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 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | → | Archive 65 |
While going through the List of United States Navy ships: A–B, I came across USS Augustus Holly (1861) - I initially stripped off the useless disambiguator but on second thought, ended up deleting the page. If you're curious, the article was a copy of an older version of the DANFS article, which has next to no details. As such, it seemed like a clear lack of significance. Parsecboy ( talk) 12:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
This applies to any article about a real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event-- Izno ( talk) 01:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I've started a thread that might be of interest to project members. See Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#shipindex vs dab? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Can I get an admin to revert the move from Russian cruiser Rurik (1892) to Rurik (1892, Russian cruiser )? I accidentally reverted the talk page name change first and that may be why I couldn't revert the article name change itself.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 18:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
SS Ventnor is soon to appear on DYK. I am not the author but have added some detail. The article could use more attention, esp. to organization and recent events. I will not have time for it, so if anyone wishes to help, feel free (including changing/improving any of my edits). Thanks. Kablammo ( talk) 20:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to raise such a small issue, but can anyone figure out why the title for Good Shepherd IV isn't in italics despite using the Infobox ship begin template? I looked for "display title=none" and didn't see anything. -- Fyrael ( talk) 19:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/French battleship Jauréguiberry/archive1 already has 2 reviews, plus image and source reviews. It needs one more review to pass FAC, but it's in danger of being archived. I hope that one kind soul can find the time to do a review.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 12:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi guys, do we have a notability guideline for ships? If not, can I suggest we implement something along the lines of WP:NASTRO so that there's some level of agreement as to what's sufficient to show a ship is notable? If it were up to me a listing in e.g., Jane's Fighting Ships or a similar catalogue accessible to amateurs, or a prominent role in a historical incident (e.g., a battle), or the loss of the ship, would be sufficient to show notability. I really don't think WP:ORG is the correct guideline for a ship since ultimately a ship is a physical object, not an organisation as such (though of course it is home to an organisation). FOARP ( talk) 09:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Has sunk after colliding with a container ship, just after being thoroughly restored. Drawing attention to this in case anyone wishes to write her up: Commons category, German Wikipedia. Yngvadottir ( talk) 18:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Notice on the starboard side of the ships in the Great Tea Race there is a sail hanging over the side of both ships hulls, just skipping the water. Any comments to make on that. Technical description of same? I don't see this described anywhere. This picture by a Chinese artist in Hong Kong in 1868, was presumably commissioned by one of the ship's officers, vouching for its accuracy... Broichmore ( talk) 09:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
The OP mentioned accuracy. IMHO only Dutton's picture makes sense, with regard to the direction in which the ships are heeling, the set of the sails, and the deduced direction of the wind. In the other(s), the forward sails agree with the direction of heel, but the square sails want the wind coming from the other side of the ships. My 2p. Nortonius ( talk) 10:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Back to the original question about the odd sail - I notice that MacGregor discusses sails (p 147) in a caption of a picture of Taeping. The caption is to the part of the Dutton picture of both ships (on this post) but cropped only to show Taeping. The caption says "One of Dutton's mot impressive lithographs of a clipper under full sail pictures Taeping racing up-Channel in 1866. The Illustrated London News pictured her with these same sails and in addition a Jamie Green, watersail, and jib topsail."
MacGregor also discusses flying kites (p157) in his coverage of Ariel - again referring the to the ILN picture: "...all those pictured by the Illustrated London News were regularly set at different times...."
From this I infer that:
The odd sail is called a "watersail" by MacGregor, who I take to be a leading authority on tea clippers. Hence this is a valid name for this sail.
MacGregor avoids commenting (on p 147) on whether or not the extra sails in the ILN picture would actually have been set, and the page 157 comment ("regularly set at different times...") leads me to think that he feels the picture is somewhat fanciful.
I add to this absence of any comment in Captain Keay's journal of (what we now may call) a watersail.
So I conclude that we can only use the Dutton picture as a good representation of what these ships actually looked like as they raced up the channel.
ThoughtIdRetired (
talk)
22:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
References
In our references, there is a lot of citations with |journal=The Navy List
in them. Is
The Navy List the same as
Navy List? Or would that be an unacceptable redirect?
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
20:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I invite editors to participate in discussions at Talk:Windjammer#Windjammer is a colloquialism, not a class of ship. and Talk:Sailing ship#Bring substance of "Windjammer" article here about whether to move the substance of Windjammer to Sailing ship. Cheers, HopsonRoad ( talk) 17:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
There's a difference between not listening and not agreeing. I certainly agree that "windjammer" is a word that has meaning, one of which I used at the location in Sailing ship that you describe as a placeholder, pending a rewrite of that article. Unfortunately, its meaning is too broad to be the basis for an article, in my opinion. However, it should be consensus that decides. So, I appreciate your carrying on the conversation at Talk:Sailing ship#Bring substance of "Windjammer" article, Broichmore. I invite other editors to participate and help provide a resolution through consensus at Talk:Iron-hulled sailing ship#Reconsider? Sincerely, HopsonRoad ( talk) 13:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I have started a discussion here regarding this template as it's becoming too large to properly navigate. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 13:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I have recently become aware of an editor who moved page SS Whangape (1899) to SS Whangape (1900) for the following reason. "The year associated a ship was determined, according to Lloyd's Register, by the completion date not launch date". I believe this conflicts with the ships naming convention. Can someone please advise? Regards Newm30 ( talk) 02:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Moved here from Template talk:WPSHIPS class and prefix templates on Trappist the monk's advice.
I note that under International navy ship prefixes most of the prefixes refer to military vessels. For the UK there is listed HMS, HMT, RMS and RFA. HMS is the standard for the Royal Navy, HMT refers to trawlers pressed into military service and under the command of the RN, RFA are civilian supply ships owned by and operated on behalf of the RN. RMS however refers to civilian ships operating under a contract to the government to carry mails as part of their other duties. Should civilian ships be in this list?
Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 11:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Another oddity (more of a dog's breakfast) in the template table: SY or S/Y = Sailing vessels = SY Raven (1889) or S/Y Raven (1889). Well, I had always understood SY as "steam yacht", so this caught my eye. It seems that this might be an EngVar as "S/Y" redirects to Sailing yacht, but which notes it as American usage; on the other hand "SY" redirects to Sy (disambiguation), which doesn't mention anything maritime at all. I see that in Ship prefix we have SY= sailing yacht or steam yacht.
If the reference to sailing vessel is accepted, the example chosen makes no sense since SY Raven has never been one. Indeed, apart from a couple of days in 1912, she is not noted as being a yacht in the normal meaning (despite the present owners deciding to call her a motor yacht). I haven't looked for references yet, but what do others make of this?
And to cap all that, just look where Sailing Vessel, Sailing vessel and Sailing vessel (disambiguation) redirect to! The last one seems perverse for a dab. Davidships ( talk) 03:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Clipper_(disambiguation)#Requested_move_26_June_2019 which may affect one of the subjects of this project. Kablammo ( talk) 02:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Could someone more knowledgeable about ship articles on Wikipedia take a look at and review the article Mr. Steven.
It was mostly assembled by spaceflight-knowledgeable editors, so I do not believe it has all the ordinary ship article bits. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 14:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Copied from User talk:Mjroots.
"Hi, You recently moved MS Amera (2019) to MS Amera (1988), being the year of launch citing WP:NCS. In the past I've been told it shoud be the reverse which a reading of the following passage from WP:SHIPDAB woud seem to be correct:
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.
The confusion arises when people insist on changing the title of articles every time a cruise ship gets renamed, which can happen quite often! Murgatroyd49 ( talk) 08:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
It would seem that there is a variance between guidance give and established practice. As I said above and in previous discussions, established practice is that the year of launch is the primary method of disambiguation for merchant ships. Can we agree that the guidelines are amended to indicate this please? Mjroots ( talk) 18:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
MV Gardyloo arrived from Afc. Scottish night soil ship. scope_creep Talk 12:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
How do editors at this project (and beyond) want this article to be? I have been taking the entries (which are mostly un-sourced) and placing then into a table for easier viewing. An editor has so far objected to this change, so I am taking it here for further discussion.
I have opened up a new discussion here: Talk:List of clipper ships#Types of "clippers" regarding issues with the list, and clipper articles in general. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
According to this source: [3], the last two clippers were launched in 1891. If reliable sources are calling these ships "clippers" by this time, shouldn't we follow the WP:RS? I don't want to go into WP:SYNTH on why these ships wouldn't be clippers, I just want to gain some feedback on inclusion based on the WP:RS. Is there anything out there that says these aren't clippers? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 14:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Moin. This might not be the proper place, but being too unfamiliar with en:wp to know exactly where to go to, I would like to mention that I just took the liberty of creating this little piece of article, which as of now at least is ship related. Any suggestion where to take it requesting a look-over? Regards, -- G-41614 ( talk) 11:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
The sub went missing a half century ago and its wreck has recently been located. The article could do with some expansion. It is also being discussed at WP:ITNC as a possible news item for the main page. Interested editors are encouraged to jump in. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I have been trying to italicise the title of KM Pekan, KM Arau, and KM Marlin. As far as I can see, the "infobox ship begin" template should have automatially italicised it. Indeed, when I put in a {{DISPLAYTITLE}} it produces an error message: Warning: Display title "KM Pekan" overrides earlier display title "KM <i>Pekan</i>"" What gives? Shuipzv3 ( talk) 13:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
|display title=none
See
§Title styling.{{DISPLAYTITLE}}
in a preview; you have to actually save the page.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
14:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
you don't see the full effects of {{DISPLAYTITLE}}
in a preview
is a correct statement. While writing my response to OP, I added my example for #2 to the appropriate article and clicked Show preview; the article title was properly formatted.{{
infobox ship begin}}
doesn't know about every possible ship prefix. When I wrote the code that does italic title I used a list of articles that transcluded {{infobox ship begin}}
as the source from for the list of supported ship prefixes. That work was mostly done in September 2015. The articles mentioned here were created in July 2018. The creating editor apparently did not know about proper ship-name format or did not care.ship_prefix_list = {}
– preferred but requires template editor rights|display title=<article title with markup>
to the article's {{infobox ship begin}}
– for these examples: |display title=KM ''Pekan''
etcAny ideas on the build date for this clipper the Baltimore. The ticket is for a sailing in 1853, from New York to Melbourne. Could the photograph be the same ship? The ship photograph is from an Australian Library collection, but it doesn't follow that the image was taken there. Broichmore ( talk) 15:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
I’ve never made a ships SIA, so could someone from this project add what’s needed to PS Solent? I was clueless about the descriptions (obviously), and unsure of categories. Much appreciated! — Gorthian ( talk) 23:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Vasa (ship) is an FA but it is deteriorating. People with the know-how are encouraged to improve it. I was hoping to include it at WP:OTD for August 10 but there are too many citations needed. --- Coffeeand crumbs 03:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
The nomination for HMS Bulwark is in danger of being archived if it doesn't get two more content reviews soon. Source and image reviews have already been done. I'd be grateful if editors with a little spare time on their hands could assist. Willing to exchange reviews!-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 12:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
G'day all, in September Milhist is running a backlog drive, Backlog Banzai. You would all be very welcome to participate, you can sign up here. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 04:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I have raised a question at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding uboat.net as a source, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#uboat.net. Cheers MisterBee1966 ( talk) 06:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
There seems to be a complete absence of common marine architectural terms in Wikipedia. By this I mean the words used to describe the lines of a vessel, as well as some of the basic structural words. Whilst I feel I have some grasp of the subject, I do not have sources on which to base an article. I suggest that we need an article titled Terms in naval architecture. This would cover (and the following list is nothing like complete - extra terms worthy of definition are welcome):
I note that we have articles for Gunwale (seems OK to me) and Wale, which does not cover the original constructional purpose very well.
Can anyone suggest sources from which to compose an article or have a go at putting an article together? Or is there an alternative strategy for covering this subject? I guess the challenge would be to cover both modern commercial ship technology, through yacht and small craft construction, to older wooden boats/ships and the history of naval architecture. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 15:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Back in 2015, this WikiProject asked for a bot to create redirects for all IMO numbers, which was implemented as Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 73. I noticed today that the Category:IMO Number the bot had been using was moved to Category:IMO numbers last year, and while I was fixing that I noticed that the bot was logging that there are some cases where multiple articles claim to be for the same ship. For example, MS Jupiter and MS Svea Corona both claim to be IMO 7360186 (the latter article seems to be IMO 7360174 instead), and Italian training ship Italia and Swan fan Makkum both claim IMO 8872825 (looks like two articles about the same ship). I thought you might find a list of such conflicts useful, so I updated the bot to create one at User:AnomieBOT/IMO number conflicts as it does its daily run looking for redirects to create/update. Anomie ⚔ 00:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
User Lanemiker ( talk) has been engaging in an edit war with me over the proper style of rendering the turret numbers of the ship. I used Roman numerals because that's what the damage reports by the US Navy used, but Lanemiker asserts that the navy used Arabic numerals without providing any evidence. This isn't our first interaction as we had a long edit war over the categorization of the Nakajima B5N torpedo bomber in the article that only ended when another editor intervened. I believe Lanemiker has chosen this turret numbering issue out of a desire to declare some sort of victory over me, rather than any factual basis, and he seems to have fixated on the article as his method of choice. I'd like an admin to look into this admittedly trivial issue and issue the appropriate warnings.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 14:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I have found the following duplicate, which is within the scope of this project:
I am not sure what the standard procedure is for such cases, perhaps an experienced editor could have a look. UnaToFiAN-1 ( talk) 16:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC) Found
Update
Found two more pairs. -- UnaToFiAN-1 ( talk) 06:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
A discussion on "Wikidata:Project chat" about the Wikidata Infobox as seen at Commons ship categories. see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Ships Broichmore ( talk) 17:59, 9 September 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 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | → | Archive 65 |
While going through the List of United States Navy ships: A–B, I came across USS Augustus Holly (1861) - I initially stripped off the useless disambiguator but on second thought, ended up deleting the page. If you're curious, the article was a copy of an older version of the DANFS article, which has next to no details. As such, it seemed like a clear lack of significance. Parsecboy ( talk) 12:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
This applies to any article about a real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event-- Izno ( talk) 01:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I've started a thread that might be of interest to project members. See Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#shipindex vs dab? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Can I get an admin to revert the move from Russian cruiser Rurik (1892) to Rurik (1892, Russian cruiser )? I accidentally reverted the talk page name change first and that may be why I couldn't revert the article name change itself.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 18:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
SS Ventnor is soon to appear on DYK. I am not the author but have added some detail. The article could use more attention, esp. to organization and recent events. I will not have time for it, so if anyone wishes to help, feel free (including changing/improving any of my edits). Thanks. Kablammo ( talk) 20:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to raise such a small issue, but can anyone figure out why the title for Good Shepherd IV isn't in italics despite using the Infobox ship begin template? I looked for "display title=none" and didn't see anything. -- Fyrael ( talk) 19:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/French battleship Jauréguiberry/archive1 already has 2 reviews, plus image and source reviews. It needs one more review to pass FAC, but it's in danger of being archived. I hope that one kind soul can find the time to do a review.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 12:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi guys, do we have a notability guideline for ships? If not, can I suggest we implement something along the lines of WP:NASTRO so that there's some level of agreement as to what's sufficient to show a ship is notable? If it were up to me a listing in e.g., Jane's Fighting Ships or a similar catalogue accessible to amateurs, or a prominent role in a historical incident (e.g., a battle), or the loss of the ship, would be sufficient to show notability. I really don't think WP:ORG is the correct guideline for a ship since ultimately a ship is a physical object, not an organisation as such (though of course it is home to an organisation). FOARP ( talk) 09:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Has sunk after colliding with a container ship, just after being thoroughly restored. Drawing attention to this in case anyone wishes to write her up: Commons category, German Wikipedia. Yngvadottir ( talk) 18:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Notice on the starboard side of the ships in the Great Tea Race there is a sail hanging over the side of both ships hulls, just skipping the water. Any comments to make on that. Technical description of same? I don't see this described anywhere. This picture by a Chinese artist in Hong Kong in 1868, was presumably commissioned by one of the ship's officers, vouching for its accuracy... Broichmore ( talk) 09:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
The OP mentioned accuracy. IMHO only Dutton's picture makes sense, with regard to the direction in which the ships are heeling, the set of the sails, and the deduced direction of the wind. In the other(s), the forward sails agree with the direction of heel, but the square sails want the wind coming from the other side of the ships. My 2p. Nortonius ( talk) 10:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Back to the original question about the odd sail - I notice that MacGregor discusses sails (p 147) in a caption of a picture of Taeping. The caption is to the part of the Dutton picture of both ships (on this post) but cropped only to show Taeping. The caption says "One of Dutton's mot impressive lithographs of a clipper under full sail pictures Taeping racing up-Channel in 1866. The Illustrated London News pictured her with these same sails and in addition a Jamie Green, watersail, and jib topsail."
MacGregor also discusses flying kites (p157) in his coverage of Ariel - again referring the to the ILN picture: "...all those pictured by the Illustrated London News were regularly set at different times...."
From this I infer that:
The odd sail is called a "watersail" by MacGregor, who I take to be a leading authority on tea clippers. Hence this is a valid name for this sail.
MacGregor avoids commenting (on p 147) on whether or not the extra sails in the ILN picture would actually have been set, and the page 157 comment ("regularly set at different times...") leads me to think that he feels the picture is somewhat fanciful.
I add to this absence of any comment in Captain Keay's journal of (what we now may call) a watersail.
So I conclude that we can only use the Dutton picture as a good representation of what these ships actually looked like as they raced up the channel.
ThoughtIdRetired (
talk)
22:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
References
In our references, there is a lot of citations with |journal=The Navy List
in them. Is
The Navy List the same as
Navy List? Or would that be an unacceptable redirect?
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
20:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I invite editors to participate in discussions at Talk:Windjammer#Windjammer is a colloquialism, not a class of ship. and Talk:Sailing ship#Bring substance of "Windjammer" article here about whether to move the substance of Windjammer to Sailing ship. Cheers, HopsonRoad ( talk) 17:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
There's a difference between not listening and not agreeing. I certainly agree that "windjammer" is a word that has meaning, one of which I used at the location in Sailing ship that you describe as a placeholder, pending a rewrite of that article. Unfortunately, its meaning is too broad to be the basis for an article, in my opinion. However, it should be consensus that decides. So, I appreciate your carrying on the conversation at Talk:Sailing ship#Bring substance of "Windjammer" article, Broichmore. I invite other editors to participate and help provide a resolution through consensus at Talk:Iron-hulled sailing ship#Reconsider? Sincerely, HopsonRoad ( talk) 13:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I have started a discussion here regarding this template as it's becoming too large to properly navigate. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 13:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I have recently become aware of an editor who moved page SS Whangape (1899) to SS Whangape (1900) for the following reason. "The year associated a ship was determined, according to Lloyd's Register, by the completion date not launch date". I believe this conflicts with the ships naming convention. Can someone please advise? Regards Newm30 ( talk) 02:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Moved here from Template talk:WPSHIPS class and prefix templates on Trappist the monk's advice.
I note that under International navy ship prefixes most of the prefixes refer to military vessels. For the UK there is listed HMS, HMT, RMS and RFA. HMS is the standard for the Royal Navy, HMT refers to trawlers pressed into military service and under the command of the RN, RFA are civilian supply ships owned by and operated on behalf of the RN. RMS however refers to civilian ships operating under a contract to the government to carry mails as part of their other duties. Should civilian ships be in this list?
Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 11:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Another oddity (more of a dog's breakfast) in the template table: SY or S/Y = Sailing vessels = SY Raven (1889) or S/Y Raven (1889). Well, I had always understood SY as "steam yacht", so this caught my eye. It seems that this might be an EngVar as "S/Y" redirects to Sailing yacht, but which notes it as American usage; on the other hand "SY" redirects to Sy (disambiguation), which doesn't mention anything maritime at all. I see that in Ship prefix we have SY= sailing yacht or steam yacht.
If the reference to sailing vessel is accepted, the example chosen makes no sense since SY Raven has never been one. Indeed, apart from a couple of days in 1912, she is not noted as being a yacht in the normal meaning (despite the present owners deciding to call her a motor yacht). I haven't looked for references yet, but what do others make of this?
And to cap all that, just look where Sailing Vessel, Sailing vessel and Sailing vessel (disambiguation) redirect to! The last one seems perverse for a dab. Davidships ( talk) 03:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Clipper_(disambiguation)#Requested_move_26_June_2019 which may affect one of the subjects of this project. Kablammo ( talk) 02:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Could someone more knowledgeable about ship articles on Wikipedia take a look at and review the article Mr. Steven.
It was mostly assembled by spaceflight-knowledgeable editors, so I do not believe it has all the ordinary ship article bits. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 14:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Copied from User talk:Mjroots.
"Hi, You recently moved MS Amera (2019) to MS Amera (1988), being the year of launch citing WP:NCS. In the past I've been told it shoud be the reverse which a reading of the following passage from WP:SHIPDAB woud seem to be correct:
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.
The confusion arises when people insist on changing the title of articles every time a cruise ship gets renamed, which can happen quite often! Murgatroyd49 ( talk) 08:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
It would seem that there is a variance between guidance give and established practice. As I said above and in previous discussions, established practice is that the year of launch is the primary method of disambiguation for merchant ships. Can we agree that the guidelines are amended to indicate this please? Mjroots ( talk) 18:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
MV Gardyloo arrived from Afc. Scottish night soil ship. scope_creep Talk 12:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
How do editors at this project (and beyond) want this article to be? I have been taking the entries (which are mostly un-sourced) and placing then into a table for easier viewing. An editor has so far objected to this change, so I am taking it here for further discussion.
I have opened up a new discussion here: Talk:List of clipper ships#Types of "clippers" regarding issues with the list, and clipper articles in general. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
According to this source: [3], the last two clippers were launched in 1891. If reliable sources are calling these ships "clippers" by this time, shouldn't we follow the WP:RS? I don't want to go into WP:SYNTH on why these ships wouldn't be clippers, I just want to gain some feedback on inclusion based on the WP:RS. Is there anything out there that says these aren't clippers? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 14:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Moin. This might not be the proper place, but being too unfamiliar with en:wp to know exactly where to go to, I would like to mention that I just took the liberty of creating this little piece of article, which as of now at least is ship related. Any suggestion where to take it requesting a look-over? Regards, -- G-41614 ( talk) 11:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
The sub went missing a half century ago and its wreck has recently been located. The article could do with some expansion. It is also being discussed at WP:ITNC as a possible news item for the main page. Interested editors are encouraged to jump in. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I have been trying to italicise the title of KM Pekan, KM Arau, and KM Marlin. As far as I can see, the "infobox ship begin" template should have automatially italicised it. Indeed, when I put in a {{DISPLAYTITLE}} it produces an error message: Warning: Display title "KM Pekan" overrides earlier display title "KM <i>Pekan</i>"" What gives? Shuipzv3 ( talk) 13:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
|display title=none
See
§Title styling.{{DISPLAYTITLE}}
in a preview; you have to actually save the page.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
14:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
you don't see the full effects of {{DISPLAYTITLE}}
in a preview
is a correct statement. While writing my response to OP, I added my example for #2 to the appropriate article and clicked Show preview; the article title was properly formatted.{{
infobox ship begin}}
doesn't know about every possible ship prefix. When I wrote the code that does italic title I used a list of articles that transcluded {{infobox ship begin}}
as the source from for the list of supported ship prefixes. That work was mostly done in September 2015. The articles mentioned here were created in July 2018. The creating editor apparently did not know about proper ship-name format or did not care.ship_prefix_list = {}
– preferred but requires template editor rights|display title=<article title with markup>
to the article's {{infobox ship begin}}
– for these examples: |display title=KM ''Pekan''
etcAny ideas on the build date for this clipper the Baltimore. The ticket is for a sailing in 1853, from New York to Melbourne. Could the photograph be the same ship? The ship photograph is from an Australian Library collection, but it doesn't follow that the image was taken there. Broichmore ( talk) 15:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
I’ve never made a ships SIA, so could someone from this project add what’s needed to PS Solent? I was clueless about the descriptions (obviously), and unsure of categories. Much appreciated! — Gorthian ( talk) 23:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Vasa (ship) is an FA but it is deteriorating. People with the know-how are encouraged to improve it. I was hoping to include it at WP:OTD for August 10 but there are too many citations needed. --- Coffeeand crumbs 03:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
The nomination for HMS Bulwark is in danger of being archived if it doesn't get two more content reviews soon. Source and image reviews have already been done. I'd be grateful if editors with a little spare time on their hands could assist. Willing to exchange reviews!-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 12:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
G'day all, in September Milhist is running a backlog drive, Backlog Banzai. You would all be very welcome to participate, you can sign up here. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 04:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I have raised a question at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding uboat.net as a source, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#uboat.net. Cheers MisterBee1966 ( talk) 06:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
There seems to be a complete absence of common marine architectural terms in Wikipedia. By this I mean the words used to describe the lines of a vessel, as well as some of the basic structural words. Whilst I feel I have some grasp of the subject, I do not have sources on which to base an article. I suggest that we need an article titled Terms in naval architecture. This would cover (and the following list is nothing like complete - extra terms worthy of definition are welcome):
I note that we have articles for Gunwale (seems OK to me) and Wale, which does not cover the original constructional purpose very well.
Can anyone suggest sources from which to compose an article or have a go at putting an article together? Or is there an alternative strategy for covering this subject? I guess the challenge would be to cover both modern commercial ship technology, through yacht and small craft construction, to older wooden boats/ships and the history of naval architecture. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 15:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Back in 2015, this WikiProject asked for a bot to create redirects for all IMO numbers, which was implemented as Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 73. I noticed today that the Category:IMO Number the bot had been using was moved to Category:IMO numbers last year, and while I was fixing that I noticed that the bot was logging that there are some cases where multiple articles claim to be for the same ship. For example, MS Jupiter and MS Svea Corona both claim to be IMO 7360186 (the latter article seems to be IMO 7360174 instead), and Italian training ship Italia and Swan fan Makkum both claim IMO 8872825 (looks like two articles about the same ship). I thought you might find a list of such conflicts useful, so I updated the bot to create one at User:AnomieBOT/IMO number conflicts as it does its daily run looking for redirects to create/update. Anomie ⚔ 00:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
User Lanemiker ( talk) has been engaging in an edit war with me over the proper style of rendering the turret numbers of the ship. I used Roman numerals because that's what the damage reports by the US Navy used, but Lanemiker asserts that the navy used Arabic numerals without providing any evidence. This isn't our first interaction as we had a long edit war over the categorization of the Nakajima B5N torpedo bomber in the article that only ended when another editor intervened. I believe Lanemiker has chosen this turret numbering issue out of a desire to declare some sort of victory over me, rather than any factual basis, and he seems to have fixated on the article as his method of choice. I'd like an admin to look into this admittedly trivial issue and issue the appropriate warnings.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 14:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I have found the following duplicate, which is within the scope of this project:
I am not sure what the standard procedure is for such cases, perhaps an experienced editor could have a look. UnaToFiAN-1 ( talk) 16:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC) Found
Update
Found two more pairs. -- UnaToFiAN-1 ( talk) 06:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
A discussion on "Wikidata:Project chat" about the Wikidata Infobox as seen at Commons ship categories. see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Ships Broichmore ( talk) 17:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)