![]() | 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 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | → | Archive 60 |
I've been doing a bit of work creating ship index pages for the Italian and French Navies. While the other ships template works well for ships which have a prefix like HMS and USS it doesn't seem ideal for navies which do not use them. It seems slightly incongruous to have a pointer to "For other ships with the same name, see Italian ship Leonardo da Vinci (or French ship Nautilus)" and then create an index page for Italian ship Leonardo da Vinci when what we are seeking is to dab only warships where as ship without a prefix invites confusion with civilian ships. How do people feel about changing it to "For other warships with the same name" and the index page title to Italian warship Leonardo da Vinci for example? Lyndaship ( talk) 08:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I had read this article [1] about the discovery of the wreckage of the steam barge Margaret Olwill. There seems to be enough information from other sources for an article but I wasn't sure if it meets notability standards. Shinerunner (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to a youthful new editor, GreatLakesShips. He is doing fine work on ship articles.
GreatLakesShips, watchlist this page, if you haven't already, and if you have questions, run into problems, want help with sources, or otherwise need assistance, please post here. This project has many fine editors here who can help. Kablammo ( talk) 00:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I have further deprecated templates {{ sclass}}, {{ sclass2}}, and replaced them in article space with the hyphenating {{ sclass-}}, {{ sclass2-}}. They are deprecated for years, because they produce a non-hyphenated (non-adjectival) target pagename, which is incorrect. They should not be promoted any more.
I have removed all instances from mainspace (1000+ articles). In the process I saved any bluelinks that might get lost (I created their hyphened redlink when that was missing; ~80). Instances outside of mainspace I left untouched, because we cannot edit pages like archives, closed discussions, userpages. These pages may use the old form forever. I also changed code to: warning & categorise errors when in mainspace, separate old {{sclass}} code from modern {{sclass-}} code (By splitting the code page modern ones can develop further without having to serve old deprecated versions). - DePiep ( talk) 10:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() Meteor III yacht launching
| |
History | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Owner | Kaiser Wilhelm II |
Builder | Archibald Cary Smith |
General characteristics | |
Tonnage | |
Length |
|
Beam | 27 ft (8.2 m) |
Draft | 15 ft (4.6 m) |
Sail plan | Schooner 11,612 ft (3,539 m)2 |
Meteor III (yacht), an upcoming DYK, listed grt and n[r]t figures in the displacement field. They are not displacement. I converted the field to "tonnage", but apparently the type of infobox used in the article does not support that field. Can anyone help? Kablammo ( talk) 15:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
{{
Infobox sailing yacht}}
; or, omit tonnage from the article. You might consider using the appropriate {{
GT}}
, {{
NetT}}
, {{
GRT}}
, or {{
NRT}}
templates.{{convert|11,612|sqft|abbr=on}}
→ 11,612 sq ft (1,078.8 m2)Hello fellow project members! On the day of March 4, 2018 I created an article named SS Choctaw. Ever since its creation, the article has not been reviewed. Could someone please review the it? GreatLakesShips ( talk) 19:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking of the reviewing of the article, not the class assessment. Thanks though. The article can be seen here: New pages feed GreatLakesShips ( talk) 20:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I finally got around to turning the small articles on cancelled US submarines into redirects, but before I started I had a thought: should the resulting redirects remain in the class category? I figured they should remain in Category:Cancelled ships of the United States Navy, but what about the class category? I tend to think yes. RobDuch ( talk) 03:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Texan schooner Independence, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
There are some options I think we should begin using for assessing articles:
When I say auto-assess, the project banner would still need to be placed on the talk page but wouldn't require the |class= be filled in. We already have this capability with templates and categories. This helps when tagging multiple new entries. Brad ( talk) 00:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, coming across this image, I was wondering if this might be of any interest. Thank you for your time. :) Lotje ( talk) 07:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I've been doing some work on the Colony class frigates and I've come across some conflicting sources as in the Sarawak article. I guess Navsource online is not RS but is uboatnet now regarded as RS? Most of these ships do not have a DANFs record. From OR (which I know must not be mentioned or used in the article), mostly looking at the Navy Lists at the National Library of Scotland site but also at convoys escorted and normal time spans for construction of these series ships I've come to the conclusion that uboatnet is right and Navsource is wrong. If Navsource is not RS I intend to remove all mention of it and just use uboatnet and Danfs (when available) to source the articles. Anything wrong in that? Lyndaship ( talk) 11:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
You might like to comment on these name change proposals French destroyer Terrible, French destroyer Triomphant, French destroyer Fantasque, L'Indomptable Lyndaship ( talk) 14:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello guys. I've just created my first single-ship article in 2 months. College kept me busy, and now thankfully spring break started. I fear I might be a bit rusty, so if you guys would please give it a read and correct what you see fit I'd be grateful ( NMS Alexandru cel Bun). Torpilorul ( talk) 08:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
You guys, sorry for the bother. I really, really wanted to do this article. Even though I feel kinda dizzy today, with a slight headache. You guys now, please, spell-check it and such, all that stuff: Naval operations in Romanian-occupied Soviet waters. Torpilorul ( talk) 14:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I say "important" because it's related to WW1, of which we're still in its centenary for a few more months. You guys know the drill: check it, make corrections if necessary, and do please expand it if you can. Although the amount of actions suit the fleet's size, any addition is welcomed: Romanian Black Sea Fleet during World War I. Torpilorul ( talk) 14:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I have noticed - not sure in all the articles but definitely in most big ones about ships - a very odd referencing style: the books with their complete info are written in a separate section, and they are quoted through the article only via their authors. Guys...why? I get it, it makes referencing faster as it's less to write, but when you want to copy the info in a related article, you can't just copy the reftag right away, as it contains only the authors. This one slows me down considerably, not sure if others too. Also, let's assume you're a new reader. Just found out about the Wiki. You go to an article like this, click the reftag, and all you get is one or several names that don't really tell you anything. And if you're unaware as a reader of the "bibliography" section, this might be even more confusing. To me it's quite annoying, I will never ever write my articles like this. Just felt the need to share my thoughts on this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Torpilorul ( talk • contribs) 12:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
How do I join the group? A 10 fireplane ( talk) 13:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikipedia but love ships, how do I add my name to the members list? A 10 fireplane ( talk)
Thank you I did it :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A 10 fireplane ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, there's a proposal to delete all Wikipedia portals. Please see the discussion here. -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 14:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I've come across a couple of ship index pages where the user has created an index to pages that don't exist. I don't see how this is helpful to anyone and instead a redirect to the ship class would be more appropriate. Of course I can understand why index pages would be useful but in the same way that we don't create dab pages full of red links why create index pages for non-existent articles? For example Italian submarine Velella links to two non-existent articles. Polyamorph ( talk) 18:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for L 20e α-class battleship; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 08:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
This discussion of ANI about an editor creating unreferenced "List of ship launches in ..." articles is probably relevant to this Wikiproject as many of these list articles are either unreferenced or poorly referenced. There should really be a source for all of the entries on each list, rather than relying on the link to the individual ship article where the information may be sourced. Nigel Ish ( talk) 13:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Not directly related to the above issue, but a cautionary word on referencing for long ship list articles. There seems to be a technical limit of 1300 references per article, and beyond that the whole system fails. There's probably only one example at the moment: referencing in List of ships built by Harland and Wolff collapsed back on 11 March 2017 when that limit was reached - it now has 1314 refs, and could still grow. As a consequence even the five main reference sources in the intro para are no longer identifiable (except through the Edit page - not a recommended method for visitors!). Davidships ( talk) 00:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Question , Are there any UK , France , Russia , Germany , Japan , Italy and Austria-Hungary's register of Ships book selling outside ? Please recommend , thank you. -- Comrade John ( talk) 17:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
When I checking those warships date , I always came across two versions of date with difference reference such as USS O-1 (SS-62) , it's launched date have two versions:
1. 9 July 1918 , Come from DANFS.
2. 9 October 1918 , Come from NavSource.
Don't know which one is the correct date so can I put them both into the infobox and text with providing both references ? -- Comrade John ( talk) 14:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
So , when it comes to two dates like this , either put both dates or put a date that have many reference support ? -- Comrade John ( talk) 22:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
There are some options I think we should begin using for assessing articles:
When I say auto-assess, the project banner would still need to be placed on the talk page but wouldn't require the |class= be filled in. We already have this capability with templates and categories. This helps when tagging multiple new entries. Brad ( talk) 00:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Does anybody know or can they point me to an authoritative source as to how these pennants should appear? We currently have a mix of for example S-501, S 501 and S501. Lyndaship ( talk) 18:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I think your referring to the hull numbers, if so it would be SS-501. SS meaning submarine, 501 being the name/class A 10 fireplane ( talk) 19:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Category talk:Ship prefix templates#Hidden. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 12:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
At WMF they are saying that some changes to the way wikitext is parsed are on the horizon. Which means that some things must be fixed. Their example of one kind of fix? Arthur Foss.
Here is a before and after for that article. I tweaked and then undid the tweak because that article is the example used in a mass mailing.
I have a quick and dirty AWB script that will tweak those articles with both ship infoboxen and NRHP infoboxen where the two are connected. In writing that script I have found that apparently for such articles the closing |}
we use for ship infoboxen are often omitted because {{
infobox NRHP}}
without |embed=yes
'closes' the ship infobox.
Add ?action=parsermigration-edit
to any article url to see the before and after. This is an edit preview page so you can make source edits at the bottom and preview the results.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 22:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I would be grateful if someone could expand MS Dalmatia. If it helps, the ship's IMO number was 7516761. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
There is a conversation on my talk page about the validity of these. Editors are invited to comment Lyndaship ( talk) 17:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
"Fundamentally, a set index article is a type of list article. The criteria for creating, adding to, or deleting a set index article should be the same as for a stand-alone list. The style of a set index article should follow the style guidelines at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists."
You've laid out the reasons for your objection quite well; I just do not believe that following your idea is an improvement worth the extra time required to implement it. It just seems rather stupid to require a source for a redlink and than to remove that requirement once it's turned blue. In short I don't believe that a ship index page needs to follow WP:CSC.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 14:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone need some proof reading or any help editing? A 10 fireplane ( talk) 13:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC) A 10 fireplane ( talk) 13:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Anyone got this book? I require some scans from it. Torpilorul ( talk) 21:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Category renaming discussion at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 May 3#Foo-built_ships. Proposal to rename 54 categories. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Yugoslav torpedo boat T7; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 09:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Can I get an opinion or two over at User talk:Cplakidas#Argentine warships purchased by Greece? Thanks. Ed [talk] [majestic titan]`
I recently came across this page, and felt it could use substantial work. In particular, I'd like it to have a clearer definition of what qualifies and what doesn't. However, it also seems like every WW2 ship is only supposed to fit in a single category, which means any reorganization here would have to propagate thru all the lists. Worse, the lists themselves seem to have arbitrary boundaries, with the worst example probably being the difference between minor warships and warships less than a thousand tons. Other lists involved are Destroyers, Frigates, Corvettes.
My initial response was that lists should be reorganized based on the categories in the interwar naval treaties, since those formed the standard in the years leading up to the war and most navies fought the war with the collection of ships the treaties had given them. However, that would have even broader consequences, like getting rid of the battlecruiser page. (I don't see that as a real loss – given how short it is – but others might.)
It was about this point where I realized I should probably talk with at least someone in the community before implementing any of this. Is this a correct location for that? Sebsmith0 ( talk) 04:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
There's a disparity in the EN: Wiki ( HMS Maenad (J335)). In the photo attached within the article, it clearly shows a vessel marked J435 on the Hull. This article from the Finnish Wiki says the same I.E. HMS Maenad is (J435): https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Maenad_(J435). Comments? Broichmore ( talk) 11:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
In the Suez Canal article the para on the first ships to traverse the canal after its official opening seems full of errors and doubtful stories. I would be grateful for your comments on my note on the talk page, especially on reliable sources for the story concerning Capt Nares and HMS Newport. Davidships ( talk) 03:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Sweeping reassessments are being done on the ship index pages; from dab to list. Where was the conversation about changing probably 1000 articles? These are supposed to be assessed as set index articles. @ Llammakey:
Meanwhile, we have ship index pages being moved and or created and named List of ships named X and assessed as lists. Where was the conversation about this naming convention? @ Acad Ronin:
Right now these pages are an unholy mess. Brad ( talk) 07:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
{{
WikiProject Ships}}
: |class=si
, |class=sia
, or |class=index
.A couple of months ago I posted this topic about making changes to the project banner so that we could use the set index rating instead of dab or list. Only two editors responded. I'm going to post the topic here again. Brad ( talk) 06:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
There are some options I think we should begin using for assessing articles:
When I say auto-assess, the project banner would still need to be placed on the talk page but wouldn't require the |class= be filled in. We already have this capability with templates and categories. This helps when tagging multiple new entries. Brad ( talk) 00:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Are these still set index articles or lists? Seems weird to have the shipindex tag on an article with List in the title. Brad ( talk) 13:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello everyone! I recently nominated the SS Choctaw article for Good Article status. There some issues that need addressing, but I have already sorted out most of them. If you would like to help me promote it, please feel free to help.
Thank you! GreatLakesShips ( talk) 20:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
@ A 10 fireplane: I have sorted out the mayor issues that were outlined. The only thing left that needs doing is the proper licensing of the photos in the article, if you could help me with that, it would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you: GreatLakesShips ( talk) 17:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
@ A 10 fireplane: I would like you to have a look at weather the photos are licensed correctly. I have retagged them yesterday, but I'm not sure that they are tagged correctly since I am not the best with this type of thing. GreatLakesShips ( talk) 14:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
@ A 10 fireplane: Thank you very much, although I'm going away on holiday tomorrow and I won't be reachable for a week. I'm sorry if this will cause inconvenience. GreatLakesShips ( talk) 14:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
@ A 10 fireplane: Thanks.
Since Matsu-class destroyer was created , the infobox and it's ship of the class list were listed:
42 (1943, Ship #5481-5522), 32 (1944, Ship #4801-4832),
In built and planned ship information.
But since 13 September 2008 , a user named Mystia Lorelei added this in ship of the class list:
80 (1945, Kai-Tachibana class)
In infobox and added:
Ship # | Japanese name & translation | Class | Builder | Laid down | Launched | Completed | Fate |
80 destroyers | Kai-Tachibana | Cancelled on 30 June 1945. |
It makes me suspicious that , there's no Kai-Tachibana class in IJN history , only Matsu-class and it's subclass Tachibana-class destroyer , so does anyone got a proof that IJN planned 80 more Matsu-class destroyers in 1945 ? -- Comrade John ( talk) 22:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{ Transclude lead excerpt}}.
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 11:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
See HMS Britannia (1820), the headline image by John H. Wilson (1774-1855)" includes a mystery ship. The Commons description is "HMS Britannia and HMS Malelina Entering Milos Harbour, 2nd January 1834". It's currently on sale and the dealer gives a description of "HMS Britannia And HMS Malelina Entering Milos Harbour, 2nd January 1834 At 9.30am". Very specific! Can anyone identify the Malelina or it's correct name? Broichmore ( talk) 15:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
OK, we're talking about the period 1707-1854 by the look of it. What flags should be used to identify Royal Navy vessels and merchantmen?
1707-1800
Royal Navy:-
or
or
Merchantmen:-
or
/
1801-1854
Royal Navy:-
or
or
Merchantmen:-
or
/
This is what I'm trying to work out, as it will affect hundreds, even thousands, of articles and lists. Mjroots ( talk) 15:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Theres a request for a move at this page. The proposer wants to include a date dab in the title. Personally I think its a good idea but it goes against policy as its the only La Hogue, however there are two later ships called just Hogue and I suspect this one was also later referred to as just Hogue. Lyndaship ( talk) 18:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
British designation question: A British armed sloop is consistently referred to as "HM Margaretta" in the subject article's infobox, but lacks a prefix in the body. Is this designation correct, and if so what does it stand for? I looked at the article due to a conflict with Battle off Fairhaven as the "first" naval engagement of the American Revolution (probably hinges on the definition of "naval"). RobDuch ( talk) 06:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm getting in a pickle with these. The problem initially appeared on INS Shakti where the ship class linkage resulted in tanker coming up as a blue link to a dab page. I found a way around that by using a piped link but when I looked at Tanker (ship) it said correctly that a tanker is a merchant vessel and the term for a military refueling vessel is an oiler. Using the sclass template Oiler gives the same get roundable problem as Tanker however there is no oiler(ship) article and from the dab (or link to) you are invited to go to tanker (which we know is incorrect) or Replenishment oiler. Looking at replenishment oiler it states correctly its a ship which provides fuel and DRY CARGO ie Refuels and Replenishes (where as an oiler could just provide fuel). Ah I thought just create a page for oiler(ship) but then I hit the problem of identifying which ships solely provide fuel to correctly title and categorise them as oilers. Whats caused me to throw my hands up and ask for suggestions here is the new British Tide-class tanker - yes thats right TANKER, checked on the Royal Navy site and its how they are referring to them, and then look at Tide-class replenishment oiler, I believe they were just oilers. I'm minded to go with my initial idea of creating oiler(ship) but without trying to subdivide the existing articles into oilers and replenishment oilers however I hate doing half a job and I envisage looking at the Tide class example this could turn into a can of worms. Grateful for ideas and guidance Lyndaship ( talk) 15:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. From your comments it's obvious that US and UK usage varies and that the whole subject can be a vehicle for confusion, I've come across British RFAs which are deemed replenishment ships but can also supply a bit of fuel, there are military tankers which carry water, there is the issue of oilers or tankers which operate as cargo carriers and never refuel ships, there are Aviation fuel tankers. Therefore I propose to create oiler(ship) with a text along the lines of "A military ship which refuels other ships but does not replenish dry stores -see replenishment oiler" and to change tanker(ship) along the lines of " A merchant vessel which conveys fluids. Military vessels which refuel ships are known as an oiler in some navies and tankers in others, if they also supply dry stores they are known as replenishment oilers or replenishment tankers." - not my final wording, just the gist. I'm going to leave the class and ship types alone as I hope these amendments will stop any contradictions Lyndaship ( talk) 09:38, 2 June 2018 (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 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | → | Archive 60 |
I've been doing a bit of work creating ship index pages for the Italian and French Navies. While the other ships template works well for ships which have a prefix like HMS and USS it doesn't seem ideal for navies which do not use them. It seems slightly incongruous to have a pointer to "For other ships with the same name, see Italian ship Leonardo da Vinci (or French ship Nautilus)" and then create an index page for Italian ship Leonardo da Vinci when what we are seeking is to dab only warships where as ship without a prefix invites confusion with civilian ships. How do people feel about changing it to "For other warships with the same name" and the index page title to Italian warship Leonardo da Vinci for example? Lyndaship ( talk) 08:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I had read this article [1] about the discovery of the wreckage of the steam barge Margaret Olwill. There seems to be enough information from other sources for an article but I wasn't sure if it meets notability standards. Shinerunner (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to a youthful new editor, GreatLakesShips. He is doing fine work on ship articles.
GreatLakesShips, watchlist this page, if you haven't already, and if you have questions, run into problems, want help with sources, or otherwise need assistance, please post here. This project has many fine editors here who can help. Kablammo ( talk) 00:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I have further deprecated templates {{ sclass}}, {{ sclass2}}, and replaced them in article space with the hyphenating {{ sclass-}}, {{ sclass2-}}. They are deprecated for years, because they produce a non-hyphenated (non-adjectival) target pagename, which is incorrect. They should not be promoted any more.
I have removed all instances from mainspace (1000+ articles). In the process I saved any bluelinks that might get lost (I created their hyphened redlink when that was missing; ~80). Instances outside of mainspace I left untouched, because we cannot edit pages like archives, closed discussions, userpages. These pages may use the old form forever. I also changed code to: warning & categorise errors when in mainspace, separate old {{sclass}} code from modern {{sclass-}} code (By splitting the code page modern ones can develop further without having to serve old deprecated versions). - DePiep ( talk) 10:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() Meteor III yacht launching
| |
History | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Owner | Kaiser Wilhelm II |
Builder | Archibald Cary Smith |
General characteristics | |
Tonnage | |
Length |
|
Beam | 27 ft (8.2 m) |
Draft | 15 ft (4.6 m) |
Sail plan | Schooner 11,612 ft (3,539 m)2 |
Meteor III (yacht), an upcoming DYK, listed grt and n[r]t figures in the displacement field. They are not displacement. I converted the field to "tonnage", but apparently the type of infobox used in the article does not support that field. Can anyone help? Kablammo ( talk) 15:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
{{
Infobox sailing yacht}}
; or, omit tonnage from the article. You might consider using the appropriate {{
GT}}
, {{
NetT}}
, {{
GRT}}
, or {{
NRT}}
templates.{{convert|11,612|sqft|abbr=on}}
→ 11,612 sq ft (1,078.8 m2)Hello fellow project members! On the day of March 4, 2018 I created an article named SS Choctaw. Ever since its creation, the article has not been reviewed. Could someone please review the it? GreatLakesShips ( talk) 19:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking of the reviewing of the article, not the class assessment. Thanks though. The article can be seen here: New pages feed GreatLakesShips ( talk) 20:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I finally got around to turning the small articles on cancelled US submarines into redirects, but before I started I had a thought: should the resulting redirects remain in the class category? I figured they should remain in Category:Cancelled ships of the United States Navy, but what about the class category? I tend to think yes. RobDuch ( talk) 03:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Texan schooner Independence, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
There are some options I think we should begin using for assessing articles:
When I say auto-assess, the project banner would still need to be placed on the talk page but wouldn't require the |class= be filled in. We already have this capability with templates and categories. This helps when tagging multiple new entries. Brad ( talk) 00:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, coming across this image, I was wondering if this might be of any interest. Thank you for your time. :) Lotje ( talk) 07:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I've been doing some work on the Colony class frigates and I've come across some conflicting sources as in the Sarawak article. I guess Navsource online is not RS but is uboatnet now regarded as RS? Most of these ships do not have a DANFs record. From OR (which I know must not be mentioned or used in the article), mostly looking at the Navy Lists at the National Library of Scotland site but also at convoys escorted and normal time spans for construction of these series ships I've come to the conclusion that uboatnet is right and Navsource is wrong. If Navsource is not RS I intend to remove all mention of it and just use uboatnet and Danfs (when available) to source the articles. Anything wrong in that? Lyndaship ( talk) 11:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
You might like to comment on these name change proposals French destroyer Terrible, French destroyer Triomphant, French destroyer Fantasque, L'Indomptable Lyndaship ( talk) 14:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello guys. I've just created my first single-ship article in 2 months. College kept me busy, and now thankfully spring break started. I fear I might be a bit rusty, so if you guys would please give it a read and correct what you see fit I'd be grateful ( NMS Alexandru cel Bun). Torpilorul ( talk) 08:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
You guys, sorry for the bother. I really, really wanted to do this article. Even though I feel kinda dizzy today, with a slight headache. You guys now, please, spell-check it and such, all that stuff: Naval operations in Romanian-occupied Soviet waters. Torpilorul ( talk) 14:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I say "important" because it's related to WW1, of which we're still in its centenary for a few more months. You guys know the drill: check it, make corrections if necessary, and do please expand it if you can. Although the amount of actions suit the fleet's size, any addition is welcomed: Romanian Black Sea Fleet during World War I. Torpilorul ( talk) 14:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I have noticed - not sure in all the articles but definitely in most big ones about ships - a very odd referencing style: the books with their complete info are written in a separate section, and they are quoted through the article only via their authors. Guys...why? I get it, it makes referencing faster as it's less to write, but when you want to copy the info in a related article, you can't just copy the reftag right away, as it contains only the authors. This one slows me down considerably, not sure if others too. Also, let's assume you're a new reader. Just found out about the Wiki. You go to an article like this, click the reftag, and all you get is one or several names that don't really tell you anything. And if you're unaware as a reader of the "bibliography" section, this might be even more confusing. To me it's quite annoying, I will never ever write my articles like this. Just felt the need to share my thoughts on this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Torpilorul ( talk • contribs) 12:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
How do I join the group? A 10 fireplane ( talk) 13:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikipedia but love ships, how do I add my name to the members list? A 10 fireplane ( talk)
Thank you I did it :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A 10 fireplane ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, there's a proposal to delete all Wikipedia portals. Please see the discussion here. -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 14:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I've come across a couple of ship index pages where the user has created an index to pages that don't exist. I don't see how this is helpful to anyone and instead a redirect to the ship class would be more appropriate. Of course I can understand why index pages would be useful but in the same way that we don't create dab pages full of red links why create index pages for non-existent articles? For example Italian submarine Velella links to two non-existent articles. Polyamorph ( talk) 18:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for L 20e α-class battleship; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 08:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
This discussion of ANI about an editor creating unreferenced "List of ship launches in ..." articles is probably relevant to this Wikiproject as many of these list articles are either unreferenced or poorly referenced. There should really be a source for all of the entries on each list, rather than relying on the link to the individual ship article where the information may be sourced. Nigel Ish ( talk) 13:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Not directly related to the above issue, but a cautionary word on referencing for long ship list articles. There seems to be a technical limit of 1300 references per article, and beyond that the whole system fails. There's probably only one example at the moment: referencing in List of ships built by Harland and Wolff collapsed back on 11 March 2017 when that limit was reached - it now has 1314 refs, and could still grow. As a consequence even the five main reference sources in the intro para are no longer identifiable (except through the Edit page - not a recommended method for visitors!). Davidships ( talk) 00:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Question , Are there any UK , France , Russia , Germany , Japan , Italy and Austria-Hungary's register of Ships book selling outside ? Please recommend , thank you. -- Comrade John ( talk) 17:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
When I checking those warships date , I always came across two versions of date with difference reference such as USS O-1 (SS-62) , it's launched date have two versions:
1. 9 July 1918 , Come from DANFS.
2. 9 October 1918 , Come from NavSource.
Don't know which one is the correct date so can I put them both into the infobox and text with providing both references ? -- Comrade John ( talk) 14:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
So , when it comes to two dates like this , either put both dates or put a date that have many reference support ? -- Comrade John ( talk) 22:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
There are some options I think we should begin using for assessing articles:
When I say auto-assess, the project banner would still need to be placed on the talk page but wouldn't require the |class= be filled in. We already have this capability with templates and categories. This helps when tagging multiple new entries. Brad ( talk) 00:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Does anybody know or can they point me to an authoritative source as to how these pennants should appear? We currently have a mix of for example S-501, S 501 and S501. Lyndaship ( talk) 18:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I think your referring to the hull numbers, if so it would be SS-501. SS meaning submarine, 501 being the name/class A 10 fireplane ( talk) 19:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Category talk:Ship prefix templates#Hidden. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 12:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
At WMF they are saying that some changes to the way wikitext is parsed are on the horizon. Which means that some things must be fixed. Their example of one kind of fix? Arthur Foss.
Here is a before and after for that article. I tweaked and then undid the tweak because that article is the example used in a mass mailing.
I have a quick and dirty AWB script that will tweak those articles with both ship infoboxen and NRHP infoboxen where the two are connected. In writing that script I have found that apparently for such articles the closing |}
we use for ship infoboxen are often omitted because {{
infobox NRHP}}
without |embed=yes
'closes' the ship infobox.
Add ?action=parsermigration-edit
to any article url to see the before and after. This is an edit preview page so you can make source edits at the bottom and preview the results.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 22:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I would be grateful if someone could expand MS Dalmatia. If it helps, the ship's IMO number was 7516761. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
There is a conversation on my talk page about the validity of these. Editors are invited to comment Lyndaship ( talk) 17:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
"Fundamentally, a set index article is a type of list article. The criteria for creating, adding to, or deleting a set index article should be the same as for a stand-alone list. The style of a set index article should follow the style guidelines at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists."
You've laid out the reasons for your objection quite well; I just do not believe that following your idea is an improvement worth the extra time required to implement it. It just seems rather stupid to require a source for a redlink and than to remove that requirement once it's turned blue. In short I don't believe that a ship index page needs to follow WP:CSC.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 14:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone need some proof reading or any help editing? A 10 fireplane ( talk) 13:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC) A 10 fireplane ( talk) 13:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Anyone got this book? I require some scans from it. Torpilorul ( talk) 21:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Category renaming discussion at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 May 3#Foo-built_ships. Proposal to rename 54 categories. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Yugoslav torpedo boat T7; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 09:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Can I get an opinion or two over at User talk:Cplakidas#Argentine warships purchased by Greece? Thanks. Ed [talk] [majestic titan]`
I recently came across this page, and felt it could use substantial work. In particular, I'd like it to have a clearer definition of what qualifies and what doesn't. However, it also seems like every WW2 ship is only supposed to fit in a single category, which means any reorganization here would have to propagate thru all the lists. Worse, the lists themselves seem to have arbitrary boundaries, with the worst example probably being the difference between minor warships and warships less than a thousand tons. Other lists involved are Destroyers, Frigates, Corvettes.
My initial response was that lists should be reorganized based on the categories in the interwar naval treaties, since those formed the standard in the years leading up to the war and most navies fought the war with the collection of ships the treaties had given them. However, that would have even broader consequences, like getting rid of the battlecruiser page. (I don't see that as a real loss – given how short it is – but others might.)
It was about this point where I realized I should probably talk with at least someone in the community before implementing any of this. Is this a correct location for that? Sebsmith0 ( talk) 04:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
There's a disparity in the EN: Wiki ( HMS Maenad (J335)). In the photo attached within the article, it clearly shows a vessel marked J435 on the Hull. This article from the Finnish Wiki says the same I.E. HMS Maenad is (J435): https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Maenad_(J435). Comments? Broichmore ( talk) 11:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
In the Suez Canal article the para on the first ships to traverse the canal after its official opening seems full of errors and doubtful stories. I would be grateful for your comments on my note on the talk page, especially on reliable sources for the story concerning Capt Nares and HMS Newport. Davidships ( talk) 03:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Sweeping reassessments are being done on the ship index pages; from dab to list. Where was the conversation about changing probably 1000 articles? These are supposed to be assessed as set index articles. @ Llammakey:
Meanwhile, we have ship index pages being moved and or created and named List of ships named X and assessed as lists. Where was the conversation about this naming convention? @ Acad Ronin:
Right now these pages are an unholy mess. Brad ( talk) 07:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
{{
WikiProject Ships}}
: |class=si
, |class=sia
, or |class=index
.A couple of months ago I posted this topic about making changes to the project banner so that we could use the set index rating instead of dab or list. Only two editors responded. I'm going to post the topic here again. Brad ( talk) 06:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
There are some options I think we should begin using for assessing articles:
When I say auto-assess, the project banner would still need to be placed on the talk page but wouldn't require the |class= be filled in. We already have this capability with templates and categories. This helps when tagging multiple new entries. Brad ( talk) 00:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Are these still set index articles or lists? Seems weird to have the shipindex tag on an article with List in the title. Brad ( talk) 13:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello everyone! I recently nominated the SS Choctaw article for Good Article status. There some issues that need addressing, but I have already sorted out most of them. If you would like to help me promote it, please feel free to help.
Thank you! GreatLakesShips ( talk) 20:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
@ A 10 fireplane: I have sorted out the mayor issues that were outlined. The only thing left that needs doing is the proper licensing of the photos in the article, if you could help me with that, it would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you: GreatLakesShips ( talk) 17:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
@ A 10 fireplane: I would like you to have a look at weather the photos are licensed correctly. I have retagged them yesterday, but I'm not sure that they are tagged correctly since I am not the best with this type of thing. GreatLakesShips ( talk) 14:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
@ A 10 fireplane: Thank you very much, although I'm going away on holiday tomorrow and I won't be reachable for a week. I'm sorry if this will cause inconvenience. GreatLakesShips ( talk) 14:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
@ A 10 fireplane: Thanks.
Since Matsu-class destroyer was created , the infobox and it's ship of the class list were listed:
42 (1943, Ship #5481-5522), 32 (1944, Ship #4801-4832),
In built and planned ship information.
But since 13 September 2008 , a user named Mystia Lorelei added this in ship of the class list:
80 (1945, Kai-Tachibana class)
In infobox and added:
Ship # | Japanese name & translation | Class | Builder | Laid down | Launched | Completed | Fate |
80 destroyers | Kai-Tachibana | Cancelled on 30 June 1945. |
It makes me suspicious that , there's no Kai-Tachibana class in IJN history , only Matsu-class and it's subclass Tachibana-class destroyer , so does anyone got a proof that IJN planned 80 more Matsu-class destroyers in 1945 ? -- Comrade John ( talk) 22:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{ Transclude lead excerpt}}.
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 11:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
See HMS Britannia (1820), the headline image by John H. Wilson (1774-1855)" includes a mystery ship. The Commons description is "HMS Britannia and HMS Malelina Entering Milos Harbour, 2nd January 1834". It's currently on sale and the dealer gives a description of "HMS Britannia And HMS Malelina Entering Milos Harbour, 2nd January 1834 At 9.30am". Very specific! Can anyone identify the Malelina or it's correct name? Broichmore ( talk) 15:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
OK, we're talking about the period 1707-1854 by the look of it. What flags should be used to identify Royal Navy vessels and merchantmen?
1707-1800
Royal Navy:-
or
or
Merchantmen:-
or
/
1801-1854
Royal Navy:-
or
or
Merchantmen:-
or
/
This is what I'm trying to work out, as it will affect hundreds, even thousands, of articles and lists. Mjroots ( talk) 15:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Theres a request for a move at this page. The proposer wants to include a date dab in the title. Personally I think its a good idea but it goes against policy as its the only La Hogue, however there are two later ships called just Hogue and I suspect this one was also later referred to as just Hogue. Lyndaship ( talk) 18:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
British designation question: A British armed sloop is consistently referred to as "HM Margaretta" in the subject article's infobox, but lacks a prefix in the body. Is this designation correct, and if so what does it stand for? I looked at the article due to a conflict with Battle off Fairhaven as the "first" naval engagement of the American Revolution (probably hinges on the definition of "naval"). RobDuch ( talk) 06:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm getting in a pickle with these. The problem initially appeared on INS Shakti where the ship class linkage resulted in tanker coming up as a blue link to a dab page. I found a way around that by using a piped link but when I looked at Tanker (ship) it said correctly that a tanker is a merchant vessel and the term for a military refueling vessel is an oiler. Using the sclass template Oiler gives the same get roundable problem as Tanker however there is no oiler(ship) article and from the dab (or link to) you are invited to go to tanker (which we know is incorrect) or Replenishment oiler. Looking at replenishment oiler it states correctly its a ship which provides fuel and DRY CARGO ie Refuels and Replenishes (where as an oiler could just provide fuel). Ah I thought just create a page for oiler(ship) but then I hit the problem of identifying which ships solely provide fuel to correctly title and categorise them as oilers. Whats caused me to throw my hands up and ask for suggestions here is the new British Tide-class tanker - yes thats right TANKER, checked on the Royal Navy site and its how they are referring to them, and then look at Tide-class replenishment oiler, I believe they were just oilers. I'm minded to go with my initial idea of creating oiler(ship) but without trying to subdivide the existing articles into oilers and replenishment oilers however I hate doing half a job and I envisage looking at the Tide class example this could turn into a can of worms. Grateful for ideas and guidance Lyndaship ( talk) 15:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. From your comments it's obvious that US and UK usage varies and that the whole subject can be a vehicle for confusion, I've come across British RFAs which are deemed replenishment ships but can also supply a bit of fuel, there are military tankers which carry water, there is the issue of oilers or tankers which operate as cargo carriers and never refuel ships, there are Aviation fuel tankers. Therefore I propose to create oiler(ship) with a text along the lines of "A military ship which refuels other ships but does not replenish dry stores -see replenishment oiler" and to change tanker(ship) along the lines of " A merchant vessel which conveys fluids. Military vessels which refuel ships are known as an oiler in some navies and tankers in others, if they also supply dry stores they are known as replenishment oilers or replenishment tankers." - not my final wording, just the gist. I'm going to leave the class and ship types alone as I hope these amendments will stop any contradictions Lyndaship ( talk) 09:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)