I have mixed feelings about this pages. Although it is privately owned and seems to be run by an enthusiast, or a group thereof, I have found it of high-quality so far. They have done a tremendous job to make data on u-boats available in English, even correcting mistakes in German language publications. On the other hand, the fate of "u-bootwaffe.net", which disappeared a while back, leaving scores of dead links, makes me worry about the future, should "uboat.net" share the same fate. My plan for the near future is to add sources like Busch & Röll; Gröner; Hildebrand et al.; Spindler; etc. to uboat-related articles in order to "immunize" them from "disappearing sources sickness". This said, they are neither biased, nor extremist, they are reliable (as far as I can tell) and accurate, however they are not linked to an academic institution or a publisher with a reputation for fact-checking. In a FAC I would advise to track down the sources "u-boat.net" used rather than rely solely on their efforts. Should that fail, they provide a email-adress, too. ÄDA - DÄP VA ( talk) 15:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that it's fine for GA, but likely fails the highly reliable source criteria for A class or FA.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 13:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Asked this on Military History project, but no answer: Cannot find info on pre-Castro Cuban navy. Is it absent, or have I missed something? Davidships ( talk) 22:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
would be useful on HMS Peacock, where Prairieplant ( talk · contribs) has been deleting redlinks to as yet unwritten ship articles, despite having been pointed to WP:REDLINK. Benea ( talk) 23:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Ohconfucius (contribs) seems to have a vendetta against the use of flags in articles. He's been removing flags from aircrash articles and now from ship articles. I've asked him to cease and desist from such action, but there are many articles that need to be restored to their former state. These can be identified by the legend "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason" in the edit summary. Mjroots ( talk) 16:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
At the top of MS Wissenschaft, there is currently an erroneous NO TITLE]] statement that seems to originate from the infobox template, but I could not figure out how to fix this. Thanks for any pointers or patches. -- Daniel Mietchen ( talk) 23:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
{{
italic title}}
template.RMS Empress of Britain (1931) is currently dabbed by her year of maiden voyage, rather than her year of launch. Could an admin move it to RMS Empress of Britain (1930), per WP:NCSHIPS, as a redirect with history is blocking the move. Benea ( talk) 12:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Having looked back through the Talk archive of WP:NCSHIPS, it's clear that dab discussion is dominated by warship considerations, with hardly a mention of merchant ships. For the latter, the launch year is rarely used as a descriptor in written sources and is often hard to find or is even unknown; year of completion/entry into service is virtually always known and in my experience very much more widely used. Staying with the example in hand, the sources I have to hand - Musk, Lloyd's Register, Hocking - all show RMS Empress of Britain (1930) as a 1931 ship and I would be very surprised if any of the cited sources characterise her as a 1930 ship. To me, the launch year defies both logic and common usage. Davidships ( talk) 18:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
A lot of ships plans related to National Defense Reserve Fleet were uploaded as part of US historical places survey. I moved them to commons:Category:Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet. Files definitely needs better per ship categorization. They could be definitely used in articles. -- EugeneZelenko ( talk) 14:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I've been asked to help expand this article, but I'm in the middle of a move and have absolutely no time to do so. Would any of the good topic experts here be able to lend a hand? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I recently nominated hemmema as a FAC. Since the article is included in the scope of this project, I'm posting a notification here. If you have time to spare, please drop by with feedback and criticial comments.
sincerely,
Peter
Isotalo 07:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, I know the Featured List process is a little more obscure than its Featured Article counterpart, but List of cruisers of Germany has been up for review for over a month now and has garnered a whopping 0 reviews. If you could spend a few minutes to review the list against the FL Criteria, I'd be very grateful. Thanks much. Parsecboy ( talk) 15:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
In 2011 the State Library of Queensland donated 50,000 photos to Wikimedia Commons, including I think about 3,000 black and white photos of ships. There was a request to categorise them, but many have still not been properly categorised.
I have just categorised all the Blue Star Line ship photos I can find, but there is one that stumps me. Its library caption says it is Australia Star, which was an Imperial Star-class ship that Harland and Wolff built in 1935. But the name on her bow is invisible, and to me she looks like one of three replacement ships of the class that H&W built in 1946–47 to replace some of Blue Star's losses.
Post-war members of the Imperial Star class had a different bridge, masts and somewhat different superstructure. Compare this photo with those of Australia Star on the Blue Star on the Web site. I have found no evidence of Australia Star ever being modernised to loook like her 1946–47 sister ships.
I think I am right in deducing the photo is not Australia Star. But if so, what ship is she? Am I right in supposing she is either Empire Star (1946), Imperial Star (1947) or Melbourne Star (1947)? And if so, which of the three is she?
It's not a very sharp photo. If Commons had other photos of Australia Star, and photos of all three post-War Imperial Star-class sisters, it wouldn't matter. But it doesn't. Please will a contributor with a sharp eye for detail help to identify this ship?
Best wishes, Motacilla ( talk) 13:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Here's another mystery photo from the thousands that the State Library of Queensland donated to Wikimedia in 2011. The caption says only "Orion (ship)". It blatantly is not Orient Line's Orion, which had only one funnel and no dark top to its funnel. I know of no two-funneled liner Orion, but I guess it could be an old liner that was renamed as such by a later owner.
Few shipping lines had a plain-coloured funnel with a dark (presumably black) top and a capital "M" on the side. It doesn't look like Moore-McCormack: they had white-hulled passenger liners, but with a red M on a white disc on a funnel with green and yellow bands. One other clue: it looks as if there are a couple of coloured waistbands along the hull.
Please will a contributor with a compendious knowledge of liners help to identify this ship? Or if you have contacts at Ships Nostalgia, please will you ask them for their collective wisdom on this puzzle?
Thanks, Motacilla ( talk) 09:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey all, I've noticed an IP's recent edits and a comment at the bottom of Talk:SS United States#44.7 knots?. They claim that the New York Times sent a FOIA request to the US Navy while their reporter was writing an obituary for the ship's last captain. However, the comments in that section (from 2006[!]) note that the math doesn't work out. Can anyone here take a look? Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
This chap is adding unsourced overly detailed contributions to British warship articles. I would ask the opinion of the project and that an eye be kept on this. Britmax ( talk) 11:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I had the following discussion with
User:Trappist the monk on his
talk page regarding scripted edits for {{
DWT}}
:
Hello. I noticed that you were adding "clarify" tags to several articles. In international shipping, the deadweight tonnage is always measured in metric tons (this is also the figure in the classification society databases from where I source most of my tonnage figures) and thus there is IMHO no need to clarify it in Wikipedia neither in the infobox (the abbreviation is always DWT anyway) nor in the text (that is, no "metric tons deadweight"). Of course, in case of older ships such as Haudaudine it might be long tons... Tupsumato ( talk) 14:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Right, the script can't know if the ship is older or newer;
{{ DWT}}
provides a mechanism by which DWT can be properly quantified and adjusts the display accordingly. Readers may not know that nowadays DWT is uniformly metric. I think that adding the{{ clarify}}
templates is an appropriate mechanism to draw attention to the missing parameter. I did think about changing the template to emit an error message and/or add a maintenance category;{{clarify}}
seemed simpler. Have I truly done a bad thing? If you think so, perhaps this discussion would be better moved to WT:SHIPS.
- — Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- How about not running automated scripts for heavily used templates without discussing it first at WP:SHIPS? I'm not saying what you do is "truly a bad thing" and in general you're doing a good work with the project, but if it concerns thousands of articles, it would be a good idea to discuss it first with other active editors, especially if it results in some kind of tag or error message in just about every ship article.
- While I agree that readers may not know about modern shipping, in my opinion there is still no need to mention it in every ship article. The article body should contain a link to deadweight tonnage where it can be explained and properly sourced. As for the template itself, DWT is an official figure and it should not be adjusted according to user preferences (that is, there should not be any automatic conversion). Also, I've been removing "metric" from the template over the years when I've encountered it, for I see it as needless redundancy in case of modern ships ("I'm going to call you with a phone").
Since this concerns the whole project, I think it's a good idea to continue the discussion here.
Rewording my original statement: In international shipping,
deadweight tonnage is always measured in metric tons and abbreviated as "DWT". It is an official figure stated in the ship's documents and thus should be presented in Wikipedia without any kind of conversion to/from long tons or other units of tonnage. Cargo capacity, on the other hand, can be presented with {{
convert}}
if suitable figures are available. Furthermore, deadweight tonnage should be spelled out and linked in the article body when describing the general characteristics of the vessel to provide people with no deeper knowledge about maritime trade a possibility to read further into the topic.
IMHO, there is no need to specify it as metric in case of modern ships — it is "needless redundancy" — but if the tonnage is known to be measured in long tons in case of some older ships, the additional information should of course be stated ("xxx long tons deadweight"). Since it's very difficult to find the original unit for older ships, I propose that in such case the text could be left as "xxx tons deadweight" or "deadweight tonnage of xxx tons". After all, that's what pretty much anyone reading "DWT" out loud would say.
The reason I'd like to discuss this and propose the guidelines explained above is that I'm trying to avoid ending up with thousands of articles with an error message or a {{ clarify}}, some of which may never be removed. Sure, {{ DWT}} is only used in a bit over a thousand articles as of now, but it doesn't mean it shouldn't theoretically be used in just about every merchant ship article. Tupsumato ( talk) 15:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
{{
DWT}}
as much similar to its then present state as I could in keeping with the purposes of my proposed change (to get rid of the non-intuitive |first=
parameter).It should be obvious from the age of the ship whether or not imperial or metric tons are meant.Perhaps to those who are intimately versed in the archana of ship specifications, but to the general reader? How is it obvious to that person?
This conversation seems to have come adrift. The question is {{
DWT}}
and what we do about it. If we want to tlk about ship lengths and conversions then separate conversations on those topics should take place elsewhere.
What to do about {{DWT}}
?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Length over all 447-10"
- Length on designed waterline 428-9"
- Length between perpendiculars 415'-0"
- Beam, molded 60-0"
- Depth, molded to upper deck at side 34'9"
- Designed draft, molded 24-0"
- Displacement, to designed waterline 10,928 tons
- Gross tonnage. U: It seems clear to me from the above that there can be no simple resolution of this in favour of either metric or imperial interpretation, and in my view the peppering of DWT references with clarification tags is both unhelpful and inelegant. I would propose leaving the DWT template as it is, but adding in the ship article guidance that editors should be recommended to include in the article itself a definition of the tons referred to, where that is identified in the sources (perhaps also listing the practice followed by the commonest sources - eg Equasis (presumably metric), Lloyd's Register (presumably changed from imperial to metric at some point). Davidships ( talk) 13:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
. S 7035.12
- Net tonnage U. S 3523
- Cargo capacity, refrigerated 240,070 cu. ft.
- Cargo capacity, baggage, mail, etc 5,370 cu. ft.
- Fuel oil capacity 1,405 tons
- Fresh water capacity 730 tons
- Shaft horsepower, normal 10,500
- Service speed, knots 17½
Compare with Lloyds (1933—34). Dimensions are given as 415-7, 60-3 and 24-1. It appears Lloyd's length is closest to the journal's "Length between perpendiculars" here. Note too that the journal specifies tonnage as "U.S" as well, the probable difference (thought I haven't done the conversion). Pacific Marine Review, many issues on line in various formats, including full .pdf, is a useful resource for anyone looking into U.S. shipping. I keep getting diverted from my supposed search finding other interesting stuff there. There is great detail on engineering to launch ceremonies up until self censorship shut down most detail in April 1942. Palmeira ( talk) 15:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
So what is the disposition of this topic? What to do about {{
DWT}}
?
—
Trappist the monk (
talk) 11:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Sigh. Yet another conversation that produces not much.
I have run a modified version of the awb script that added the {{
clarify}}
templates to articles where {{
DWT}}
did not specify a unit of measure (long or metric). This time the script removed the {{clarify}}
templates that it had previously added.
Just for further clarification, my script never added any {{
convert}}
templates to any of the articles that use {{DWT}}
, {{
GT}}
, {{
NetT}}
, {{
GRT}}
, or {{
NRT}}
templates yet that topic appears multiple times in the above conversation.
What to do about {{DWT}}
remains unclear.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 17:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Thankyou to everyone who has helped to identified ships in photos from the State Library of Queensland collection on Wikimedia Commons. Here is another with which I would be grateful for help.
She is a small three-funneled warship on the Brisbane River, in an undated photo apparently in the early decades of the 20th century. A branch of a small tree in the foreground obscures the part of her bow where her name ought to be. I guess she is likely to be a destroyer of the Royal Navy or Royal Australian Navy. I would be grateful to anyone who can at least name her class, so that the photo can be categorised properly.
Best wishes, Motacilla ( talk) 11:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I have now joined Ships Nostalgia to seek help identifying ships in photos on Wikimedia Commons. As yet I am not finding the SN site very easy to navigate, so I would be grateful to any Wikipedian also active on SN who can help me to settle in.
Even some captions that name the ship can leave one little the wiser. I have asked SN members to help to categorise Grange Branch, a cargo ship shown in this photo in Townsville, Queensland in about 1901. A [ 1902 newspaper] calls her a "turret steamer", a [ 1908 newspaper] calls her a " turret-deck steamer" and says one of her crew was Chinese. A [ mariner's discharge book] names a Captain WR Gresser who served on her. Her name seems to follow one of those "fleet name" formulae, but whether the fleet had names all beginning with "Grange" or all ending in "Branch" I do not know. Her funnel seems to be black with four plain white hoops. The only company with such markings that I can find is Nisshin Kisen of Tokyo, which seems unlikely in her case.
I have not found Grange Branch in any other source published online: Lloyd's Register (in which there is a crucial gap online from 1899 to 1930), the Clyde-built, Tees-built or Tyne-built registers, uboat.net, shipslist.com or wrecksite.eu. If I get an answer from Ships Nostalgia I will categorise the photo accordingly. If any Wikiproject Ships members are likewise able to help, please do! Best wishes as always, Motacilla ( talk) 10:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Do any of you know about old Italian warships? Here's a photo from the State Library of Queensland of an old warship flying the Italian ensign from her stern. I guess the ship is late 19th-century. The photo is inscribed "I.G. Calipe", which the source has taken to be the name of the ship. I have found no Italian ship called Calipe, so I am wondering if it is merely someone's name written on the photo. The photo was not necessarily taken in Queensland, or indeed Australia. Any ideas what class of ship she is?
Thanks as always, Motacilla ( talk) 15:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
108.53.93.116 ( talk · contribs) is making lots of changes to various lists of shipwrecks. He or she is changing the flag icons from national ensigns to service pennants. I've reverted the edits several times on List of shipwrecks in 1913 but am approaching 3RR now. I don't have the time or energy to engage in a massive cleanup on this but wanted to bring it to the attention of the project, specifically Mjroots who works very hard on these pages. If I'm wrong in thinking we only use national ensigns on these lists, please let me know. — Diiscool ( talk) 16:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
List of shipwrecks in 1913 fails WP:MOSICON, so we should kill two birds with one stone by removing the inline flag pictures altogether, just as we have done with other articles. bobrayner ( talk) 20:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi WikiProject Ships. The editnotice for Sinking of the RMS Titanic (which advises people editing the article that the article is written in British English) expired on 1 January 2014, which means it is not currently displayed when people edit the article. We have three options:
My suggestion would be to go with option 3. What do other people think? Thanks. DH85868993 ( talk) 11:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I was just checking some changes that moved "draft" values to "depth" and see we may have a bit of an interesting problem as depth and draft are two entirely different measurements but authoritative Lloyd's uses "depth" when the same ship described in other references specify "draft" for the same (or approximately the same) value. Taking one ship as a quick example, the C-2 Mormachawk (1939):
And we know that was a Type C2 ship where that article notes:
The first C2s were 459 feet (140 m) long, 63 feet (19 m) broad, and 40 feet (12 m) deep, with a 25-foot (8 m) draft.
Maybe we need to define just what measurements Lloyd's is using there as "Depth" and whether the term is being used as we understand it. Palmeira ( talk) 16:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
That is where it gets "fun" though. How many ways can name for "draft" alone? I can think of several off hand. With regard to Lloyd's, the "Depth" value within Lloyd's "Dimensions" column is very often equal to or very closely matched "draft/draught" in other references—in fact some official documents I use frequently simply take those Lloyd's dimensions as the L x B x draft for their dimensions. As a result of closer inspection during this discussion I am now interested in just what Lloyd's is measuring—just which specific line on one of those diagrams is being represented. Taking another Lloyd's page from 1934—35 there is a ship I recently worked on here as well as some samples of those measurements. SS Antigua is on that page and there is another reference that should be authoritative (Official Organ: Pacific American Steamship Association/Shipowners' Association of the Pacific Coast) New Turbo-Electric Steamship Antigua—a ship whose sisters became naval vessels such as Ariel that here is USS Ariel (AF-22). For that ship Lloyd's "Depth" in "Dimensions" is 24-1 which is close enough to "Designed draft, molded 24-0" in that shipowner/builder's journal and sister ship's DANFS dr. 26" (military loading or different methods?). Case closed? Not at all. On that Lloyd's page drop down to Antinea and look at the "Depth" and "draught" values where the dimensions value almost splits "moulded depth" and "draught" values (Yikes! low freeboard!) and then look at that page above I "checked" and RMS Queen Mary where that "Depth" is 68-5 and "Draught" is 41-4½ and Wiki has 39 feet (earlier Lloyd's values of 38-10½). Now the rest of the ships on that page have the two values more closely matching, but just what and how is Lloyd's measuring for each thing there? I am no longer quite so sure! Unfortunately I no longer have casual access to the nautical libraries I once had for work, one that had Lloyd's volumes going back into the late 1800s, so I cannot trace the story. We "ship people" may have some fun trying to do so.
My actual point remains. We have a cloud of sometimes uncertainly defined values trying to settle into some slots in the infoboxes that are themselves not precisely and technically defined. Where possible we should explain in text, but that end result could be a huge and very technical section full of ship's architect/builder/operator specifics of little meaning or just confusing to readers. Should we begin agreeing on simplification? Palmeira ( talk) 15:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Here's another unnamed warship for you from the State Library of Queensland's archive. The caption says "circa 1920" which may tally with the clothes of the spectators in the foreground. To my untrained eye she looks like a York-class cruiser, but they were completed in 1930 and '31. Expert opinions please?
Best wishes, Motacilla ( talk) 08:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)