![]() | 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 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | → | Archive 60 |
I know this has come up before, people adding non-notable crew names to ship articles (sometimes whole lists of them), most commonly seen with edits such as "CDR Smith has assumed command of USS Foo as of 1 May 2017", or "Seaman 2nd Class Bob Jones received a non-judicial reprimand for being drunk on duty and barfing on a comm panel". Unless we already have some kind of written guideance for this, could we perhaps add something, somewhere? (MOS? Project guidance?) Maybe a helpful shortcut like "SHIPSNOTCREWS", since that is what the ship articles are supposed to be about. Just a thought... - wolf 20:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Last November, we had a discussion about the "List(s) of Commanding Officers" that were popping up on various naval ship articles. The consensus was to remove these lists, as the preference was to have notable COs (if there were any) added to the article prose with a link to their BLP. Some of these lists did not have any notable officers, some were added to newer ships, such as Burke-class destroyers where the few COs a ship had, were CDRs and not at all likely to have any notability. Some pages even had lists of NCOs, such as COBs. There was some discussion about making changes to SHIPMOS to reflect this consensus, but the discussion was archived before any specific changes could be proposed. As this is basically related to the topic of this section, I thought I raise the issue again. If we are to make changes/additions to SHIPMOS about non-notable crew and/or these CO lists, perhaps now would be a good time to for proposals.
Articles about ships should focus on the ship, not her crew. Non-notable crew members, including commanding officers, should not be added to a ship article, unless they are part of a notable, reliably sourced event that involves the ship, or played an integral role in the notable history of a ship. An exception would be commanding officers that are notable per WP:MILPERSON, in which case they should be included in the article's prose, typically where chronologically appropriate in the ship's history, with a link to their bio page.This would address non-notable crew in general. The above suggested shortcut "SHIPSNOTCREWS" or something similar would apply here.
Articles about ships should focus on the ship. While a ship may have many commanding officers during her active lifespan, only those notable per WP:MILPERSON should be noted in the article. This would preclude creating sub-sections with lists of commanding officers, as the preference is to have notable commanding officers included in the article's prose, typically where chronologically appropriate in the ship's history, with a link to their bio page.This would address the specific issue of lists of commanding officers. Perhaps a shortcut such as "PROSENOTLISTS" would work here.
These proposals are not mutually exclusive. As proposer, I would obviously support both. But I'm sure other editors here could have other, even better ideas, and I would like to see more proposals. The idea is just to have some guidance to help make maintaining these articles a little easier. (This is also where the shortcuts come in; if you're going to revert someone's edits, a shortcut in the edit summary is helpful). Thanks - wolf 04:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for encouraging words so I'll give it a go.
Articles about ships should be about the ship and not individuals who happened to serve on it. Generally no individuals should be mentioned unless they are BOTH otherwise notable AND their service on the ship was is in itself notable and significant to the history of the ship. Such mentions should be in the body of the article at the appropriate chronological point with a link to their personal article. Mere service or command does not satisfy the significance criterion. Tables listing Commanding Officers regardless of them being otherwise notable or not are specifically not to be used.The above suggested shortcut "SHIPSNOTCREWS" or something similar would apply here. As I see it the problem is fourfold, firstly we have editors trying to remember their family members on articles, this is dealt with by NOTMEMORIAL, secondly we have the editors with a genealogy bent trying to put every name they can source, thirdly those editors who want their time in command of a ship mentioned even if it was anyone could have done it and indeed if a lot of non notable names are already there why shouldn't theirs be too? Finally we have completeness and inclusionist editors who want every commander listed even when it overwhelms the article( some of the Japanese WWII ships are absolutely swimming in red linked tables). This proposal would provide the basis for resolving all these areas. I am quite willing to grant considerable lattitude to those editors who feel that a notable individuals time on the ship was significant to the ship, the aim is to stop blanket adding of individuals or adding for the sake of it when it does nothing for flow of the article Lyndaship ( talk) 15:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Coming here from Milhist. I don't agree with ship articles just being about the ship. Ships don't sail themselves, they have a crew, and a captain, and when in combat the captain has a large influence on the success or otherwise of the ship. My view is that ships are like any other armed forces unit, mentions of commanding officers are quite common on military unit articles, and we shouldn't collectively be issuing guidance against this practice just for ships. WP:MILPERSON specifically states that commanding officers of capital ships during periods they saw combat are likely to be notable. Therefore you would expect to see redlinks for any commanding officers of such ships during periods in which they saw combat, and in the many ship articles I've reviewed at GAN, Milhist A-class and FAC it is common to see captains of capital ships mentioned in the relevant point of the narrative, and I would question the comprehensiveness of any article on a capital ship that didn't mention who the captains were during periods in combat. I certainly would not support any move to deprecate mentions of captains from articles. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 00:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply, Peacemaker67, I appreciate the time and effort you put into such a detailed response. However, I have to disagree with (and I hope I'm just misunderstanding) some of your conclusions. As I stated above, and will confirm; I am not seeking to exclude any notable content. You've mentioned Captains serving in command during combat operations and/or naval engagements... that has been covered. Perhaps the words "notable" and "notability" are being used both correctly and incorrectly. And with that, let's address option #1, as I don't get a sense that you are particularly opposed to option #2 (List of COs in ship articles). As for #1, I don't see how it would exclude any crew (be it the COs, pretty officers or cooks). Even if they are not notable enough to have their own BLP/bio, if they were part of a notable event or period in the ship's history, and that can be supported by reliable sourcing, then they should be included as "significant figures" in that section of historical narrative for the ship. And regardless of whether they already have a BLP/bio or not, we're not seeking to "limit any information" about that person. If they are part of that section of content, then any relevant and sourced info that adequately describes their role should be included. There are officers that retired as Captains, and as such, are not likely (or guaranteed) to have their own BLP/bio page on WP. But if they were CO during an particular battle, that is noted in detail, and sourcing can be provided, then they should be included in that section about the battle. This is where I believe you have misunderstood my proposals (or perhaps it's my fault, maybe I didn't explain them clearly enough) #1 is just to cut down on the addition of completely non-notable officers and crew being added to for non-notable (and/or notnews) reasons to ship articles, such as the examples I gave above. #2 simply reflects the comsensus here to avoid adding "Lists of COs" to ship articles, and instead have notable COs added to the prose (as well as non-notable COs under certain circumstances as noted above). I hope this clears things up a little. Cheers - wolf 06:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
That's actually a really good example. He was only 18 years old when he sailed on Leipzig, but went on to become quite notable. I believe this would be one of those individual cases that I mentioned below, that while on its's face, could be be excluded, upon tp discussion would actually be included in the article. - wolf 01:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
( edit conflict) @ Peacemaker67: I take it from your comments, which are basically focusing on issues covered by proposal #1, that you are generally ok with proposal #2? (precluding "lists of COs", and others such as XOs and CMDMCs, MCPOs & CoBs. The preference being that crew that are to be included in the article should be added to an appropriate section of the article prose.) If not, let me know. As for your comments, I do generally agree, for example, COs of capital ships, typically a senior CAPT billet, during a war, will most likely be notable, per one wp:soldier criteria or another. But I think we need to distinguish between "during wartime" and "during actual combat operations". Eg; during WWII, CAPT Bob is CO of an aircraft carrier for 8 of the 14 momths she spends at Puget Sound. He never leaves port. Retires as a CAPT, and does not meet any wp:soldier criteria for his own bio. Does he merit inclusion in the article? Per your comments, it would seem he does (CO+capital ship+war= inclusion), but I would say no. I'm not as strict as some, nor as lenient as others here, when it comes to who's "notable" or worthy of inclusion. You present more of a blanket guideline for inclusion, under which I'm sure many, maybe even most, crewmembers would qualify for inclusion. But then Lyndaship makes some really good points about COs being noted who have really done nothing to merit it. I have tried to strike a balance with proposal #1, but if you still have concerns about it, perhaps you could suggest some re-wording? Regardless of how it's written, this will only be a mosship project guideline (if at all). There will always be individual cases we can't account for either way, but I think the talk page can address those by local consensus or DR, as they come up. Cheers - wolf 01:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Articles about ships should focus on the ship.While a ship may have many commanding officers during her active lifespan, as a general principle only those who captained a ship during combat operations or during major events in the life of the ship, or persons who are independently notable per WP:MILPERSON should be mentioned in a ship article. It is strongly recommended that this should be done as part of the chronological narrative of the ship's career rather than in a separate section. Notable persons should be linked to their biographical article, or redlinked if none yet exists.
Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
As for the first sentence, consensus appears to favour it. Speaking of consensus, should we see where we all stand? Would someone like to take this on? Bring the proposals for consideration up to date and being them forward to start a straw poll? - wolf 04:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
On USN ship pages (especially 20th/21st century ships), it seems to me that most, if not all sponsors, are either notable themselves, or are selected because they are related to someone notable. A ship only has one sponsor, so it never really seemed a big deal to me to mention them as part of the keel laying-sponsoring-christening-launching-commissioning section of the page. But I don't have strong feelings about it either way and will go with the majority on this. As for that paragraph that Parsecboy noted on the Illinois (BB-7) page, had I initially come across it, I would have significantly trimmed it (if not flat out removed it). Just my 0.02¢ - wolf 23:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
This discussion about content in a particular article doesn't really belong here. It should be moved to the article talk page, so that future editors will be able to find it. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 01:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion at WT:MILHIST#Ships that touches on similar issues. - wolf 02:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
There hasn't been anything added to this discussion for a week now, so should we look to wrap this up? Can we say we have consensus here? Thoughts? - wolf 00:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Articles about ships should focus on the ship. While a ship may have many notable individuals (including Commanding officers) serving on her during her active lifespan, as a general principle only those who captained a ship during major events in the life of the ship, or persons who are independently notable should be considered for mention in a ship article. It is strongly recommended that this should be done as part of the chronological narrative of the ship's career rather than in a separate section. Notable persons should be linked to their biographical article, or redlinked if none yet exists.
Do you support adding this to the Ship Project's guidelines ( WP:MOSSHIPS)?
in general...". On any given, individual article, there may be exceptions, such as the one you noted. - wolf 21:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
LCDR Some Young Guy assumed command of USS Foo II for a period of three years during which absolutely nothing notable happened. Young Guy then retired as a completely unnoteworthy junior officer."
OPPOSE Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. What harm is there in having a list of commanding officers? Eric Cable ! Talk 15:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Question - take this paragraph from HMS Endeavour, which was present in the version that passed FA:
Midshipman Jonathon Monkhouse proposed fothering the ship, as he had previously been on a merchant ship which used the technique successfully. He was entrusted with supervising the task, sewing bits of oakum and wool into an old sail, which was then drawn under the ship to allow water pressure to force it into the hole in the hull. The effort succeeded and soon very little water was entering, allowing the crew to stop two of the three pumps.
Jonathan Monkhouse was not Endeavour's captain and is not notable independent of this event. How would this paragraph be affected by this new guideline? -- Euryalus ( talk) 07:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
To address the valid concerns many editors have expressed I would like to reword the proposal as follows:
A midshipman proposed fothering the ship..."? But even beyond that, the current proposal (without the changes) only says "
as a general principle". If, in a particular article, an otherwise non-notable crew member is mentioned in sources, and editors feel that name should be included in the article by a local consensus on that article's talk page, then this proposal does not prohibit that. The article noted in the above question could serve as an example of that. I also believe this concern was addressed earlier.
Oppose the original proposal, support the amendment by Lyndaship - Thanks for the reply, and yes I think it makes a difference. The problem we're trying to address is spammy lists of non-notable officers in articles on modern naval vessels. However the proposal we have is too broad in application and too prescriptive in content. The above example demonstrates this point - the proposed new rule removes reliably sourced material, reduces the clarity of the article and does nothing at all on spam or wordcount. It also opens the door to "Who's on first?"-style confusions when we seek to refer to more than one person who held the same rank aboard a vessel (eg. a midshipman, another midshipman, a third midshipman who is not the first midshipman, etc). Lyndaships' alternative covers the general advice about non-notable personnel but removes the focus on captains and allows for the circumstance where mentions of others may be relevant to the ship's history. Suggest this an alternative to the original words. -- Euryalus ( talk) 02:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements.The midshipman aboard Endeavour is no one's relative or acquaintance; they are not the subject of the article; and their proposal - in saving the ship from sinking - is both notable in the history of the vessel and reliably sourced in the article. Note also that notability requirements apply to articles as a whole, not individual sentences within them (see WP:Noteworthy). In fact the relevant guideline for whether to mention the midshipman in this instance is WP:Due, but if we assume the issue of the ship nearly sinking is indeed relevant to the ship, then the argument comes down to whether we use the midshipman's name or just call him "a midshipman." Either would be fine I suppose, but anonymising him saves no space and risks causing confusion if we mention other midshipmen elsewhere in the article. Neither option shortens or lengthens the article or changes any key details; one is simply clearer than the other and assists the reader slightly more.
There is currently a discussion regarding the inclusion of a list of non-notable victims of the accident on the articlel's talk page. Interested editors are invited to join the discussion. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Does WP:Ships have project coordinators? Could we also look at whether the Project Page can be updated similar to the WikiProject Military history Project Page? Thoughts Regards Newm30 ( talk) 00:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I had just started creating a category for Ships of the Romanian Navy to go with the Romanian ship names one I had created when I discovered that they are all already set up but as Ships of the Romanian Naval Forces. Looking at the parent page that was changed from Romanian Navy to Romanian Naval Forces back in 2006 with the explanation of correct name as used by the institution. A quick google shows that is indeed the translation of the Romanian name (Forțele Navale Române). I would prefer to use Romanian Navy to be consistent with how we have titled other countries navies but would like to hear others thoughts first. The talk page of Romanian Naval Forces has no relevant content Lyndaship ( talk) 19:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
There are a bunch of German ship photos at C:category:World War II ships of Germany that need to be assigned categories. I've already done the destroyers and torpedo boats, but there are plenty of photos of submarines, cruisers and battleships that might be useful to illustrate articles on those ships if people knew about them.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 02:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Howdy all, wondering if anyone can shed some light on this. I'm curious as to why ship templates are broken up into multiple templates {{ Infobox ship begin}}, {{ Infobox ship image}}, {{ Infobox ship career}}, etc as opposed to just being one template? Not pushing for any change here just curious. I know there are a few template series still out there like this but most have been converted over to a single template. Apart from the obvious pain of having to convert the template and then all the subsequent pages, is there a reason that this hasn't been done? I'm guessing there some history here that I'm not aware of so if anyone can clue me in that'd be awesome! (Not I also posted this at Template talk:Infobox ship begin. Figured I might get responses in both places.) -- Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 06:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
{{
infobox}}
.{{
infobox}}
. I know that that functionality is used though I do not know how often.At Capture of the Anne. See here for discussion. - wolf 02:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Talk:Partizanka after major revision gives reasons for a move/rename of the article. The original was a bit of a mess with a work of fiction, a Crime Club detective novel, used as a reference for a voyage. That is gone. Request some eyes on whether that move is justified and a move if so. 72.196.202.60 ( talk) 01:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships) based on issues being raised at Talk:Capture of the Anne. Regards Newm30 ( talk) 22:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
In the infobox there are two fields that are a little ambiguous, first is the "Total ships completed" field and second is the "Total ships active" field. My questions are, are these both aplicable to war ships? Or should we only use "Total ships active"? A ship can be launched but it's still under "Total ships building" until it's commissioned? Would "Total ships completed" only be used for commercial ships? Sorry if I'm missing something obvious but the numbers don't add up on the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer article and I would like to get them right. Pennsy22 ( talk) 10:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion at the above mentioned article which editors may wish to comment on about having a Roll of Honour section for the names of the two sailors killed on the ship during the Falklands war Lyndaship ( talk) 08:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, could use some help at Blohm+Voss, where an IP editor is insisting that B+V are a metallurgical company via edit warring, not responding on their talk page, the usual stuff. Many thanks in advance. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 16:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
There is a move proposal concerning a large number of ships at Talk:MS Symphony of the Seas which editors may wish to comment on Lyndaship ( talk) 16:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking of accepting Draft:SS Tokomaru (1893) but I would like a second opinion if the subject is notable enough for a standalone article and if so is it good to accept now or more sourcing needed? Thanks. JC7V ( talk) 18:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
List of ships named Toko Maru anyone? Mjroots ( talk) 08:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
The Maryland police steamer, Governor R. M. McLane 1884—1945, only spent a brief time as a Naval Reserve vessel in a dual role as provided by the Maryland legislature and agreements with the Navy. As a part of the "Oyster Navy" (Maryland's State Oyster Police Force) the steamer had more armed engagements with oyster pirates than as a naval vessel. Several other notable events involved the steamer, including the first meeting of Maryland and Virginia officials on board to agree on uniform regulations and a detailed survey of Maryland's Chesapeake waters and much later resurvey and planting cultivated oyster beds. To avoid confusion with the governor some "ship" indication in the title is needed. SS Governor R. M. McLane with or without year? 72.196.202.60 ( talk) 06:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
On
18 December 2018,
Did you know was updated with a fact from the article
Blue Origin landing platform ship, which was recently created. The fact was
... that
Amazon founder
Jeff Bezos aims to land rockets on
a moving ship?
The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Blue Origin landing platform ship. You may subsequently check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Blue Origin landing platform ship), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 00:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I am thinking of creating an article on a ship and I know that there are several other ships of the same name. Not sure if the others are notable. Should I create the page at the primary name, or should I create a list-type article at the primary with the new article at a disambiguated title? Spinning Spark 18:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
There is a RfC at Talk:Warship about the proper definition and scope of the article title. All WikiProject members are invited to participate and give your valuable perspectives at the talk page. Thank you! — Madrenergic talk 17:24, 20 December 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 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | → | Archive 60 |
I know this has come up before, people adding non-notable crew names to ship articles (sometimes whole lists of them), most commonly seen with edits such as "CDR Smith has assumed command of USS Foo as of 1 May 2017", or "Seaman 2nd Class Bob Jones received a non-judicial reprimand for being drunk on duty and barfing on a comm panel". Unless we already have some kind of written guideance for this, could we perhaps add something, somewhere? (MOS? Project guidance?) Maybe a helpful shortcut like "SHIPSNOTCREWS", since that is what the ship articles are supposed to be about. Just a thought... - wolf 20:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Last November, we had a discussion about the "List(s) of Commanding Officers" that were popping up on various naval ship articles. The consensus was to remove these lists, as the preference was to have notable COs (if there were any) added to the article prose with a link to their BLP. Some of these lists did not have any notable officers, some were added to newer ships, such as Burke-class destroyers where the few COs a ship had, were CDRs and not at all likely to have any notability. Some pages even had lists of NCOs, such as COBs. There was some discussion about making changes to SHIPMOS to reflect this consensus, but the discussion was archived before any specific changes could be proposed. As this is basically related to the topic of this section, I thought I raise the issue again. If we are to make changes/additions to SHIPMOS about non-notable crew and/or these CO lists, perhaps now would be a good time to for proposals.
Articles about ships should focus on the ship, not her crew. Non-notable crew members, including commanding officers, should not be added to a ship article, unless they are part of a notable, reliably sourced event that involves the ship, or played an integral role in the notable history of a ship. An exception would be commanding officers that are notable per WP:MILPERSON, in which case they should be included in the article's prose, typically where chronologically appropriate in the ship's history, with a link to their bio page.This would address non-notable crew in general. The above suggested shortcut "SHIPSNOTCREWS" or something similar would apply here.
Articles about ships should focus on the ship. While a ship may have many commanding officers during her active lifespan, only those notable per WP:MILPERSON should be noted in the article. This would preclude creating sub-sections with lists of commanding officers, as the preference is to have notable commanding officers included in the article's prose, typically where chronologically appropriate in the ship's history, with a link to their bio page.This would address the specific issue of lists of commanding officers. Perhaps a shortcut such as "PROSENOTLISTS" would work here.
These proposals are not mutually exclusive. As proposer, I would obviously support both. But I'm sure other editors here could have other, even better ideas, and I would like to see more proposals. The idea is just to have some guidance to help make maintaining these articles a little easier. (This is also where the shortcuts come in; if you're going to revert someone's edits, a shortcut in the edit summary is helpful). Thanks - wolf 04:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for encouraging words so I'll give it a go.
Articles about ships should be about the ship and not individuals who happened to serve on it. Generally no individuals should be mentioned unless they are BOTH otherwise notable AND their service on the ship was is in itself notable and significant to the history of the ship. Such mentions should be in the body of the article at the appropriate chronological point with a link to their personal article. Mere service or command does not satisfy the significance criterion. Tables listing Commanding Officers regardless of them being otherwise notable or not are specifically not to be used.The above suggested shortcut "SHIPSNOTCREWS" or something similar would apply here. As I see it the problem is fourfold, firstly we have editors trying to remember their family members on articles, this is dealt with by NOTMEMORIAL, secondly we have the editors with a genealogy bent trying to put every name they can source, thirdly those editors who want their time in command of a ship mentioned even if it was anyone could have done it and indeed if a lot of non notable names are already there why shouldn't theirs be too? Finally we have completeness and inclusionist editors who want every commander listed even when it overwhelms the article( some of the Japanese WWII ships are absolutely swimming in red linked tables). This proposal would provide the basis for resolving all these areas. I am quite willing to grant considerable lattitude to those editors who feel that a notable individuals time on the ship was significant to the ship, the aim is to stop blanket adding of individuals or adding for the sake of it when it does nothing for flow of the article Lyndaship ( talk) 15:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Coming here from Milhist. I don't agree with ship articles just being about the ship. Ships don't sail themselves, they have a crew, and a captain, and when in combat the captain has a large influence on the success or otherwise of the ship. My view is that ships are like any other armed forces unit, mentions of commanding officers are quite common on military unit articles, and we shouldn't collectively be issuing guidance against this practice just for ships. WP:MILPERSON specifically states that commanding officers of capital ships during periods they saw combat are likely to be notable. Therefore you would expect to see redlinks for any commanding officers of such ships during periods in which they saw combat, and in the many ship articles I've reviewed at GAN, Milhist A-class and FAC it is common to see captains of capital ships mentioned in the relevant point of the narrative, and I would question the comprehensiveness of any article on a capital ship that didn't mention who the captains were during periods in combat. I certainly would not support any move to deprecate mentions of captains from articles. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 00:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply, Peacemaker67, I appreciate the time and effort you put into such a detailed response. However, I have to disagree with (and I hope I'm just misunderstanding) some of your conclusions. As I stated above, and will confirm; I am not seeking to exclude any notable content. You've mentioned Captains serving in command during combat operations and/or naval engagements... that has been covered. Perhaps the words "notable" and "notability" are being used both correctly and incorrectly. And with that, let's address option #1, as I don't get a sense that you are particularly opposed to option #2 (List of COs in ship articles). As for #1, I don't see how it would exclude any crew (be it the COs, pretty officers or cooks). Even if they are not notable enough to have their own BLP/bio, if they were part of a notable event or period in the ship's history, and that can be supported by reliable sourcing, then they should be included as "significant figures" in that section of historical narrative for the ship. And regardless of whether they already have a BLP/bio or not, we're not seeking to "limit any information" about that person. If they are part of that section of content, then any relevant and sourced info that adequately describes their role should be included. There are officers that retired as Captains, and as such, are not likely (or guaranteed) to have their own BLP/bio page on WP. But if they were CO during an particular battle, that is noted in detail, and sourcing can be provided, then they should be included in that section about the battle. This is where I believe you have misunderstood my proposals (or perhaps it's my fault, maybe I didn't explain them clearly enough) #1 is just to cut down on the addition of completely non-notable officers and crew being added to for non-notable (and/or notnews) reasons to ship articles, such as the examples I gave above. #2 simply reflects the comsensus here to avoid adding "Lists of COs" to ship articles, and instead have notable COs added to the prose (as well as non-notable COs under certain circumstances as noted above). I hope this clears things up a little. Cheers - wolf 06:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
That's actually a really good example. He was only 18 years old when he sailed on Leipzig, but went on to become quite notable. I believe this would be one of those individual cases that I mentioned below, that while on its's face, could be be excluded, upon tp discussion would actually be included in the article. - wolf 01:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
( edit conflict) @ Peacemaker67: I take it from your comments, which are basically focusing on issues covered by proposal #1, that you are generally ok with proposal #2? (precluding "lists of COs", and others such as XOs and CMDMCs, MCPOs & CoBs. The preference being that crew that are to be included in the article should be added to an appropriate section of the article prose.) If not, let me know. As for your comments, I do generally agree, for example, COs of capital ships, typically a senior CAPT billet, during a war, will most likely be notable, per one wp:soldier criteria or another. But I think we need to distinguish between "during wartime" and "during actual combat operations". Eg; during WWII, CAPT Bob is CO of an aircraft carrier for 8 of the 14 momths she spends at Puget Sound. He never leaves port. Retires as a CAPT, and does not meet any wp:soldier criteria for his own bio. Does he merit inclusion in the article? Per your comments, it would seem he does (CO+capital ship+war= inclusion), but I would say no. I'm not as strict as some, nor as lenient as others here, when it comes to who's "notable" or worthy of inclusion. You present more of a blanket guideline for inclusion, under which I'm sure many, maybe even most, crewmembers would qualify for inclusion. But then Lyndaship makes some really good points about COs being noted who have really done nothing to merit it. I have tried to strike a balance with proposal #1, but if you still have concerns about it, perhaps you could suggest some re-wording? Regardless of how it's written, this will only be a mosship project guideline (if at all). There will always be individual cases we can't account for either way, but I think the talk page can address those by local consensus or DR, as they come up. Cheers - wolf 01:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Articles about ships should focus on the ship.While a ship may have many commanding officers during her active lifespan, as a general principle only those who captained a ship during combat operations or during major events in the life of the ship, or persons who are independently notable per WP:MILPERSON should be mentioned in a ship article. It is strongly recommended that this should be done as part of the chronological narrative of the ship's career rather than in a separate section. Notable persons should be linked to their biographical article, or redlinked if none yet exists.
Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
As for the first sentence, consensus appears to favour it. Speaking of consensus, should we see where we all stand? Would someone like to take this on? Bring the proposals for consideration up to date and being them forward to start a straw poll? - wolf 04:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
On USN ship pages (especially 20th/21st century ships), it seems to me that most, if not all sponsors, are either notable themselves, or are selected because they are related to someone notable. A ship only has one sponsor, so it never really seemed a big deal to me to mention them as part of the keel laying-sponsoring-christening-launching-commissioning section of the page. But I don't have strong feelings about it either way and will go with the majority on this. As for that paragraph that Parsecboy noted on the Illinois (BB-7) page, had I initially come across it, I would have significantly trimmed it (if not flat out removed it). Just my 0.02¢ - wolf 23:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
This discussion about content in a particular article doesn't really belong here. It should be moved to the article talk page, so that future editors will be able to find it. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 01:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion at WT:MILHIST#Ships that touches on similar issues. - wolf 02:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
There hasn't been anything added to this discussion for a week now, so should we look to wrap this up? Can we say we have consensus here? Thoughts? - wolf 00:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Articles about ships should focus on the ship. While a ship may have many notable individuals (including Commanding officers) serving on her during her active lifespan, as a general principle only those who captained a ship during major events in the life of the ship, or persons who are independently notable should be considered for mention in a ship article. It is strongly recommended that this should be done as part of the chronological narrative of the ship's career rather than in a separate section. Notable persons should be linked to their biographical article, or redlinked if none yet exists.
Do you support adding this to the Ship Project's guidelines ( WP:MOSSHIPS)?
in general...". On any given, individual article, there may be exceptions, such as the one you noted. - wolf 21:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
LCDR Some Young Guy assumed command of USS Foo II for a period of three years during which absolutely nothing notable happened. Young Guy then retired as a completely unnoteworthy junior officer."
OPPOSE Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. What harm is there in having a list of commanding officers? Eric Cable ! Talk 15:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Question - take this paragraph from HMS Endeavour, which was present in the version that passed FA:
Midshipman Jonathon Monkhouse proposed fothering the ship, as he had previously been on a merchant ship which used the technique successfully. He was entrusted with supervising the task, sewing bits of oakum and wool into an old sail, which was then drawn under the ship to allow water pressure to force it into the hole in the hull. The effort succeeded and soon very little water was entering, allowing the crew to stop two of the three pumps.
Jonathan Monkhouse was not Endeavour's captain and is not notable independent of this event. How would this paragraph be affected by this new guideline? -- Euryalus ( talk) 07:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
To address the valid concerns many editors have expressed I would like to reword the proposal as follows:
A midshipman proposed fothering the ship..."? But even beyond that, the current proposal (without the changes) only says "
as a general principle". If, in a particular article, an otherwise non-notable crew member is mentioned in sources, and editors feel that name should be included in the article by a local consensus on that article's talk page, then this proposal does not prohibit that. The article noted in the above question could serve as an example of that. I also believe this concern was addressed earlier.
Oppose the original proposal, support the amendment by Lyndaship - Thanks for the reply, and yes I think it makes a difference. The problem we're trying to address is spammy lists of non-notable officers in articles on modern naval vessels. However the proposal we have is too broad in application and too prescriptive in content. The above example demonstrates this point - the proposed new rule removes reliably sourced material, reduces the clarity of the article and does nothing at all on spam or wordcount. It also opens the door to "Who's on first?"-style confusions when we seek to refer to more than one person who held the same rank aboard a vessel (eg. a midshipman, another midshipman, a third midshipman who is not the first midshipman, etc). Lyndaships' alternative covers the general advice about non-notable personnel but removes the focus on captains and allows for the circumstance where mentions of others may be relevant to the ship's history. Suggest this an alternative to the original words. -- Euryalus ( talk) 02:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements.The midshipman aboard Endeavour is no one's relative or acquaintance; they are not the subject of the article; and their proposal - in saving the ship from sinking - is both notable in the history of the vessel and reliably sourced in the article. Note also that notability requirements apply to articles as a whole, not individual sentences within them (see WP:Noteworthy). In fact the relevant guideline for whether to mention the midshipman in this instance is WP:Due, but if we assume the issue of the ship nearly sinking is indeed relevant to the ship, then the argument comes down to whether we use the midshipman's name or just call him "a midshipman." Either would be fine I suppose, but anonymising him saves no space and risks causing confusion if we mention other midshipmen elsewhere in the article. Neither option shortens or lengthens the article or changes any key details; one is simply clearer than the other and assists the reader slightly more.
There is currently a discussion regarding the inclusion of a list of non-notable victims of the accident on the articlel's talk page. Interested editors are invited to join the discussion. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Does WP:Ships have project coordinators? Could we also look at whether the Project Page can be updated similar to the WikiProject Military history Project Page? Thoughts Regards Newm30 ( talk) 00:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I had just started creating a category for Ships of the Romanian Navy to go with the Romanian ship names one I had created when I discovered that they are all already set up but as Ships of the Romanian Naval Forces. Looking at the parent page that was changed from Romanian Navy to Romanian Naval Forces back in 2006 with the explanation of correct name as used by the institution. A quick google shows that is indeed the translation of the Romanian name (Forțele Navale Române). I would prefer to use Romanian Navy to be consistent with how we have titled other countries navies but would like to hear others thoughts first. The talk page of Romanian Naval Forces has no relevant content Lyndaship ( talk) 19:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
There are a bunch of German ship photos at C:category:World War II ships of Germany that need to be assigned categories. I've already done the destroyers and torpedo boats, but there are plenty of photos of submarines, cruisers and battleships that might be useful to illustrate articles on those ships if people knew about them.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 02:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Howdy all, wondering if anyone can shed some light on this. I'm curious as to why ship templates are broken up into multiple templates {{ Infobox ship begin}}, {{ Infobox ship image}}, {{ Infobox ship career}}, etc as opposed to just being one template? Not pushing for any change here just curious. I know there are a few template series still out there like this but most have been converted over to a single template. Apart from the obvious pain of having to convert the template and then all the subsequent pages, is there a reason that this hasn't been done? I'm guessing there some history here that I'm not aware of so if anyone can clue me in that'd be awesome! (Not I also posted this at Template talk:Infobox ship begin. Figured I might get responses in both places.) -- Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 06:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
{{
infobox}}
.{{
infobox}}
. I know that that functionality is used though I do not know how often.At Capture of the Anne. See here for discussion. - wolf 02:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Talk:Partizanka after major revision gives reasons for a move/rename of the article. The original was a bit of a mess with a work of fiction, a Crime Club detective novel, used as a reference for a voyage. That is gone. Request some eyes on whether that move is justified and a move if so. 72.196.202.60 ( talk) 01:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships) based on issues being raised at Talk:Capture of the Anne. Regards Newm30 ( talk) 22:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
In the infobox there are two fields that are a little ambiguous, first is the "Total ships completed" field and second is the "Total ships active" field. My questions are, are these both aplicable to war ships? Or should we only use "Total ships active"? A ship can be launched but it's still under "Total ships building" until it's commissioned? Would "Total ships completed" only be used for commercial ships? Sorry if I'm missing something obvious but the numbers don't add up on the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer article and I would like to get them right. Pennsy22 ( talk) 10:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion at the above mentioned article which editors may wish to comment on about having a Roll of Honour section for the names of the two sailors killed on the ship during the Falklands war Lyndaship ( talk) 08:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, could use some help at Blohm+Voss, where an IP editor is insisting that B+V are a metallurgical company via edit warring, not responding on their talk page, the usual stuff. Many thanks in advance. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 16:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
There is a move proposal concerning a large number of ships at Talk:MS Symphony of the Seas which editors may wish to comment on Lyndaship ( talk) 16:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking of accepting Draft:SS Tokomaru (1893) but I would like a second opinion if the subject is notable enough for a standalone article and if so is it good to accept now or more sourcing needed? Thanks. JC7V ( talk) 18:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
List of ships named Toko Maru anyone? Mjroots ( talk) 08:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
The Maryland police steamer, Governor R. M. McLane 1884—1945, only spent a brief time as a Naval Reserve vessel in a dual role as provided by the Maryland legislature and agreements with the Navy. As a part of the "Oyster Navy" (Maryland's State Oyster Police Force) the steamer had more armed engagements with oyster pirates than as a naval vessel. Several other notable events involved the steamer, including the first meeting of Maryland and Virginia officials on board to agree on uniform regulations and a detailed survey of Maryland's Chesapeake waters and much later resurvey and planting cultivated oyster beds. To avoid confusion with the governor some "ship" indication in the title is needed. SS Governor R. M. McLane with or without year? 72.196.202.60 ( talk) 06:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
On
18 December 2018,
Did you know was updated with a fact from the article
Blue Origin landing platform ship, which was recently created. The fact was
... that
Amazon founder
Jeff Bezos aims to land rockets on
a moving ship?
The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Blue Origin landing platform ship. You may subsequently check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Blue Origin landing platform ship), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 00:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I am thinking of creating an article on a ship and I know that there are several other ships of the same name. Not sure if the others are notable. Should I create the page at the primary name, or should I create a list-type article at the primary with the new article at a disambiguated title? Spinning Spark 18:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
There is a RfC at Talk:Warship about the proper definition and scope of the article title. All WikiProject members are invited to participate and give your valuable perspectives at the talk page. Thank you! — Madrenergic talk 17:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)