![]() | 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 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | → | Archive 60 |
Came across the article Captain Hayward about the first ferry crossing of the English Channel, although it appears to be about on event related to the connection with the South Eastern Railway service from London. It clearly is not about the good Captain or even his ship the Water Witch and makes some claims about being the first round trip from London but it certainly doesnt appear to be the first ferry crossing. I added the name of the ship which was missing and was tempted to move the article to William Hayward to give the Captain his real name but thought I would seek opinions here of where what appears to an event article rather than a person or ship should go. Thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 14:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
A discussion on the possible deletion of HMS Incomparable has been opened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HMS Incomparable. All interested editors are invited to comment.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 14:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the possible deletion of HMS Pegasus (1944) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HMS Pegasus (1944). All interested editors are invited to comment. Lyndaship ( talk) 09:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
G'day all, there is a discussion at Talk:List of commanding officers of USS Nevada (BB-36)#Re PROD regarding whether or not to include a list of ship captains to a ship article. Your input is welcome. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Was this ship really called this? It's not listed in Colledge, J. J.; Warlow, Ben (2006) [1969]. Ships of the Royal Navy: The Complete Record of all Fighting Ships of the Royal Navy (Rev. ed.). London: Chatham Publishing. ISBN 978-1-86176-281-8. and every other source other than a Dictionary of naval Biography refers to it as Saudadoes. Possibly it's a contemporary English misspelling for a difficult foreign word. I've raised it on the creators talk page but he's not replied [3]. Lyndaship ( talk) 17:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Editors may wish to comment on this proposal on the article's talk page Lyndaship ( talk) 07:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I need help with draft:Twilight (1837 steamboat) to expand the article. I am not lazy, In fact I am actually so busy with other things, i haven't made much progress. I need teamwork to get it done faster so it can be a Wikipedia article. Thanks! Huff slush7264 17:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I've just started looking at the categories Russian ship names and Soviet Navy ship names to form up the ship index listings and one thing which has occurred to me is it desirable to have article titles such as Soviet destroyer Foo as opposed to Russian destroyer Foo? To my mind Soviet ships were also Russian ships and now that the Soviet Union is defunct is there any point in using Soviet to differentiate ships which served in the period when the state used that name? Given that we should be writing for a general audience the nuance is probably lost on them. The indexes can be created either way using redirects and separate pages in each category but it would look cleaner if all pages in both categories were for Russian ship Foo and would save future work if and when the current Russian navy reuses a previous Soviet (and possibly Imperial) name Lyndaship ( talk) 09:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for opinions everyone. Quite clearly no support for a change. I accept the consensus Lyndaship ( talk) 07:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of commanding officers of USS Nevada (BB-36). Thanks - wolf 17:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
If anyone wants to chime in here, it'd be appreciated. Thanks. The Wicked Twisted Road ( talk) 00:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Currently, these six ship articles, with presidential namesakes, have navboxes for the ship's namesake at the bottom of the page;
1.
USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-67)
2.
USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76)
3.
USS George H.W. Bush (CVN-77)
4.
USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78)
5.
USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79)
6. USS Jimmy Carter (SSN-23) -
I checked the ≈40 other ship articles, as well as the other ≈8 ship-class articles at List of U.S. military vessels named after presidents, which includes all the other Nimitz-class ship articles and found no other articles that included navboxes for the namesake President.
I'm not aware of a guideline or consensus regarding the inclusion of navboxes for presidential namesakes (which does not mean either does not exist), but for the sake of article consistency, should these six navboxes be removed? Or should these navboxes be added to all the other ship articles with presidential namesakes? And ship-class articles as well? And would this extend to other ship articles with political namesakes, for example, the two Nimitz-class carriers; USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) and USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74)? Or just all ship namesakes on all ship articles?.
Thanks - wolf 11:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include navboxes, and which to include, is often suggested by WikiProjects, but is ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. Per the bidirectionality principle above, this may also affect inclusion of a particular article in a navigation template." (Emphasis mine.)) Per this guideline, if a president's navbox is not included on the namesake ship's page, then the ship link should be removed from the navbox. I don't care either way, but be sure to remove the ship links from each president's navbox if you decide they need to be removed from the ship pages. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 18:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Commons you may wish to see about "Ships by name". [ Category title "Ships by name" proposed change]. - Broichmore ( talk) 10:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I have an issue with the name. The actual freighter was launched in 1873, finished early 1874. Russians bought it and rebuilt it in Philadelphia in 1878. Should it be a ship without a date in the title? Should it be 1873? Thanks. Crook1 ( talk) 02:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed the unnecessary disambiguation. Parsecboy ( talk) 15:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
G'day all, a RfC has been started on the Milhist talk page regarding mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht, a daily broadcast about the activities of the Wehrmacht during WWII. Your input would be welcomed. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 04:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Frequently I find links to the SI page when the creating editor intends to link to the individual ship article but hasn't checked where his blue links lead to. As the SI in effect acts as a dab page I am wondering if it would be an idea if editors are sent a notice along the lines of you have linked to a dab page one when they do this? Lyndaship ( talk) 08:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Do we have an established convention for treating Russian project numbers in article titles? For example, which one of the following is correct: Project 21900 icebreaker or Project 23550-class patrol ship? Furthermore, as the Russians seem to prefer project numbers over class names, which naming convention should we follow in the English Wikipedia? Tupsumato ( talk) 08:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I propose to move the article to SS Californian (1900) to be consistent with, for example, SS American (1900) which also was pressed into service by the US Navy. The ship was barely a month under charter but had a very long civilian career. Crook1 ( talk) 01:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I disagree about no pre-eminence for military, it's quite clearly biased towards the navy otherwise there will be no discussion. Having no rules basically means the name is locked forever once it's set because there will always be someone who would oppose to change. Should we agree that vessels briefly pressed into naval service to basically be cargo carriers should not be listed as military ships unless they were sunk while in government service? I also would like to point out this ship which according to what you just said should be listed as Norwegian because it was torpedoes under that flag. In general, having rules is better than having none, because everything becomes extremely random and arbitrary. Crook1 ( talk) 20:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
List of Algerian ships mentions a ' Watch Dog intercept', which links to a DAB page with no relevant entry. The applicable detailed article, Koni-class frigate, doesn't supply an obvious solution. Anyone any ideas? Narky Blert ( talk) 14:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Can anyone hazard a guess here? The warship in the background, Lisbon in 1935. Thanks Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, now this has shown up, from the same set. Andy Dingley ( talk) 22:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Would it be technically possible to properly format (with italics) ship names on cat pages? Is this even an en-WP question or more of a mediawiki thing? See for example Category:Destroyers sunk by aircraft.
Feel free to point me to previous discussion on this topic. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 19:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Add it or do not add it? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 05:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 12:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
There is an active discussion regarding entries to the pop culture section for the USS Missouri (BB-63) article. It could use some more contributors. Thanks - wolf 09:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
RMS Queen Mary 2 is being edited by an IP, 202.128.68.82, to use an old approximate GT figure rather than the tonnage of Lloyd's Register, the rating agency. I would appreciate more eyes on the page. I have engaged the IP but without response. Thank you. Kablammo ( talk) 16:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Editors attention is drawn to the following talk page [4]. Related is the renaming of categories Shipwrecks in Scapa Flow to Shipwrecks at Scapa Flow Lyndaship ( talk) 16:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. -- Izno Repeat ( talk) 21:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
For those interested, I've started a GAR on Passengers of the RMS Titanic, based on serious problems with sourcing and image copyrights. The review page can be found here if anyone wants to comment or work on the article. Parsecboy ( talk) 13:20, 15 November 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 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | → | Archive 60 |
Came across the article Captain Hayward about the first ferry crossing of the English Channel, although it appears to be about on event related to the connection with the South Eastern Railway service from London. It clearly is not about the good Captain or even his ship the Water Witch and makes some claims about being the first round trip from London but it certainly doesnt appear to be the first ferry crossing. I added the name of the ship which was missing and was tempted to move the article to William Hayward to give the Captain his real name but thought I would seek opinions here of where what appears to an event article rather than a person or ship should go. Thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 14:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
A discussion on the possible deletion of HMS Incomparable has been opened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HMS Incomparable. All interested editors are invited to comment.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 14:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the possible deletion of HMS Pegasus (1944) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HMS Pegasus (1944). All interested editors are invited to comment. Lyndaship ( talk) 09:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
G'day all, there is a discussion at Talk:List of commanding officers of USS Nevada (BB-36)#Re PROD regarding whether or not to include a list of ship captains to a ship article. Your input is welcome. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Was this ship really called this? It's not listed in Colledge, J. J.; Warlow, Ben (2006) [1969]. Ships of the Royal Navy: The Complete Record of all Fighting Ships of the Royal Navy (Rev. ed.). London: Chatham Publishing. ISBN 978-1-86176-281-8. and every other source other than a Dictionary of naval Biography refers to it as Saudadoes. Possibly it's a contemporary English misspelling for a difficult foreign word. I've raised it on the creators talk page but he's not replied [3]. Lyndaship ( talk) 17:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Editors may wish to comment on this proposal on the article's talk page Lyndaship ( talk) 07:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I need help with draft:Twilight (1837 steamboat) to expand the article. I am not lazy, In fact I am actually so busy with other things, i haven't made much progress. I need teamwork to get it done faster so it can be a Wikipedia article. Thanks! Huff slush7264 17:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I've just started looking at the categories Russian ship names and Soviet Navy ship names to form up the ship index listings and one thing which has occurred to me is it desirable to have article titles such as Soviet destroyer Foo as opposed to Russian destroyer Foo? To my mind Soviet ships were also Russian ships and now that the Soviet Union is defunct is there any point in using Soviet to differentiate ships which served in the period when the state used that name? Given that we should be writing for a general audience the nuance is probably lost on them. The indexes can be created either way using redirects and separate pages in each category but it would look cleaner if all pages in both categories were for Russian ship Foo and would save future work if and when the current Russian navy reuses a previous Soviet (and possibly Imperial) name Lyndaship ( talk) 09:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for opinions everyone. Quite clearly no support for a change. I accept the consensus Lyndaship ( talk) 07:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of commanding officers of USS Nevada (BB-36). Thanks - wolf 17:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
If anyone wants to chime in here, it'd be appreciated. Thanks. The Wicked Twisted Road ( talk) 00:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Currently, these six ship articles, with presidential namesakes, have navboxes for the ship's namesake at the bottom of the page;
1.
USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-67)
2.
USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76)
3.
USS George H.W. Bush (CVN-77)
4.
USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78)
5.
USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79)
6. USS Jimmy Carter (SSN-23) -
I checked the ≈40 other ship articles, as well as the other ≈8 ship-class articles at List of U.S. military vessels named after presidents, which includes all the other Nimitz-class ship articles and found no other articles that included navboxes for the namesake President.
I'm not aware of a guideline or consensus regarding the inclusion of navboxes for presidential namesakes (which does not mean either does not exist), but for the sake of article consistency, should these six navboxes be removed? Or should these navboxes be added to all the other ship articles with presidential namesakes? And ship-class articles as well? And would this extend to other ship articles with political namesakes, for example, the two Nimitz-class carriers; USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) and USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74)? Or just all ship namesakes on all ship articles?.
Thanks - wolf 11:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include navboxes, and which to include, is often suggested by WikiProjects, but is ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. Per the bidirectionality principle above, this may also affect inclusion of a particular article in a navigation template." (Emphasis mine.)) Per this guideline, if a president's navbox is not included on the namesake ship's page, then the ship link should be removed from the navbox. I don't care either way, but be sure to remove the ship links from each president's navbox if you decide they need to be removed from the ship pages. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 18:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Commons you may wish to see about "Ships by name". [ Category title "Ships by name" proposed change]. - Broichmore ( talk) 10:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I have an issue with the name. The actual freighter was launched in 1873, finished early 1874. Russians bought it and rebuilt it in Philadelphia in 1878. Should it be a ship without a date in the title? Should it be 1873? Thanks. Crook1 ( talk) 02:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed the unnecessary disambiguation. Parsecboy ( talk) 15:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
G'day all, a RfC has been started on the Milhist talk page regarding mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht, a daily broadcast about the activities of the Wehrmacht during WWII. Your input would be welcomed. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 04:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Frequently I find links to the SI page when the creating editor intends to link to the individual ship article but hasn't checked where his blue links lead to. As the SI in effect acts as a dab page I am wondering if it would be an idea if editors are sent a notice along the lines of you have linked to a dab page one when they do this? Lyndaship ( talk) 08:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Do we have an established convention for treating Russian project numbers in article titles? For example, which one of the following is correct: Project 21900 icebreaker or Project 23550-class patrol ship? Furthermore, as the Russians seem to prefer project numbers over class names, which naming convention should we follow in the English Wikipedia? Tupsumato ( talk) 08:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I propose to move the article to SS Californian (1900) to be consistent with, for example, SS American (1900) which also was pressed into service by the US Navy. The ship was barely a month under charter but had a very long civilian career. Crook1 ( talk) 01:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I disagree about no pre-eminence for military, it's quite clearly biased towards the navy otherwise there will be no discussion. Having no rules basically means the name is locked forever once it's set because there will always be someone who would oppose to change. Should we agree that vessels briefly pressed into naval service to basically be cargo carriers should not be listed as military ships unless they were sunk while in government service? I also would like to point out this ship which according to what you just said should be listed as Norwegian because it was torpedoes under that flag. In general, having rules is better than having none, because everything becomes extremely random and arbitrary. Crook1 ( talk) 20:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
List of Algerian ships mentions a ' Watch Dog intercept', which links to a DAB page with no relevant entry. The applicable detailed article, Koni-class frigate, doesn't supply an obvious solution. Anyone any ideas? Narky Blert ( talk) 14:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Can anyone hazard a guess here? The warship in the background, Lisbon in 1935. Thanks Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, now this has shown up, from the same set. Andy Dingley ( talk) 22:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Would it be technically possible to properly format (with italics) ship names on cat pages? Is this even an en-WP question or more of a mediawiki thing? See for example Category:Destroyers sunk by aircraft.
Feel free to point me to previous discussion on this topic. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 19:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Add it or do not add it? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 05:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 12:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
There is an active discussion regarding entries to the pop culture section for the USS Missouri (BB-63) article. It could use some more contributors. Thanks - wolf 09:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
RMS Queen Mary 2 is being edited by an IP, 202.128.68.82, to use an old approximate GT figure rather than the tonnage of Lloyd's Register, the rating agency. I would appreciate more eyes on the page. I have engaged the IP but without response. Thank you. Kablammo ( talk) 16:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Editors attention is drawn to the following talk page [4]. Related is the renaming of categories Shipwrecks in Scapa Flow to Shipwrecks at Scapa Flow Lyndaship ( talk) 16:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. -- Izno Repeat ( talk) 21:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
For those interested, I've started a GAR on Passengers of the RMS Titanic, based on serious problems with sourcing and image copyrights. The review page can be found here if anyone wants to comment or work on the article. Parsecboy ( talk) 13:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)