![]() | 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 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 |
It's a shame this proposal was archived before we could agree on definitive version to form a consensus on. It's not the first time that has happened either. These intertwined issues certainly come up often enough, and definitely garnered significant attention here on this talk page, that they seemed worthy of having seen guidance for them added to mosships. Should we try for another proposal and consensus? Or leave it for now... wait until a dispute regarding these issues erupts on an article somewhere and then start all over again? Or is there another option? - wolf 20:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi all,
First of all, does this yacht pass the various
notability tests? See the deletion discussion
here. I think there is a reasonable argument made there that but for the association with
Duran Duran, this would simply be a
run of the mill charter yacht business.
If and only if the article passes notability tests, could you possibly help with an infobox and categorisation?
Pete AU aka --
Shirt58 (
talk) 10:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
I've proposed moving LK-60Ya-class icebreaker (back) to Project 22220 nuclear-powered icebreaker; please give your input on this talk page. Tupsumato ( talk) 15:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
FYI, the SS Beme page has been nominated for speedy deletion. I have challenged the nomination. Mjroots ( talk) 13:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
According to List of shipwrecks in October 1864 and List of shipwrecks in December 1864 (and the citations), USS Mercury was fighting among the Union forces at those dates. It's missing from USS Mercury. Narky Blert ( talk) 22:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Folks. I created this ship article, MV Esso Hamburg my first ship article. I wonder if somebody can check the infobox, or probably the whole article. Thanks. scope_creep Talk 18:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I just wrote the article M/V Jean de La Valette about a high-speed catamaran which operates Malta-Sicily routes. Is the ship prefix "M/V" correct? I used it because that's how it's called in sources by the vessel's owner. Is there some consensus which states that "MV" should be used and not "M/V"? Also, why does the vessel have the prefix "M/V" rather than "HSC" like other fast catamarans (eg. HSC Tarifa Jet, HSC WorldChampion Jet etc)? I didn't find any sources using "HSC" - all sources use either "M/V", "MV" or no prefix at all. -- Xwejnusgozo ( talk) 19:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
The Project Gutenberg Etext of Two Years Before the Mast by Richard Henry Dana (1840)
is publicly available here [1] Searching catharpin returns no hits, and searching cat-harping has one hit and does not reference the purpose of catharpins.
Lever, D. (1998). The Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor, Dover Maritime Books, p.25.
is publicly available in preview here [2]searching catharpins returns "These are called CROSS CATHARPINS ; and are of great use in keeping the lee-rigging well in, when the Ship rolls."
"William Brady in *The Kedge-Anchor* (1852)"
is not among the references listed, but is quoted in this blog [3] as stating that the purpose of catharpins is to ensure tension in the lee shrouds to prevent the topmast whipping in high seas.
searching google for catharpins returns pages of sites that have all passed around the same quote regarding yard clearance (possibly penned by a reviewer of the R.H.Dana volume), but without primary reference for this idea.
what makes little sense about the yard clearance assertion, is that catharpins are not a trivial customisation to a tall ship, requiring hanging under the top to perform prolonged rope work on each individual shroud (seizing) and the only use of improved yard clearance would be to make the ship operate marginally better under the one use-case that it was not designed for, and for that reason avoided notwithstanding exceptional circumstances.
the gradual replacement of catharpins with a futtock band or mast spider could indicate that the original intent of catharpins was that of the futtock band: to prevent the topmast collapsing like a push-doll when the mast shrouds slacken in strong winds.
a more effective customisation to improve sailing close by the wind has historically been to progressively replace square sails with gaff sails until the desired performance to windward is attained. Longpinkytoes ( talk) 18:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Most of you know this fact: US had built 45 Bogue-class escort carriers during World War 2, 34 of them were sent to UK for Temporary service as Attacker-class and Ruler-class escort carrier.
But their classes total number really confuse me when I look at their article , List of escort carriers of the Royal Navy and template.
Even their total numbers are not correct in two articles combined , 25+8=33 , 1 missing. Of course I can put one back easily but I don’t know which class need to put one more.
In fact , it is not as easy as I thought , after I checked three articles and Bogue-class template , some of the vessels might be put in the wrong class. Which means that the original total numbers of two classes might be wrong as well.
Here the total numbers of Attacker-class and Ruler-class escort carrier in serval pages:
As the vessels that is not in right class order:
Put in Attacker class in Bogue-class escort carriers and List of escort carriers of the Royal Navy ; Put in Ruler-class in Ruler-class escort carrier and template
Put in Attacker class in Bogue-class escort carriers and List of escort carriers of the Royal Navy ; Put in Ruler-class in Ruler-class escort carrier and template
Put in Attacker class in Attacker-class escort carrier , Bogue-class escort carriers and List of escort carriers of the Royal Navy ; Put in ruler-class in template.
Since I don’t have information so need you folks to clarify two things:
1. Which one is the correct total number of Attacker-class escort carrier and Ruler-class escort carrier ?
2. Clarify the following ships. Which one is Attacker-class escort carriers , which one is Ruler-class escort carrier:
Thank you.-- Comrade John ( talk) 17:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Categories with one item aren't a good idea. We should either just delete this one and move its sole item to "Shipwrecks of the Mississippi River" or populate it with other shipwrecks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R k nelson ( talk • contribs) 15:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello all,
Since the PLAN does not use ship prefix, Jinggang Shan (999) and Kunlun Shan (998) should be renamed per the convention laid down in WP:NCS. Module:WPSHIPS utilities currently does not have "amphibious landing dock" or "amphibious warfare ship" in its list of ship types.
To what degree does the ship type become too specific? (e.g. Chinese amphibious warfare ship Jinggang Shan vs. Chinese amphibious landing dock Jinggang Shan)- Mys_721tx ( talk) 09:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
The English world has invariably classified the Spanish ship El Gamo as a Xebec-Frigate. I have just received official correspondence from a source in Spain, a letter dated 15/1/2019, from:
ARMADA ÓRGANO DE HISTORIA Y CULTURA NAVAL SUBSISTEMA ARCHIVÍSTICO MINISTERIO DE DEFENSA ARCHIVO MUSEO NAVAL Código DIR3: E00117101
that there was no Xebec-Frigate El Gamo, she was a Xebec. Spain had a substantial number of military-style Xebecs in use with draughts in existence from 14 to 34 cannon. There is no dispute as to Gamo's size or guns.
It is likely that the English classified her as a Xebec-Frigate because of her size but also so as to magnify the achievement when the Brig-Sloop HMS Speedy captured her. The difference between a common Spanish military-style xebec design and a Spanish frigate design is tremendous with respect to hull shape, stern and decking. Calling Gamo a frigate, in any part, suggests a hull configuration that may conform to a standard frigate (e.g., stern shape, hull shape, raised walkways over the center of the gun deck), which is a huge assumption. It is very unlikely the stern or hull was like that of a standard ship. It is unclear if she had walkway bridges; that would require a deck view and I have yet to see anything beyond models and paintings and drawings.
Therefore, I recommend that the articles on El Gamo and HMS Speedy be modified to call her a "large Xebec" and omit all reference to frigate or Xebec-Frigate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffrey Modell ( talk • contribs) 15:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I represent the Brookfield NH Historical Commision and we would like to greatly expand the entry for "James Hackett - Shipbuilder". He was a resident of Brookfield and he built a ship for John Paul Jones as well as the ship that is the center of the NH state flag. We have several paragraphs of material from several sources that we would like to edit/expand this entry. I have helped edit a short addition to another Wikipedia entry so I know the basic rules. The entry for Hackett appears to be authored by Bot and I did not see any specific editor to ask if it is ok to expand it. This appears to be the right group to ask? Thanks in advance for any help/advice on this project. Ffrazier4 ( talk) 15:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
The Plimsoll portal to searchable Lloyd's Registers covering 1930-1945 disappeared without announcement several weeks ago. The content has been rediscovered here, now on the main Southampton City Council website. Functionality is fundamentally the same but less user-friendly search process. I've amended the link on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Sources. Davidships ( talk) 22:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Just when we've sussed out where the Plimsoll stuff is (with its really dreadful initial search results pages), Lloyd's Register Foundation themselves have recast their portal for online LRs and with no prior warning. The former entry point ( https://www.lrfoundation.org.uk/public_education/reference-library/register-of-ships-online/) is now just a dead unsignposted page. The start-point is now at https://hec.lrfoundation.org.uk/archive-library/lloyds-register-of-ships-online/lloyds-register-of-ships-online. Although nowhere near as dreadful as City of Southampton's effort with Plimsoll, it has a new annoying feature. Because the index is spread over what looks like four web-pages, but is in reality only one, returning to the index in a browser always seems to take one to 1764-1804. However, this shouldn't affect referencing as I think that the individual LR images still have the same pdf locations on the various linked hosts (but that is only based on a cursory sampling).
Also, Lloyd's Casualty Returns 1890-2000 are now at https://hec.lrfoundation.org.uk/archive-library/casualty-returns. Davidships ( talk) 01:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
A few days ago an editor and I had a dispute over her removal of a bunch of links from the Russian battleship Potemkin article. I reverted her once, we discussed it on the talk page without coming any resolution, and she continued to remove links. Here's a diff to the changes that she made: [5] and I invite your comments on Talk:Russian battleship Potemkin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sturmvogel 66 ( talk • contribs) 15:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Can anyone help with this disambiguation request? The article says Britannia was built 1827 in Yarmouth, but Yarmouth is ambiguous. I'm guessing Great Yarmouth is meant, but I could be wrong. Spinning Spark 13:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm thinking of writing up this fishing vessel. As the article states, it went by many names but is perhaps best known as Andrey Dolgov. Am I right that the latest name, FV STS-50, should be used for the article (with a hatnote at STS-50)? There is a registry entry under that latest name. (I see from an archive search that the Miramar registry is still generally used here despite now being subscription-only; I was just in a conversation with a regular ships editor concerning that, and if I go ahead with the article will have to ask someone with access to check it for this ship.) Yngvadottir ( talk) 21:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I noticed on a ship article that it had been rated as "SIA-class". Wondering what that meant, I clicked on the link, which took me to the category where the only explanation is "For more information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships". First of all, the link should be Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Assessment which is where the rating information actually is. Secondly, the page does not mention an "SIA class", so I am still non the wiser. Something needs updating here. Spinning Spark 17:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
This article is at WP:FAC. [6] There has been some conflation of tonnage with displacement, and it would be helpful for someone with access to Miramar could check the metrics against the cited sources. This BBC article may have made the same error where it states that the passenger vessel "weighed less than a third of the 890-ton collier", but that assertion has now been removed from the article. Kablammo ( talk) 01:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
A different point: Can lovers of ship prefixes please explain what this means, that starts the article: "SS Princess Alice, formerly PS Bute"? Davidships ( talk) 00:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello all, new user to the Wikiproject here. Many potential pages, such as specific ships on a list such as list of hospitals and hospital ships of the Royal Navy have no article whatsoever. Is it better to make a page for these, with the little information that is available, such as on HMHS Liberty, or to leave the ship without a page? I'm interested to hear your input, as I've been going through a few of these pages and making them, just as stub entries with usually only one or two sources (all I can find online). SomeRandomUserGuy ( talk) 18:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm working on some destroyer class articles and have been updating their ship tables. I always add laid down, launched and completed/commissioned info if I have it, but my question is about whether it's worth adding a "fate" column as well. One example with: Type 1934A destroyers and one without: Tátra-class destroyer. I can see how it would serve as a quick reference for the ultimate disposition of the ship, but I dislike it because I usually cover than in the main body and it seems a bit redundant to have it in both places. Plus, it feels really weird not to cover that in the main body. A related question would be how much information to cover in the table. I tend to be a minimalist in these sorts of things since the details should be in the main body, but you can see how much information that other editors have included which I would regard as unnecessary, but I know my bias in this matter. I'd prefer to have the reason for loss, date and if it happened in a battle, I'd add that, but that would be it. I really don't see the need to list the ship that sank her or whatever. Comments, thoughts?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 19:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I have recently been in discussion with another editor as to the correct year dab for this ship. She was launched in 1918 under another name and did not become SS Mary Luckenbach until 1941 therefore as stated in WP:SHIPDAB In instances where a ship was captured or otherwise acquired by a navy or shipping company, or simply renamed, and the article is placed at that title, use the date that is in agreement with the name and prefix (such as the date of capture or entry to the navy or fleet, or the date of the renaming) rather than the date of launch
I feel that 1941 is correct. Conversely the section on WP:NCS for merchant ships says When the name is ambiguous, append disambiguation information in parentheses. The date of launching can be used if there are several ships with the same name
. I feel the DO NOT in the former trumps the CAN in the latter but I thought it best to check here before restoring my change
Lyndaship (
talk) 09:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Good and interesting points well made by all editors and indeed there might well be grounds for reviewing the guidelines but my question is under the existing guidelines should this article be titled SS Mary Luckenbach (1918) or SS Mary Luckenbach (1941)? Lyndaship ( talk) 09:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
In all honesty the ship articles should in general bear the ship name at the time of launching otherwise we end up with what we have today - completely arbitrary, subjective and contradictory policies. To answer your question - the ship really should be SS Sac City as it spent the majority of her career under that name, but if you want to retain the original title, then it's SS Mary Luckenbach (1918). Just my $0.02. Crook1 ( talk) 15:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
There is a post on the Milhist talk page regarding this ship; see here. FYI - wolf 19:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Trying to follow Template:Cite ship register but maybe I am doing it wrong. It displays as it should in the Reflist, like this: "St Helena (8716306)". Equasis. Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy. Retrieved 2019-03-06.. However the link then leads to a "404 not found" page, regardless of whether I am logged in to Equasis, or not. Shouldn't it at least go to the registration/log-in page? Davidships ( talk) 12:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
{{
csr}}
had a url that included the value from |id=
. In the best of all possible worlds, we should try to get back to that url form so that logged in users (at Equasis) can link directly to the appropriate Equasis page without having to go through search ...http://www.equasis.org/EquasisWeb/restricted/ShipInfo?fs=Search&P_IMO={{{id}}}
You might want to comment on this merger proposal. — Gazoth ( talk) 16:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Article brought over from the french Wikipedia about a stowaway hooker on USS Arizona. Was just added to Arizona's see also section. Thoughts? - wolf 01:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Y'all are free to add the Blair info if y'all like. I don't believe that the incident was mentioned in Stilwell's history of the ship. I've ordered a replacement copy so I can add a good figure for the complement as I'm seeing a rather wide disparity in my sources on hand. In the meantime I'll replace the current subtly vandalized figure with something a bit more reliable.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 23:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
So I came across USS Gypsy (SP-55), and as far as I'm aware, if a vessel hasn't actually been commissioned, it's not a "USS" anything. Before I go and remove the prefix, however, I figured I should ask here if anyone has a different understanding. Parsecboy ( talk) 21:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
She wasn't commissioned, and SP-55 just happened to be the next available number when she was acquired. But given she was never actually used by the navy, and doesn't seem to have much notability as private boat, is this even an article worth keeping? It's not as if she was a capital ship. This article is a stub, of a basically a non-notable boat, that will never be more than it is now. I'm not pushing for deletion, just throwing that out there. I'm good with either Gypsy (SP-55) or Gyspy (motorboat). Cheers - wolf 13:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Wow, this took a left turn. To address the original question, the article should at least be moved in the interim to remove the USS from title since she wasn't commissioned. I'm happy to do that if there are no objections. What happens after that seems to be heading for a broader discussion... - wolf 20:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Since I was the admin who closed the USS Politesse (SP-662) AFD as merge, I was emailed by Davidships because the article was just redirected to the list. I've restored the article, since it is contrary to the close, but the target list ( List of patrol vessels of the United States Navy) seems like it could be split up so these smaller articles can actually be systematically upmerged to smaller, manageable list articles. Just my 2c. ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 23:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Hey folks, I've just run across two references to a different keel laying date for Brazilian battleship São Paulo. [1] While I'd normally wave this away and assume Conway's is a solid definitive source, the two publications worked directly with British shipyard construction records, and the two dates aren't especially close (30 April for Conway's, 24 September for these two). Could anyone take a look at Miramar's entry for this ship to give me a third data point? Thank you! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
References
Please see Talk:United States Coast Guard#Founding dispute. (self-explanatory). FYI - wolf 04:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
The www.marad.dot.gov/sh/ShipHistory/Detail/#### with a number linked to ship histories and data cards is gone at least for now. The server has changed to https://www.maritime.dot.gov/ but simple substitution there does not work and searches for the ship history part fail. This may be another glitchy roll out or it may be another abandonment of a valuable historical service by another federal agency. If we are fortunate all the links to Vessel Status Cards for detail about historical ships of the last half of the 20th century will be fixable by replacement of server information — but then such competence in continuity seems too rare. 72.196.202.60 ( talk) 16:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Update. They know the section is down with the new platform and are working to get it back. We can hope that the linkage will be in a format so that a bot can fix any broken links. 72.196.202.60 ( talk) 17:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Can someone tell me what happened to the article Ships named Enterprise? I worked for weeks on that, and I can't find it. User:Pedant ( talk) 19:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
worked for weeks on that. I searched your contribution history for the text 'ship' and 'enterp' but found nothing like what you are describing.
I have just updated Module:NVR/data which translates USN hull designations to the code that forms a url linking into a ship's page in the NVR. For the most part, the random number parts of the code have gone away and the code is just the hull designation code using underscore instead of hyphen. For example, SSBN-659 used to have the code SSBN_659_1635 but now has the code SSBN_659. In theory, we could throw away most of the data module and simply calculate the code from the hull designation. We could. But then, NVR would probably invent some other encoding mechanism so, for the nonce, I have no intention of changing how we link into NVR.
New to this version of the data module are links for these submarine escort ships (blocking vessels) AGSE
I don't know what these actually are but were I to hazard a guess, I would guess that their job is to run interference between SSBN type submarines entering or leaving port and nosy trawlers looking for sound signatures etc. I put this here for those of you who may be interested in the various USN ship lists.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 23:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm asking for your advice concerning articles about former Russian Okhta yard and its historical operators.
There is a separate article about Okhta shipyard. It used to be titled Wm. Crichton & Co. Okhta shipyard and was focused on the era when it was operated by W:m Crichton & C:o. There are, however, short summaries about the previous and following operators.
And then there is an article about the Petrozavod. It tells about the time when the yard was operated by Petrozavod.
The question is, that how should these articles be split?
In my opinion the article about the yard should be restored with the original title Wm. Crichton & Co. Okhta shipyard and the Petrozavod article should have a summary about the previous operators. An additional article about the yard is also fine but it should focus more on the infrastructure. -- Gwafton ( talk) 18:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
<od>Sorry for being late to the party; it was me that moved the page, for the reasons I gave on the talkpage there; the yard had a 280 year history, of which the Crichton period made up less than 20, so a more unified title seemed appropriate. Also, the history section seemed to have as much to say about when it was the Okhta Admiralty yard as it did when it was Crichtons; and we already had a page on Crichtons (the company), so it wasn't clear why we needed a second page just on their St Petersburg operation. So it made more sense to have it as a page on the yard itself, though its various incarnations, with links from the other titles targetted to the relevant sections. I suppose if anything I was expecting a proposal to merge the Petrozavod page into it (though Petrozavod seems to have a company identity separate to the shipyard, so an article on it is probably viable).
If there is enough to say about all three phases of the yard's use then spinning off separate articles is in order (though that isn't the case at the moment), but an over-arching page (this one) with main article links to the subsidiaries would still be sensible. Meanwhile moving the ship list to a separate page is reasonable; currently the article is top-heavy (or maybe bottom-heavy!) with the list of Crichton boats, and if we ever find a list of the 160-odd ships built when it was Okhta Admiralty it'll be even worse.
Xyl 54 (
talk) 02:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
PS: I've been looking for analogous situations: Most UK ship-builders started and ended in one place (John Brown, Cammell Laird, Hawthorn Leslie, etc) but there are a few:
I'm not sure where that leaves us... Xyl 54 ( talk) 02:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments and template assistance are requested at Template_talk:Infobox_canal#Adding_field_for_maximum_draft. Kablammo ( talk) 15:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I would like to invite other members of the project to participate in a discussion about the use of sources in the article about Viking Sky, the Norwegian cruise ship that recently ran into troubles off the Norwegian coast. In particular, I would like to hear other members' opinions regarding citing subscription-only databases for technical information; this will also have an impact on my future participation in this project as I use IHS Sea-web every now and then when I can't find an open source for some particular detail. Also, there's some discussion about using sources for the lead ship of the class to describe technical solutions in this one. Tupsumato ( talk) 05:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone know of an appropriate infobox for the above article? -- Puzzledvegetable ( talk) 18:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
Hi, I came across the name S.S. Kungsholm and have been trying to figure out what S.S. stands for. I've decided it's "Swedish ship." To make it easier for other non-ship folk, would you all please add to articles what initials in a ship's name stand for? Thank you! DBlomgren ( talk) 18:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
On 11 December 2018,
Illegitimate Barrister made
some edits to {{
Country data Kingdom of Great Britain}} which had the effect of turning the display of {{flagcountry|Kingdom of Great Britain|naval}} from
Great Britain to
Great Britain. I've spent much of today going through the shipwreck lists for 1707-1800 and think I've corrected them all. There are a number of ship articles which may be affected by this change.
Mjroots (
talk) 19:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Can anyone identify this vessel, her name and story? There are two articles about it, one is the front cover of the Illustrated London News, 25 March 1906, and the other is the same article echoed in The Times History of the War, (pub. 1914), both referenced in the Commons file. The information given is: this is the Entrance to a diving bell. An air-compression vessel, used for laying moorings for battleships, fitted with a diving-bell, the entrance to which is down the big funnel amidships. Another image here - No-35-AIR-LOCK-DIVING-BELL-PLANT -- Broichmore ( talk) 14:20, 15 April 2019 (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 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 |
It's a shame this proposal was archived before we could agree on definitive version to form a consensus on. It's not the first time that has happened either. These intertwined issues certainly come up often enough, and definitely garnered significant attention here on this talk page, that they seemed worthy of having seen guidance for them added to mosships. Should we try for another proposal and consensus? Or leave it for now... wait until a dispute regarding these issues erupts on an article somewhere and then start all over again? Or is there another option? - wolf 20:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi all,
First of all, does this yacht pass the various
notability tests? See the deletion discussion
here. I think there is a reasonable argument made there that but for the association with
Duran Duran, this would simply be a
run of the mill charter yacht business.
If and only if the article passes notability tests, could you possibly help with an infobox and categorisation?
Pete AU aka --
Shirt58 (
talk) 10:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
I've proposed moving LK-60Ya-class icebreaker (back) to Project 22220 nuclear-powered icebreaker; please give your input on this talk page. Tupsumato ( talk) 15:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
FYI, the SS Beme page has been nominated for speedy deletion. I have challenged the nomination. Mjroots ( talk) 13:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
According to List of shipwrecks in October 1864 and List of shipwrecks in December 1864 (and the citations), USS Mercury was fighting among the Union forces at those dates. It's missing from USS Mercury. Narky Blert ( talk) 22:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Folks. I created this ship article, MV Esso Hamburg my first ship article. I wonder if somebody can check the infobox, or probably the whole article. Thanks. scope_creep Talk 18:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I just wrote the article M/V Jean de La Valette about a high-speed catamaran which operates Malta-Sicily routes. Is the ship prefix "M/V" correct? I used it because that's how it's called in sources by the vessel's owner. Is there some consensus which states that "MV" should be used and not "M/V"? Also, why does the vessel have the prefix "M/V" rather than "HSC" like other fast catamarans (eg. HSC Tarifa Jet, HSC WorldChampion Jet etc)? I didn't find any sources using "HSC" - all sources use either "M/V", "MV" or no prefix at all. -- Xwejnusgozo ( talk) 19:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
The Project Gutenberg Etext of Two Years Before the Mast by Richard Henry Dana (1840)
is publicly available here [1] Searching catharpin returns no hits, and searching cat-harping has one hit and does not reference the purpose of catharpins.
Lever, D. (1998). The Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor, Dover Maritime Books, p.25.
is publicly available in preview here [2]searching catharpins returns "These are called CROSS CATHARPINS ; and are of great use in keeping the lee-rigging well in, when the Ship rolls."
"William Brady in *The Kedge-Anchor* (1852)"
is not among the references listed, but is quoted in this blog [3] as stating that the purpose of catharpins is to ensure tension in the lee shrouds to prevent the topmast whipping in high seas.
searching google for catharpins returns pages of sites that have all passed around the same quote regarding yard clearance (possibly penned by a reviewer of the R.H.Dana volume), but without primary reference for this idea.
what makes little sense about the yard clearance assertion, is that catharpins are not a trivial customisation to a tall ship, requiring hanging under the top to perform prolonged rope work on each individual shroud (seizing) and the only use of improved yard clearance would be to make the ship operate marginally better under the one use-case that it was not designed for, and for that reason avoided notwithstanding exceptional circumstances.
the gradual replacement of catharpins with a futtock band or mast spider could indicate that the original intent of catharpins was that of the futtock band: to prevent the topmast collapsing like a push-doll when the mast shrouds slacken in strong winds.
a more effective customisation to improve sailing close by the wind has historically been to progressively replace square sails with gaff sails until the desired performance to windward is attained. Longpinkytoes ( talk) 18:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Most of you know this fact: US had built 45 Bogue-class escort carriers during World War 2, 34 of them were sent to UK for Temporary service as Attacker-class and Ruler-class escort carrier.
But their classes total number really confuse me when I look at their article , List of escort carriers of the Royal Navy and template.
Even their total numbers are not correct in two articles combined , 25+8=33 , 1 missing. Of course I can put one back easily but I don’t know which class need to put one more.
In fact , it is not as easy as I thought , after I checked three articles and Bogue-class template , some of the vessels might be put in the wrong class. Which means that the original total numbers of two classes might be wrong as well.
Here the total numbers of Attacker-class and Ruler-class escort carrier in serval pages:
As the vessels that is not in right class order:
Put in Attacker class in Bogue-class escort carriers and List of escort carriers of the Royal Navy ; Put in Ruler-class in Ruler-class escort carrier and template
Put in Attacker class in Bogue-class escort carriers and List of escort carriers of the Royal Navy ; Put in Ruler-class in Ruler-class escort carrier and template
Put in Attacker class in Attacker-class escort carrier , Bogue-class escort carriers and List of escort carriers of the Royal Navy ; Put in ruler-class in template.
Since I don’t have information so need you folks to clarify two things:
1. Which one is the correct total number of Attacker-class escort carrier and Ruler-class escort carrier ?
2. Clarify the following ships. Which one is Attacker-class escort carriers , which one is Ruler-class escort carrier:
Thank you.-- Comrade John ( talk) 17:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Categories with one item aren't a good idea. We should either just delete this one and move its sole item to "Shipwrecks of the Mississippi River" or populate it with other shipwrecks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R k nelson ( talk • contribs) 15:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello all,
Since the PLAN does not use ship prefix, Jinggang Shan (999) and Kunlun Shan (998) should be renamed per the convention laid down in WP:NCS. Module:WPSHIPS utilities currently does not have "amphibious landing dock" or "amphibious warfare ship" in its list of ship types.
To what degree does the ship type become too specific? (e.g. Chinese amphibious warfare ship Jinggang Shan vs. Chinese amphibious landing dock Jinggang Shan)- Mys_721tx ( talk) 09:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
The English world has invariably classified the Spanish ship El Gamo as a Xebec-Frigate. I have just received official correspondence from a source in Spain, a letter dated 15/1/2019, from:
ARMADA ÓRGANO DE HISTORIA Y CULTURA NAVAL SUBSISTEMA ARCHIVÍSTICO MINISTERIO DE DEFENSA ARCHIVO MUSEO NAVAL Código DIR3: E00117101
that there was no Xebec-Frigate El Gamo, she was a Xebec. Spain had a substantial number of military-style Xebecs in use with draughts in existence from 14 to 34 cannon. There is no dispute as to Gamo's size or guns.
It is likely that the English classified her as a Xebec-Frigate because of her size but also so as to magnify the achievement when the Brig-Sloop HMS Speedy captured her. The difference between a common Spanish military-style xebec design and a Spanish frigate design is tremendous with respect to hull shape, stern and decking. Calling Gamo a frigate, in any part, suggests a hull configuration that may conform to a standard frigate (e.g., stern shape, hull shape, raised walkways over the center of the gun deck), which is a huge assumption. It is very unlikely the stern or hull was like that of a standard ship. It is unclear if she had walkway bridges; that would require a deck view and I have yet to see anything beyond models and paintings and drawings.
Therefore, I recommend that the articles on El Gamo and HMS Speedy be modified to call her a "large Xebec" and omit all reference to frigate or Xebec-Frigate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffrey Modell ( talk • contribs) 15:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I represent the Brookfield NH Historical Commision and we would like to greatly expand the entry for "James Hackett - Shipbuilder". He was a resident of Brookfield and he built a ship for John Paul Jones as well as the ship that is the center of the NH state flag. We have several paragraphs of material from several sources that we would like to edit/expand this entry. I have helped edit a short addition to another Wikipedia entry so I know the basic rules. The entry for Hackett appears to be authored by Bot and I did not see any specific editor to ask if it is ok to expand it. This appears to be the right group to ask? Thanks in advance for any help/advice on this project. Ffrazier4 ( talk) 15:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
The Plimsoll portal to searchable Lloyd's Registers covering 1930-1945 disappeared without announcement several weeks ago. The content has been rediscovered here, now on the main Southampton City Council website. Functionality is fundamentally the same but less user-friendly search process. I've amended the link on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Sources. Davidships ( talk) 22:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Just when we've sussed out where the Plimsoll stuff is (with its really dreadful initial search results pages), Lloyd's Register Foundation themselves have recast their portal for online LRs and with no prior warning. The former entry point ( https://www.lrfoundation.org.uk/public_education/reference-library/register-of-ships-online/) is now just a dead unsignposted page. The start-point is now at https://hec.lrfoundation.org.uk/archive-library/lloyds-register-of-ships-online/lloyds-register-of-ships-online. Although nowhere near as dreadful as City of Southampton's effort with Plimsoll, it has a new annoying feature. Because the index is spread over what looks like four web-pages, but is in reality only one, returning to the index in a browser always seems to take one to 1764-1804. However, this shouldn't affect referencing as I think that the individual LR images still have the same pdf locations on the various linked hosts (but that is only based on a cursory sampling).
Also, Lloyd's Casualty Returns 1890-2000 are now at https://hec.lrfoundation.org.uk/archive-library/casualty-returns. Davidships ( talk) 01:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
A few days ago an editor and I had a dispute over her removal of a bunch of links from the Russian battleship Potemkin article. I reverted her once, we discussed it on the talk page without coming any resolution, and she continued to remove links. Here's a diff to the changes that she made: [5] and I invite your comments on Talk:Russian battleship Potemkin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sturmvogel 66 ( talk • contribs) 15:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Can anyone help with this disambiguation request? The article says Britannia was built 1827 in Yarmouth, but Yarmouth is ambiguous. I'm guessing Great Yarmouth is meant, but I could be wrong. Spinning Spark 13:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm thinking of writing up this fishing vessel. As the article states, it went by many names but is perhaps best known as Andrey Dolgov. Am I right that the latest name, FV STS-50, should be used for the article (with a hatnote at STS-50)? There is a registry entry under that latest name. (I see from an archive search that the Miramar registry is still generally used here despite now being subscription-only; I was just in a conversation with a regular ships editor concerning that, and if I go ahead with the article will have to ask someone with access to check it for this ship.) Yngvadottir ( talk) 21:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I noticed on a ship article that it had been rated as "SIA-class". Wondering what that meant, I clicked on the link, which took me to the category where the only explanation is "For more information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships". First of all, the link should be Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Assessment which is where the rating information actually is. Secondly, the page does not mention an "SIA class", so I am still non the wiser. Something needs updating here. Spinning Spark 17:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
This article is at WP:FAC. [6] There has been some conflation of tonnage with displacement, and it would be helpful for someone with access to Miramar could check the metrics against the cited sources. This BBC article may have made the same error where it states that the passenger vessel "weighed less than a third of the 890-ton collier", but that assertion has now been removed from the article. Kablammo ( talk) 01:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
A different point: Can lovers of ship prefixes please explain what this means, that starts the article: "SS Princess Alice, formerly PS Bute"? Davidships ( talk) 00:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello all, new user to the Wikiproject here. Many potential pages, such as specific ships on a list such as list of hospitals and hospital ships of the Royal Navy have no article whatsoever. Is it better to make a page for these, with the little information that is available, such as on HMHS Liberty, or to leave the ship without a page? I'm interested to hear your input, as I've been going through a few of these pages and making them, just as stub entries with usually only one or two sources (all I can find online). SomeRandomUserGuy ( talk) 18:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm working on some destroyer class articles and have been updating their ship tables. I always add laid down, launched and completed/commissioned info if I have it, but my question is about whether it's worth adding a "fate" column as well. One example with: Type 1934A destroyers and one without: Tátra-class destroyer. I can see how it would serve as a quick reference for the ultimate disposition of the ship, but I dislike it because I usually cover than in the main body and it seems a bit redundant to have it in both places. Plus, it feels really weird not to cover that in the main body. A related question would be how much information to cover in the table. I tend to be a minimalist in these sorts of things since the details should be in the main body, but you can see how much information that other editors have included which I would regard as unnecessary, but I know my bias in this matter. I'd prefer to have the reason for loss, date and if it happened in a battle, I'd add that, but that would be it. I really don't see the need to list the ship that sank her or whatever. Comments, thoughts?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 19:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I have recently been in discussion with another editor as to the correct year dab for this ship. She was launched in 1918 under another name and did not become SS Mary Luckenbach until 1941 therefore as stated in WP:SHIPDAB In instances where a ship was captured or otherwise acquired by a navy or shipping company, or simply renamed, and the article is placed at that title, use the date that is in agreement with the name and prefix (such as the date of capture or entry to the navy or fleet, or the date of the renaming) rather than the date of launch
I feel that 1941 is correct. Conversely the section on WP:NCS for merchant ships says When the name is ambiguous, append disambiguation information in parentheses. The date of launching can be used if there are several ships with the same name
. I feel the DO NOT in the former trumps the CAN in the latter but I thought it best to check here before restoring my change
Lyndaship (
talk) 09:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Good and interesting points well made by all editors and indeed there might well be grounds for reviewing the guidelines but my question is under the existing guidelines should this article be titled SS Mary Luckenbach (1918) or SS Mary Luckenbach (1941)? Lyndaship ( talk) 09:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
In all honesty the ship articles should in general bear the ship name at the time of launching otherwise we end up with what we have today - completely arbitrary, subjective and contradictory policies. To answer your question - the ship really should be SS Sac City as it spent the majority of her career under that name, but if you want to retain the original title, then it's SS Mary Luckenbach (1918). Just my $0.02. Crook1 ( talk) 15:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
There is a post on the Milhist talk page regarding this ship; see here. FYI - wolf 19:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Trying to follow Template:Cite ship register but maybe I am doing it wrong. It displays as it should in the Reflist, like this: "St Helena (8716306)". Equasis. Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy. Retrieved 2019-03-06.. However the link then leads to a "404 not found" page, regardless of whether I am logged in to Equasis, or not. Shouldn't it at least go to the registration/log-in page? Davidships ( talk) 12:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
{{
csr}}
had a url that included the value from |id=
. In the best of all possible worlds, we should try to get back to that url form so that logged in users (at Equasis) can link directly to the appropriate Equasis page without having to go through search ...http://www.equasis.org/EquasisWeb/restricted/ShipInfo?fs=Search&P_IMO={{{id}}}
You might want to comment on this merger proposal. — Gazoth ( talk) 16:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Article brought over from the french Wikipedia about a stowaway hooker on USS Arizona. Was just added to Arizona's see also section. Thoughts? - wolf 01:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Y'all are free to add the Blair info if y'all like. I don't believe that the incident was mentioned in Stilwell's history of the ship. I've ordered a replacement copy so I can add a good figure for the complement as I'm seeing a rather wide disparity in my sources on hand. In the meantime I'll replace the current subtly vandalized figure with something a bit more reliable.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 23:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
So I came across USS Gypsy (SP-55), and as far as I'm aware, if a vessel hasn't actually been commissioned, it's not a "USS" anything. Before I go and remove the prefix, however, I figured I should ask here if anyone has a different understanding. Parsecboy ( talk) 21:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
She wasn't commissioned, and SP-55 just happened to be the next available number when she was acquired. But given she was never actually used by the navy, and doesn't seem to have much notability as private boat, is this even an article worth keeping? It's not as if she was a capital ship. This article is a stub, of a basically a non-notable boat, that will never be more than it is now. I'm not pushing for deletion, just throwing that out there. I'm good with either Gypsy (SP-55) or Gyspy (motorboat). Cheers - wolf 13:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Wow, this took a left turn. To address the original question, the article should at least be moved in the interim to remove the USS from title since she wasn't commissioned. I'm happy to do that if there are no objections. What happens after that seems to be heading for a broader discussion... - wolf 20:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Since I was the admin who closed the USS Politesse (SP-662) AFD as merge, I was emailed by Davidships because the article was just redirected to the list. I've restored the article, since it is contrary to the close, but the target list ( List of patrol vessels of the United States Navy) seems like it could be split up so these smaller articles can actually be systematically upmerged to smaller, manageable list articles. Just my 2c. ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 23:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Hey folks, I've just run across two references to a different keel laying date for Brazilian battleship São Paulo. [1] While I'd normally wave this away and assume Conway's is a solid definitive source, the two publications worked directly with British shipyard construction records, and the two dates aren't especially close (30 April for Conway's, 24 September for these two). Could anyone take a look at Miramar's entry for this ship to give me a third data point? Thank you! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
References
Please see Talk:United States Coast Guard#Founding dispute. (self-explanatory). FYI - wolf 04:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
The www.marad.dot.gov/sh/ShipHistory/Detail/#### with a number linked to ship histories and data cards is gone at least for now. The server has changed to https://www.maritime.dot.gov/ but simple substitution there does not work and searches for the ship history part fail. This may be another glitchy roll out or it may be another abandonment of a valuable historical service by another federal agency. If we are fortunate all the links to Vessel Status Cards for detail about historical ships of the last half of the 20th century will be fixable by replacement of server information — but then such competence in continuity seems too rare. 72.196.202.60 ( talk) 16:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Update. They know the section is down with the new platform and are working to get it back. We can hope that the linkage will be in a format so that a bot can fix any broken links. 72.196.202.60 ( talk) 17:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Can someone tell me what happened to the article Ships named Enterprise? I worked for weeks on that, and I can't find it. User:Pedant ( talk) 19:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
worked for weeks on that. I searched your contribution history for the text 'ship' and 'enterp' but found nothing like what you are describing.
I have just updated Module:NVR/data which translates USN hull designations to the code that forms a url linking into a ship's page in the NVR. For the most part, the random number parts of the code have gone away and the code is just the hull designation code using underscore instead of hyphen. For example, SSBN-659 used to have the code SSBN_659_1635 but now has the code SSBN_659. In theory, we could throw away most of the data module and simply calculate the code from the hull designation. We could. But then, NVR would probably invent some other encoding mechanism so, for the nonce, I have no intention of changing how we link into NVR.
New to this version of the data module are links for these submarine escort ships (blocking vessels) AGSE
I don't know what these actually are but were I to hazard a guess, I would guess that their job is to run interference between SSBN type submarines entering or leaving port and nosy trawlers looking for sound signatures etc. I put this here for those of you who may be interested in the various USN ship lists.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 23:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm asking for your advice concerning articles about former Russian Okhta yard and its historical operators.
There is a separate article about Okhta shipyard. It used to be titled Wm. Crichton & Co. Okhta shipyard and was focused on the era when it was operated by W:m Crichton & C:o. There are, however, short summaries about the previous and following operators.
And then there is an article about the Petrozavod. It tells about the time when the yard was operated by Petrozavod.
The question is, that how should these articles be split?
In my opinion the article about the yard should be restored with the original title Wm. Crichton & Co. Okhta shipyard and the Petrozavod article should have a summary about the previous operators. An additional article about the yard is also fine but it should focus more on the infrastructure. -- Gwafton ( talk) 18:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
<od>Sorry for being late to the party; it was me that moved the page, for the reasons I gave on the talkpage there; the yard had a 280 year history, of which the Crichton period made up less than 20, so a more unified title seemed appropriate. Also, the history section seemed to have as much to say about when it was the Okhta Admiralty yard as it did when it was Crichtons; and we already had a page on Crichtons (the company), so it wasn't clear why we needed a second page just on their St Petersburg operation. So it made more sense to have it as a page on the yard itself, though its various incarnations, with links from the other titles targetted to the relevant sections. I suppose if anything I was expecting a proposal to merge the Petrozavod page into it (though Petrozavod seems to have a company identity separate to the shipyard, so an article on it is probably viable).
If there is enough to say about all three phases of the yard's use then spinning off separate articles is in order (though that isn't the case at the moment), but an over-arching page (this one) with main article links to the subsidiaries would still be sensible. Meanwhile moving the ship list to a separate page is reasonable; currently the article is top-heavy (or maybe bottom-heavy!) with the list of Crichton boats, and if we ever find a list of the 160-odd ships built when it was Okhta Admiralty it'll be even worse.
Xyl 54 (
talk) 02:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
PS: I've been looking for analogous situations: Most UK ship-builders started and ended in one place (John Brown, Cammell Laird, Hawthorn Leslie, etc) but there are a few:
I'm not sure where that leaves us... Xyl 54 ( talk) 02:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments and template assistance are requested at Template_talk:Infobox_canal#Adding_field_for_maximum_draft. Kablammo ( talk) 15:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I would like to invite other members of the project to participate in a discussion about the use of sources in the article about Viking Sky, the Norwegian cruise ship that recently ran into troubles off the Norwegian coast. In particular, I would like to hear other members' opinions regarding citing subscription-only databases for technical information; this will also have an impact on my future participation in this project as I use IHS Sea-web every now and then when I can't find an open source for some particular detail. Also, there's some discussion about using sources for the lead ship of the class to describe technical solutions in this one. Tupsumato ( talk) 05:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone know of an appropriate infobox for the above article? -- Puzzledvegetable ( talk) 18:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
Hi, I came across the name S.S. Kungsholm and have been trying to figure out what S.S. stands for. I've decided it's "Swedish ship." To make it easier for other non-ship folk, would you all please add to articles what initials in a ship's name stand for? Thank you! DBlomgren ( talk) 18:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
On 11 December 2018,
Illegitimate Barrister made
some edits to {{
Country data Kingdom of Great Britain}} which had the effect of turning the display of {{flagcountry|Kingdom of Great Britain|naval}} from
Great Britain to
Great Britain. I've spent much of today going through the shipwreck lists for 1707-1800 and think I've corrected them all. There are a number of ship articles which may be affected by this change.
Mjroots (
talk) 19:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Can anyone identify this vessel, her name and story? There are two articles about it, one is the front cover of the Illustrated London News, 25 March 1906, and the other is the same article echoed in The Times History of the War, (pub. 1914), both referenced in the Commons file. The information given is: this is the Entrance to a diving bell. An air-compression vessel, used for laying moorings for battleships, fitted with a diving-bell, the entrance to which is down the big funnel amidships. Another image here - No-35-AIR-LOCK-DIVING-BELL-PLANT -- Broichmore ( talk) 14:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)