![]() | 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 45 | ← | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | → | Archive 55 |
Good day.
I have created articles for the 20-metre UK Border Force coastal patrol vessels and I have a few questions. The articles are as follows:
Firstly, I hope these articles are acceptable with respect to quality and accuracy. Whilst I've been a Wikipedia member for a while, I'm not that experienced with creating new articles like this and am trying to become more involved. I have updated the main UK Border Force page and also the page template to incorporate the new boats and improve the way it is laid out.
Secondly, would it be more appropriate to have one article covering the class of boat, or multiple articles as above for each vessel, or both? The scarcity of data and news reporting makes the boat articles all virtually identical. Should I merge them all into an article titled "UKBF 20m coastal patrol vessel" (similar to the article UKBF 42m Customs Cutter) for example? Your thoughts on this would be gratefully received.
Thank you. Xtrememachineuk ( talk) 05:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Lots of edits recently like this, renaming Error: {{ USS}} invalid control parameter: 0 ( help) to USS Bullhead, on the grounds that "only ship of this name". @ Illegitimate Barrister:
Is this now policy? Can anyone point to the decision?
I don't see this as a good change. It loses useful information, particularly for non-capital ships where the class is itself informative. Also the presentation in categories now makes it impossible to find a ship by pennant, which for smaller ships like destroyers can often be the most obvious aspect. There's also a loss of consistency, and whilst we all too often impose a pointless consistency when it isn't needed (MediaWiki doesn't care), this seems to be a consistency with more in favour of it than against.
Thoughts? Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Here are three more moved in the last 24 hours:
Soon enough we will spend all our time reverting and moving. Brad ( talk) 05:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Where do we draw the line? I am looking at Thames barges. The inclusionist in me says that if she is still sailing or if we have a photo of her in Commons, then she passes GNG and is entitled to an article- however they may be other POVs. Do we have guidance? -- ClemRutter ( talk) 08:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
@ ClemRutter: - would it help if there was a generic skeleton article slanted towards Thames Barges that could be used as a template to work from. I could knock one up if needed. Mjroots ( talk) 18:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Articles involved are USS Constitution, USS Constellation. Editor is bound and determined to prove that the current USS Constellation (1854) is actually the 1797 ship. His comments are extremely biased. There is a post I made on the Constitution talk page which outlines my current restoration on the article. Currently I'm in no mood for diplomacy. Brad ( talk) 10:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Dispute resolution started. Brad ( talk) 01:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm considering rolling back USS Constellation (1797) to approx April of this year. The damage caused since April far outweighs any good edits that were made. What do others think? Brad ( talk) 17:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
A little more history about this dispute. Over a month ago, I posted here in an attempt to bring Hans to discussion but he never responded. Hindsight shows me that I should have put a stop on his editing much earlier than I did but I despise editing drama. Brad ( talk) 14:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
It looks to be a combination of original research and righting great wrongs. (Can a ship be defamed?) Here's the explanation from one book:
" . . .working under the subterfuge of 'repairs,' the Navy actually began building a new ship about 900 yards from where the original Constellation was being dismantled. Thus, unwittingly, the Navy itself would originate the arguments about the authenticity of the Constellation. To further compound the argument, some salvageable timbers from the original ship, particularly the ship’s knees, were used in constructing the new vessel.
Stephen R. Bockmiller, Lawrence J. Bopp, USS Constellation: An Illustrated History, p. 10. Charleston, S.C: Tempus Pub., ©2000. ISBN 0 7385 0582 X. It goes on to describe the differences in designs and dimensions. Other sources acknowledge that the second USS Constellation, built in 1854, contains portions of the original vessel, and and the old frigate was "dismantled in 1853 and her timbers auctioned off. At about the same time, the second Constellation was built in Gosport about 600 feet away. The second Constellation was designed by U.S. naval constructor John Lenthall as a completely new ship".
Kablammo ( talk) 17:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not going to get in the middle of this. As I was tweaking the Fouled Anchors citation template, I stumbled upon this:
{{cite book |last=Lynaugh |first=K.M. |editor-last=Latorre |editor-first=Robert G. |article=Discussion of the Origins of the Frigate and the Sloop Constellation |title=Proceedings of the Twenty-Third American Towing Tank Conference |location=Washington DC |publisher=National Academy Press |date=1993 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hIsrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA355}}
Perhaps it is of use.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Some expert opinion would be very welcome. Can a sloop of war be called HMS, or should it be HM sloop? Specifically, the Bounty, of mutiny fame. I have seen it referred to as HMS and HM sloop. There are several articles on WP that all use HMS. The maritime museum in Greenwich uses HM Sloop, or just 'the Bounty'. see: http://www.rmg.co.uk/discover/explore/william-bligh. Thanks for any insight. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 08:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
List of largest shipyards in history and Real Arsenal... I not only see no effort put into these, but I don't see them being able to be expanded. Should they be nominated for deletion? DARTHBOTTO talk• cont 19:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi. There's an ongoing requested move at Talk:Brazilian coastal defense ship Deodoro. Thank you. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
The existing article /info/en/?search=USS_Brutus_(AC-15) refers to USS Brutus (AC-15), 1898-1922, a collier. There was another USS Brutus, a small storeship that carried some of the Army troops from New York to California in July 1846 as part of the California Campaign and the Pacific Coast Campaign. Some details at /info/en/?search=Pacific_Squadron
What is the correct form of article title for ships of the Portuguese Navy? Is it "NRP Foo" or "Portuguese (ship type) Foo"? Mjroots ( talk) 15:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm not 100% certain if it's within the realms of this Wikiproject but I came across the Corvette Motoryacht article and it needs a lot of attention. A lot of attention. It's been written as a magazine article and is full of OR and encyclopaedic content with references like "from private communication with an owner" etc. I've taken a broad stab at it, and tagged it with a ridiculous amount of article maintenance templates due to the really poor nature of it, but it needs eyes of experienced editors in this area. If someone can take a look it would be appreciated. Canterbury Tail talk 21:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
It has been my intent for quite a while to eventually deprecate {{
sclass-}}
and {{
sclass2-}}
because once all of the ship class articles that are not hyphenated get their hyphens (Example class scow → Example-class scow) we won't need four templates to do the work of two.
Now that it has been nearly five years since the introduction of these templates, I've tweaked {{
sclass/core}}
(the engine that renders the four templates) so that it categorizes articles when it finds {{
sclass}}
and {{
sclass2}}
templates that link to a redirect and where the redirect links to a properly hyphenated article title. For example, the article
British Armed Forces uses {{sclass2|Bay|landing ship dock}}
which links to
Bay class landing ship dock, a redirect to
Bay-class landing ship dock. The template detects this and adds British Armed Forces to ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:WPSHIPS: sclass2 redirect. Similarly,
RMS Titanic uses {{sclass|Olympic|ocean liner}}
→
Olympic class ocean liner, a redirect →
Olympic-class ocean liner and so adds RMS Titanic to ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:WPSHIPS: sclass redirect.
The template tweak and the categories are new so it will take a bit of time for them to populate.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Is there an editor who is proficient in French and has access to an online archive of French newspapers from 1841? Have come across a Tuscan steamship sunk in that year with an interesting connection to a plunder case in the 2000s. Needs an article writing but I'll need help. Mjroots ( talk) 07:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Just to let anyone who's interested know, there's a discussion about the scope of ship articles at FAC going on now. Parsecboy ( talk) 14:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
An editor is carrying out mass page moves of Royal Navy ship articles from using dates as disambiguation to pennant numbers as disambiguation - see [1]. Have I missed the consensus for these moves? Nigel Ish ( talk) 19:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
We currently have both the Rothesay-class frigate and the Leander-class frigate articles claiming the designation "Type 12M" and they can't both be right. There's further obscurity at the Type 12 frigate article. Any insights at Talk:Rothesay-class frigate#Admiralty Type numbering confusion will be gratefully received. Alansplodge ( talk) 15:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
There is an expired Prod on MV Star Osakana. Can someone check to see if this is worth saving before it gets the axe? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I've made a start, will do more after the Grand Prix, but other editors are free to improve the article in the meantime. Mjroots ( talk) 06:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Any such guidelines exist similar to WP:AVILIST? Or just commonsense such as MOS:FLAG and implementing other style guidelines etc?
A lot of these ship list articles are a mess, with tables cluttered with images and trivial commentary (in "notes" sections). Particularly counter-intuitive to readers on hand-held devices, which these days is quite a large percentage of readers. Antiochus the Great ( talk) 18:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, I've had List of protected cruisers of Italy up for Featured List for a little over a month so far, and it's only garnered one review in that time. If you have some time to take a look, I'd be very grateful. The review page is here. Thanks! Parsecboy ( talk) 14:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't stub articles like HTMS Phutthaloetla Naphalai be a redirect to a section in the main article on the ship, in this case USS Ouellet#Thai service, until there is sufficient significant content in both, per NCS? Davidships ( talk) 20:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
This AfD may be of some interest to members of the project. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
This may be something that the project can assist with. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Should HMS Tyger (1647) be moved to HMS Tyger or should the latter be a redirect to the former? Clarityfiend ( talk) 23:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I've been working on the USS Sable (IX-81) page. I'd just like a fresh set of eyes to get some suggestions on what needs to be improved or expanded. Thanks! Shinerunner (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
The article needs a careful read and copyedit. Kablammo ( talk) 00:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.
A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Ships
Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 18:38, 3 December 2017 (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 45 | ← | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | → | Archive 55 |
Good day.
I have created articles for the 20-metre UK Border Force coastal patrol vessels and I have a few questions. The articles are as follows:
Firstly, I hope these articles are acceptable with respect to quality and accuracy. Whilst I've been a Wikipedia member for a while, I'm not that experienced with creating new articles like this and am trying to become more involved. I have updated the main UK Border Force page and also the page template to incorporate the new boats and improve the way it is laid out.
Secondly, would it be more appropriate to have one article covering the class of boat, or multiple articles as above for each vessel, or both? The scarcity of data and news reporting makes the boat articles all virtually identical. Should I merge them all into an article titled "UKBF 20m coastal patrol vessel" (similar to the article UKBF 42m Customs Cutter) for example? Your thoughts on this would be gratefully received.
Thank you. Xtrememachineuk ( talk) 05:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Lots of edits recently like this, renaming Error: {{ USS}} invalid control parameter: 0 ( help) to USS Bullhead, on the grounds that "only ship of this name". @ Illegitimate Barrister:
Is this now policy? Can anyone point to the decision?
I don't see this as a good change. It loses useful information, particularly for non-capital ships where the class is itself informative. Also the presentation in categories now makes it impossible to find a ship by pennant, which for smaller ships like destroyers can often be the most obvious aspect. There's also a loss of consistency, and whilst we all too often impose a pointless consistency when it isn't needed (MediaWiki doesn't care), this seems to be a consistency with more in favour of it than against.
Thoughts? Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Here are three more moved in the last 24 hours:
Soon enough we will spend all our time reverting and moving. Brad ( talk) 05:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Where do we draw the line? I am looking at Thames barges. The inclusionist in me says that if she is still sailing or if we have a photo of her in Commons, then she passes GNG and is entitled to an article- however they may be other POVs. Do we have guidance? -- ClemRutter ( talk) 08:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
@ ClemRutter: - would it help if there was a generic skeleton article slanted towards Thames Barges that could be used as a template to work from. I could knock one up if needed. Mjroots ( talk) 18:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Articles involved are USS Constitution, USS Constellation. Editor is bound and determined to prove that the current USS Constellation (1854) is actually the 1797 ship. His comments are extremely biased. There is a post I made on the Constitution talk page which outlines my current restoration on the article. Currently I'm in no mood for diplomacy. Brad ( talk) 10:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Dispute resolution started. Brad ( talk) 01:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm considering rolling back USS Constellation (1797) to approx April of this year. The damage caused since April far outweighs any good edits that were made. What do others think? Brad ( talk) 17:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
A little more history about this dispute. Over a month ago, I posted here in an attempt to bring Hans to discussion but he never responded. Hindsight shows me that I should have put a stop on his editing much earlier than I did but I despise editing drama. Brad ( talk) 14:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
It looks to be a combination of original research and righting great wrongs. (Can a ship be defamed?) Here's the explanation from one book:
" . . .working under the subterfuge of 'repairs,' the Navy actually began building a new ship about 900 yards from where the original Constellation was being dismantled. Thus, unwittingly, the Navy itself would originate the arguments about the authenticity of the Constellation. To further compound the argument, some salvageable timbers from the original ship, particularly the ship’s knees, were used in constructing the new vessel.
Stephen R. Bockmiller, Lawrence J. Bopp, USS Constellation: An Illustrated History, p. 10. Charleston, S.C: Tempus Pub., ©2000. ISBN 0 7385 0582 X. It goes on to describe the differences in designs and dimensions. Other sources acknowledge that the second USS Constellation, built in 1854, contains portions of the original vessel, and and the old frigate was "dismantled in 1853 and her timbers auctioned off. At about the same time, the second Constellation was built in Gosport about 600 feet away. The second Constellation was designed by U.S. naval constructor John Lenthall as a completely new ship".
Kablammo ( talk) 17:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not going to get in the middle of this. As I was tweaking the Fouled Anchors citation template, I stumbled upon this:
{{cite book |last=Lynaugh |first=K.M. |editor-last=Latorre |editor-first=Robert G. |article=Discussion of the Origins of the Frigate and the Sloop Constellation |title=Proceedings of the Twenty-Third American Towing Tank Conference |location=Washington DC |publisher=National Academy Press |date=1993 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hIsrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA355}}
Perhaps it is of use.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Some expert opinion would be very welcome. Can a sloop of war be called HMS, or should it be HM sloop? Specifically, the Bounty, of mutiny fame. I have seen it referred to as HMS and HM sloop. There are several articles on WP that all use HMS. The maritime museum in Greenwich uses HM Sloop, or just 'the Bounty'. see: http://www.rmg.co.uk/discover/explore/william-bligh. Thanks for any insight. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 08:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
List of largest shipyards in history and Real Arsenal... I not only see no effort put into these, but I don't see them being able to be expanded. Should they be nominated for deletion? DARTHBOTTO talk• cont 19:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi. There's an ongoing requested move at Talk:Brazilian coastal defense ship Deodoro. Thank you. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
The existing article /info/en/?search=USS_Brutus_(AC-15) refers to USS Brutus (AC-15), 1898-1922, a collier. There was another USS Brutus, a small storeship that carried some of the Army troops from New York to California in July 1846 as part of the California Campaign and the Pacific Coast Campaign. Some details at /info/en/?search=Pacific_Squadron
What is the correct form of article title for ships of the Portuguese Navy? Is it "NRP Foo" or "Portuguese (ship type) Foo"? Mjroots ( talk) 15:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm not 100% certain if it's within the realms of this Wikiproject but I came across the Corvette Motoryacht article and it needs a lot of attention. A lot of attention. It's been written as a magazine article and is full of OR and encyclopaedic content with references like "from private communication with an owner" etc. I've taken a broad stab at it, and tagged it with a ridiculous amount of article maintenance templates due to the really poor nature of it, but it needs eyes of experienced editors in this area. If someone can take a look it would be appreciated. Canterbury Tail talk 21:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
It has been my intent for quite a while to eventually deprecate {{
sclass-}}
and {{
sclass2-}}
because once all of the ship class articles that are not hyphenated get their hyphens (Example class scow → Example-class scow) we won't need four templates to do the work of two.
Now that it has been nearly five years since the introduction of these templates, I've tweaked {{
sclass/core}}
(the engine that renders the four templates) so that it categorizes articles when it finds {{
sclass}}
and {{
sclass2}}
templates that link to a redirect and where the redirect links to a properly hyphenated article title. For example, the article
British Armed Forces uses {{sclass2|Bay|landing ship dock}}
which links to
Bay class landing ship dock, a redirect to
Bay-class landing ship dock. The template detects this and adds British Armed Forces to ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:WPSHIPS: sclass2 redirect. Similarly,
RMS Titanic uses {{sclass|Olympic|ocean liner}}
→
Olympic class ocean liner, a redirect →
Olympic-class ocean liner and so adds RMS Titanic to ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:WPSHIPS: sclass redirect.
The template tweak and the categories are new so it will take a bit of time for them to populate.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Is there an editor who is proficient in French and has access to an online archive of French newspapers from 1841? Have come across a Tuscan steamship sunk in that year with an interesting connection to a plunder case in the 2000s. Needs an article writing but I'll need help. Mjroots ( talk) 07:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Just to let anyone who's interested know, there's a discussion about the scope of ship articles at FAC going on now. Parsecboy ( talk) 14:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
An editor is carrying out mass page moves of Royal Navy ship articles from using dates as disambiguation to pennant numbers as disambiguation - see [1]. Have I missed the consensus for these moves? Nigel Ish ( talk) 19:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
We currently have both the Rothesay-class frigate and the Leander-class frigate articles claiming the designation "Type 12M" and they can't both be right. There's further obscurity at the Type 12 frigate article. Any insights at Talk:Rothesay-class frigate#Admiralty Type numbering confusion will be gratefully received. Alansplodge ( talk) 15:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
There is an expired Prod on MV Star Osakana. Can someone check to see if this is worth saving before it gets the axe? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I've made a start, will do more after the Grand Prix, but other editors are free to improve the article in the meantime. Mjroots ( talk) 06:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Any such guidelines exist similar to WP:AVILIST? Or just commonsense such as MOS:FLAG and implementing other style guidelines etc?
A lot of these ship list articles are a mess, with tables cluttered with images and trivial commentary (in "notes" sections). Particularly counter-intuitive to readers on hand-held devices, which these days is quite a large percentage of readers. Antiochus the Great ( talk) 18:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, I've had List of protected cruisers of Italy up for Featured List for a little over a month so far, and it's only garnered one review in that time. If you have some time to take a look, I'd be very grateful. The review page is here. Thanks! Parsecboy ( talk) 14:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't stub articles like HTMS Phutthaloetla Naphalai be a redirect to a section in the main article on the ship, in this case USS Ouellet#Thai service, until there is sufficient significant content in both, per NCS? Davidships ( talk) 20:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
This AfD may be of some interest to members of the project. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
This may be something that the project can assist with. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Should HMS Tyger (1647) be moved to HMS Tyger or should the latter be a redirect to the former? Clarityfiend ( talk) 23:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I've been working on the USS Sable (IX-81) page. I'd just like a fresh set of eyes to get some suggestions on what needs to be improved or expanded. Thanks! Shinerunner (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
The article needs a careful read and copyedit. Kablammo ( talk) 00:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.
A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Ships
Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 18:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)