![]() | 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 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | → | Archive 65 |
Is "Motor Torpedo Boat" really part of the name? Or why is it capped? Sources mostly have it lowercase. Why not just title it PT-109 (motor torpedo boat)? For less famous ones, something like PT-109 wouldn't be ambiguous. Is there a relevant convention or guideline? Dicklyon ( talk) 03:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
It's about six years since we last had one of these capitalisation discussions, see Talk:Motor_Gun_Boat#Requested_move_20_October_2013, Talk:Harbour_Defence_Motor_Launch#Requested_move_20_October_2013 etc GraemeLeggett ( talk) 07:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
She was acquired 31 May 1919 on loan for U.S. Navy service as a minesweeper and commissioned the same day
I went ahead and did the case-fixing move, without prejudice for what a better name might be. Dicklyon ( talk) 15:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I had changed the title back to upper case and Dicklyon has called that into question, and from reading this discussion it looks like the correct name for this page has yet to be found. For such a historical topic the encyclopedia should get it right. There seem to be several names deemed correct or incorrect, and aside from the common name for this topic (which would be just PT-109 with no descriptor) all additional names can be boldfaced as alternate names. But the title should be clarified and labeled correctly. Have the participants in this discussion settled on the most likely name? Thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 11:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
At the WP:VPP discussion (notified below) I made the comment there, quoted as follows. Disclosure: I arrived here after a post to my TP but I am reasonably an "interested party" following my post at VPP. Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
There are many misconceptions about what a proper noun/name is, including a false view of equivalence between capitalisation (a matter of orthography) and what is a proper noun (a matter of onomastics and grammar). A proper noun is not descriptive yet such a designation is. Consequently, asserting that this disignation is a "title" actually has more merit than asserting it is a "proper name". My version of Fowler (2nd Ed, 1990 reprint) refers to capitalisation of titles in such a way as to make them separate from proper nouns (section on capitalisation). This type of military double-back speak (Boat, Patrol, Torpedo) is a designation format (complete with the capitalisation of which the military is fond). It is used in equipment tables and like for everything from the common nail upward (nail, bullet-head, 10 ga, 2 in long, wire, plated). While a "designation" may be considered a synonym of "title", it is not a "title" in the same sense of the guidance on titles of works. Further, if it were the title, it would (probably) be written by the designation, Boat, Patrol, Torpedo, and not Patrol Torpedo Boat, since the latter may be common usage but is unlikely the formal designation. The OP's proposition only has any chance of being compelling if it is used as the title of a work and I am not yet seeing any evidence that would support the arguement being made that it is. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Kablammo ( talk) 21:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Broichmore's comments above remind me that I should have explicitly announced here my new proposal at multi-RM discussion Talk:Motor Torpedo Boat PT-109#Requested move 12 August 2019. Sorry for the few hours of delay on that. Please bring ideas if you don't like the one I proposed. Dicklyon ( talk) 21:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
We probably need an article on the restored PT-305. Dicklyon ( talk) 16:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
On this subject, I refer to my comment above on caps for the title of a "work". Such capping would apply to the actual title used for the work. There may be some exceptions for commonly used alternative titles (falling to WP:COMMONNAME) per the fuller guidance pertaining to titles of works but my recollection is that these are usually shortened versions of the fuller name, IAW standard conventions (ie conventions outside WP). A composite name would not, therefore, fall within such. As such, it would appear that the present name should probably be decapped, since there is unlikely to be evidence in sources (per MOS:CAPS) to support it being capped. What should be the title of the article is another question and I would need to consider arguement for a change if it is proposed. However, I am neutral (ATM) on whether a change is required. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
At Dicklyon's suggestion I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style - a contradiction in the use of Capital_letters. No doubt someone will want to change it to a more elegant title. Feel free. Broichmore ( talk) 12:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Dicklyon After just reading all that's been said in various different places, we seem to be not much further forward than the discussions of 2013. See Talk:Motor_Gun_Boat#Requested_move_20_October_2013, Talk:Harbour_Defence_Motor_Launch#Requested_move_20_October_2013 etc. Indeed I just noticed an interesting conversation with Andy Dingley for the first time at Talk:Air lock diving-bell plant, where you persist in the notion that the bell is no different to a washing machine. My question is, where do we stand now? It would seem there is no clear consensus for your proposals, never mind mine. So it's a stalemate. Do you agree to no change as such, or are you to persist with your usual attitude of, having decided the answer already, and remaining uninterested in any sourcing or evidence to the contrary, paying only lip service here, of imposing your dogma that all capitalisation must be removed. There is a thread here and in other similar discussions of when the dust has settled just starting again, ploughing your own furrow. No doubt deterring fledgling editors from ever attempting an article again. I certainly don't relish having to go cap in hand to you every time we name an article. Broichmore ( talk) 16:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Why "Motor Torpedo Boat PT-109"? Surely the common name is just PT-109 (as Randy noted) and the disambiguated name should be PT-109 (boat), in the same style as PT-109 (film) and the rest. "PT" in the name already tells you that it's a patrol torpedo boat. Regardless of capitalization, I wouldn't want to see HMAS Sirius (O 266) renamed to "Her Majesty's Australian Ship Sirius" or "Her Majesty's Australian ship Sirius" or "Fleet Replenishment Vessel HMAS Sirius" or "Fleet replenishment vessel HMAS Sirius". Pinging Dicklyon even though lower-casing change went through. Note I wrote most of this before seeing that several people at that talk section mentioned the short name option, and the closer's suggestion of a separate RM. Yes, that would mean revising the guidance at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Ships with hull number only — Pelagic ( talk) 05:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
The FAC for the article is getting a bit long in the tooth and would benefit from another review or two, if anyone has the time to take a look. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy ( talk) 17:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi everyone! About a month ago I created the article Thomas Friant (ship), and it hasn't been reviewed yet. Could someone please review it, so it can be included in Wikipedia?
Regards: GreatLakesShips ( talk) 16:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Nautical is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Nautical until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 12:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
These lists have as an inclusion criterion the wording "The list of shipwrecks in xxxx includes ships sunk, foundered, grounded, or otherwise lost during xxxx". A number of editors have interpreted this to mean that ships temporarily grounded and refloated should be included. If we are in consensus that such incidents do not constitute a shipwreck and should not be I will change the criterion wording to "The list of shipwrecks in xxxx includes ships sunk or otherwise lost during xxxx" to resolve the ambiguity. A secondary point is should there be a cutoff size wise for inclusion, I have seen entries for boats (boatwrecks anyone?) as small as 6 tons in the lists Lyndaship ( talk) 18:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I've been thinking - the category that the shipwreck lists come under is "Maritime incidents in (year)". Therefore it is appropriate that these lists cover maritime incidents as well as shipwrecks. We could rename all lists to cover this, or just expand the ledes as I suggested above. One difficulty when researching material to add to the lists is that it is not alway apparent that a vessel is a wreck from the first source one comes across. Some vessels do not become wrecks for weeks or months. By adding an entry to a list on first contact, it is much easier to expand the entry as further information becomes available. From a writer's viewpoint, this is far preferable to the approach of not adding an entry, finding a vessel was subsequently wrecked, and then trying to go back and find the original event which led to the subsequent wreck. Mjroots ( talk) 15:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Folks, I have just started this article. I have noticed this article: List of Empire ships (G). I see it is redlinked to Empire Garden. The last name of the ship was Southern Garden. Should the article be renamed as Southern Garden. Thanks. scope_creep Talk 23:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § "She" vs. "it" for ships
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 13:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
After noticing that dozens of the table of content calendars like the one found in List of shipwrecks in November 1862 had the 1st on the wrong day, I created an automatic {{ Calendar ToC}} which generates a very similar ToC but (1) automatically determines the month and year from the article title, (2) automatically determines which days should be linked, and (3) automatically puts the 1st on the correct day of the week. the template supports both a "flat list" format and a "calendar" format (see the examples in template:Calendar ToC). after some initial problems (mostly due to a misplaced nowrap and my complete failure to get feedback, details on my talk page) I am now requesting feedback on the precise format of the section links. in particular,
thank you for your feedback. Frietjes ( talk) 14:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Please consider commenting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MS Tor Hollandia. MS Tor Hollandia is a new article. I would appreciate if persons knowledgeable about sources and notability standards for ships could comment on the _topic_, not just current state of article. -- Doncram ( talk) 16:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I usually edit on spaceflight-related articles. This particular article is listed under the Spaceflight Wikiproject. The article
Ms. Tree (ship), is about a ship that catches
payload fairings. Recently a new sister ship "Ms. Chief" (almost the same exact ship) was introduced. We aren't that familiar with how articles should be formatted in the case of sister ships so we though it might be a good idea to ask editors over at this Wikiproject. We have general consensus that are both notable (see
talk), but making two separate articles for each ships does not seem to be the best approach.
OkayKenji (
talk page) 03:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Flag of convenience#Requested move 3 December 2019 which may be relevant to this project. Davidships ( talk) 15:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I have recently created a bot to remove completed infobox requests and am sending this message to WikiProject Ships since the project currently has a backlogged infobox request category. Details about the task can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 2, but in short it removes all infobox requests from articles with an infobox, once a week. To sign up, reply with {{ ping|Trialpears}} and tell me if any special considerations are required for the Wikiproject. For example: if only a specific infobox should be detected, such as {{ infobox journal}} for WikiProject Academic Journals; or if an irregularly named infobox such as {{ starbox begin}} should be detected. Feel free to ask if you have any questions!
Sent on behalf of Trialpears ( talk) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
After the November 2017 discussions on ship lists the consensus was added to
WP:SHIPDAB:Discussion at WP:SHIPS in November 2017 resulted in consensus that ships bearing the same name will be disambiguated by way of lists, such as List of ships named Albatross, with naval ships such as HMS Albatross, SMS Albatross, USS Albatross etc redirecting to the list.
It would helpful to specifically include the agreement that these lists are Set Index Articles and to link to the detailed guidance. I suggest we change the text to read "Discussion at WP:SHIPS in November 2017 resulted in consensus that ships bearing the same name will be disambiguated by way of lists, in the form of Set Index Articles, such as..... For editing guidance, see WP:SHIPMOS" Davidships ( talk) 14:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I am hoping you can help me. HMS Terror (I03) served in the Royal Navy for about 25 years and had several changes in her armament as military technology developed. I've managed to source the key changes and updated the article body but I now see that the infobox is a mess. Its list of armaments contains a strange mix of initial armaments and later replacements. Should the infobox display all the guns in place on the ship at any time, or just those in place at a specific moment (for example, when it was launched, commissioned or destroyed)? Thanks. From Hill To Shore ( talk) 02:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
There are comments at Talk:CSS Shenandoah#Article assessment for anyone interested. Otr500 ( talk) 08:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I've tried looking for a list of ships in the Dover Patrol but have not been able to locate one. I've drafted up a new navbox to help navigate between related articles but thought it would be worth getting your views before implementing it on so many articles. The list has been formed from ships named in:
I have linked the list to either our named article or the class article where the ship is listed (rether than redlink). However, there are many ships not included in the list (the book refers to 131 unnamed net drifters, 70 trawlers and 31 "MLs and CMBs" among others). The navbox is currently sitting in my sandbox. From Hill To Shore ( talk) 17:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Our article on the scow defines the type as "a type of flat-bottomed sailboat." It then goes on to give a bunch of examples of such sailboats.
However, if you look at almost any dictionary definition, it defines a scow as a type of barge; usually unpowered, and typically "carrying bulk material in an open hold". [3] [4] [5] The latter is certainly the definition I come across most often and am most familiar with; I never even heard of a sailing scow until looking at the wikipedia article.
The question then, is, should the article on "scow" be moved to "sailing scow" - which would seem to be the type described in the article? We could then use the "scow" namespace for the barge type. Gatoclass ( talk) 16:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I've just been over at WP:NC-SHIP. There was a move to ban use of the definite article, no consensus to do that was reached, and yet some unknown has gone ahead anyway and changed the guidelines. Also at some point someone inserted you could call a ship, he. Broichmore ( talk) 07:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
The original is in the collection of the State Library of Victoria, and the title is: Founding of Melbourne / Landing from the Yarra Basin / August 29th 1835 [picture].
-- Lenore10 ( talk) 07:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Do you want a fun and exciting Wiki challenge? An opportunity to get involved in some of the most important editing on Wikipedia? A giant shiny cup to display on your userpage? Well then you should join the WikiCup challenge! Folks of all experience levels are welcome to join. It's a good way for veteran editors to test their mettle, and for new users to learn the ropes. The competition revolves around content creation, such as good and featured articles, DYK's, reviewing such content, and more. See Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring for full details. Over the course of the year, users compete to create the most and best content in a round based format. The top performers in each round will advance to the next, until just 8 remain in the final round. Out of those, one Wikipedian will walk away with the coveted silver Wikicup. Could that user be you? Find out by signing up! Signups are open until January 31, 2020. May the editing be ever in your favor! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 21:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello all, I have an article at FAC that hasn't had many reviews and may be archived soon as a result. If you could take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ersatz Yorck-class battlecruiser/archive1 and see what needs fixing, I'd very much appreciate it. Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 13:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Could you kindly give your comments on the name of an obscure icebreaker article here. Tupsumato ( talk) 17:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't watch many ship articles, but I observe at HMS Manly (1804) and 1806 shipwrecks an apparent instance of Mdnavman to declare it had a Shipwreck in 1806. That it was grounded is of little doubt, but I doubt that necessarily amounts to a shipwreck (My guess is White was likely engaged in some clandestine hydrographic survey for nautical charts that the Admiralty might not have cared for others to know about giving the upcoming local political issues). While it was certainly an incident I contend it is not a shipwreck. I will perhaps let others decided if a grounding is a shipwreck; but my feeling I am right especially given nearly sailor I talk to who has navigated Poole Harbour will confirm they have ended up grounded (but by no means shipwrecked). While I case here of The Manly (1804) article and template may be a lack of due diligence there may be a case thee issue is more widespread. While moving the Manly to the 'incidents' section of Template:1806 shipwrecks might be a solution that leads to the issue of the naming of the Template:1806 shipwrecks which is I contend is misleading as on an article it immediately implies description of the ship. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 20:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I thought I saw an RfC on the gendered naming of ships recently; in my recollection, there was a consensus to do away with the female pronouns, but I don't know at what stage I saw that RfC, or how it was implemented. What I just saw in the MOS is basically "be consistent". Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 15:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Although I'm not particularly active on this WikiProject, I have created a number of ship articles, all of them Malta-related. I mainly wrote articles to cover the ship's sinking (eg. SS Sardinia (1888), HMS Nasturtium (1915), HMS Southwold (L10) and MV Star of Malta), while others seemed notable due to the vessels' size and characteristics, as well as the media attention they received when being ordered/built/entering service etc (eg. MV Jean de La Valette and MV Saint John Paul II). I am quite confident that the subjects of all of the above articles are notable, but I couldn't find any guidelines as to what are the notability criteria when I looked through this WikiProject. Are there any established criteria for ships or not?
I am thinking about writing a number of other ship articles, but I am not sure if they would be regarded as notable or not. Examples of articles which I have in mind are:
If there are no fixed notability criteria, could any members of this WikiProject provide advice on whether the above articles would be regarded as notable or not please?
Also, are naval ships automatically assumed to be notable? For example, assuming adequate sources are available, would articles about Maltese patrol boats (the larger patrol vessels only, not the RHIBs) be notable?
Thanks in advance! Xwejnusgozo ( talk) 00:05, 25 January 2020 (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 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | → | Archive 65 |
Is "Motor Torpedo Boat" really part of the name? Or why is it capped? Sources mostly have it lowercase. Why not just title it PT-109 (motor torpedo boat)? For less famous ones, something like PT-109 wouldn't be ambiguous. Is there a relevant convention or guideline? Dicklyon ( talk) 03:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
It's about six years since we last had one of these capitalisation discussions, see Talk:Motor_Gun_Boat#Requested_move_20_October_2013, Talk:Harbour_Defence_Motor_Launch#Requested_move_20_October_2013 etc GraemeLeggett ( talk) 07:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
She was acquired 31 May 1919 on loan for U.S. Navy service as a minesweeper and commissioned the same day
I went ahead and did the case-fixing move, without prejudice for what a better name might be. Dicklyon ( talk) 15:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I had changed the title back to upper case and Dicklyon has called that into question, and from reading this discussion it looks like the correct name for this page has yet to be found. For such a historical topic the encyclopedia should get it right. There seem to be several names deemed correct or incorrect, and aside from the common name for this topic (which would be just PT-109 with no descriptor) all additional names can be boldfaced as alternate names. But the title should be clarified and labeled correctly. Have the participants in this discussion settled on the most likely name? Thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 11:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
At the WP:VPP discussion (notified below) I made the comment there, quoted as follows. Disclosure: I arrived here after a post to my TP but I am reasonably an "interested party" following my post at VPP. Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
There are many misconceptions about what a proper noun/name is, including a false view of equivalence between capitalisation (a matter of orthography) and what is a proper noun (a matter of onomastics and grammar). A proper noun is not descriptive yet such a designation is. Consequently, asserting that this disignation is a "title" actually has more merit than asserting it is a "proper name". My version of Fowler (2nd Ed, 1990 reprint) refers to capitalisation of titles in such a way as to make them separate from proper nouns (section on capitalisation). This type of military double-back speak (Boat, Patrol, Torpedo) is a designation format (complete with the capitalisation of which the military is fond). It is used in equipment tables and like for everything from the common nail upward (nail, bullet-head, 10 ga, 2 in long, wire, plated). While a "designation" may be considered a synonym of "title", it is not a "title" in the same sense of the guidance on titles of works. Further, if it were the title, it would (probably) be written by the designation, Boat, Patrol, Torpedo, and not Patrol Torpedo Boat, since the latter may be common usage but is unlikely the formal designation. The OP's proposition only has any chance of being compelling if it is used as the title of a work and I am not yet seeing any evidence that would support the arguement being made that it is. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Kablammo ( talk) 21:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Broichmore's comments above remind me that I should have explicitly announced here my new proposal at multi-RM discussion Talk:Motor Torpedo Boat PT-109#Requested move 12 August 2019. Sorry for the few hours of delay on that. Please bring ideas if you don't like the one I proposed. Dicklyon ( talk) 21:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
We probably need an article on the restored PT-305. Dicklyon ( talk) 16:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
On this subject, I refer to my comment above on caps for the title of a "work". Such capping would apply to the actual title used for the work. There may be some exceptions for commonly used alternative titles (falling to WP:COMMONNAME) per the fuller guidance pertaining to titles of works but my recollection is that these are usually shortened versions of the fuller name, IAW standard conventions (ie conventions outside WP). A composite name would not, therefore, fall within such. As such, it would appear that the present name should probably be decapped, since there is unlikely to be evidence in sources (per MOS:CAPS) to support it being capped. What should be the title of the article is another question and I would need to consider arguement for a change if it is proposed. However, I am neutral (ATM) on whether a change is required. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
At Dicklyon's suggestion I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style - a contradiction in the use of Capital_letters. No doubt someone will want to change it to a more elegant title. Feel free. Broichmore ( talk) 12:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Dicklyon After just reading all that's been said in various different places, we seem to be not much further forward than the discussions of 2013. See Talk:Motor_Gun_Boat#Requested_move_20_October_2013, Talk:Harbour_Defence_Motor_Launch#Requested_move_20_October_2013 etc. Indeed I just noticed an interesting conversation with Andy Dingley for the first time at Talk:Air lock diving-bell plant, where you persist in the notion that the bell is no different to a washing machine. My question is, where do we stand now? It would seem there is no clear consensus for your proposals, never mind mine. So it's a stalemate. Do you agree to no change as such, or are you to persist with your usual attitude of, having decided the answer already, and remaining uninterested in any sourcing or evidence to the contrary, paying only lip service here, of imposing your dogma that all capitalisation must be removed. There is a thread here and in other similar discussions of when the dust has settled just starting again, ploughing your own furrow. No doubt deterring fledgling editors from ever attempting an article again. I certainly don't relish having to go cap in hand to you every time we name an article. Broichmore ( talk) 16:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Why "Motor Torpedo Boat PT-109"? Surely the common name is just PT-109 (as Randy noted) and the disambiguated name should be PT-109 (boat), in the same style as PT-109 (film) and the rest. "PT" in the name already tells you that it's a patrol torpedo boat. Regardless of capitalization, I wouldn't want to see HMAS Sirius (O 266) renamed to "Her Majesty's Australian Ship Sirius" or "Her Majesty's Australian ship Sirius" or "Fleet Replenishment Vessel HMAS Sirius" or "Fleet replenishment vessel HMAS Sirius". Pinging Dicklyon even though lower-casing change went through. Note I wrote most of this before seeing that several people at that talk section mentioned the short name option, and the closer's suggestion of a separate RM. Yes, that would mean revising the guidance at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Ships with hull number only — Pelagic ( talk) 05:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
The FAC for the article is getting a bit long in the tooth and would benefit from another review or two, if anyone has the time to take a look. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy ( talk) 17:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi everyone! About a month ago I created the article Thomas Friant (ship), and it hasn't been reviewed yet. Could someone please review it, so it can be included in Wikipedia?
Regards: GreatLakesShips ( talk) 16:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Nautical is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Nautical until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 12:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
These lists have as an inclusion criterion the wording "The list of shipwrecks in xxxx includes ships sunk, foundered, grounded, or otherwise lost during xxxx". A number of editors have interpreted this to mean that ships temporarily grounded and refloated should be included. If we are in consensus that such incidents do not constitute a shipwreck and should not be I will change the criterion wording to "The list of shipwrecks in xxxx includes ships sunk or otherwise lost during xxxx" to resolve the ambiguity. A secondary point is should there be a cutoff size wise for inclusion, I have seen entries for boats (boatwrecks anyone?) as small as 6 tons in the lists Lyndaship ( talk) 18:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I've been thinking - the category that the shipwreck lists come under is "Maritime incidents in (year)". Therefore it is appropriate that these lists cover maritime incidents as well as shipwrecks. We could rename all lists to cover this, or just expand the ledes as I suggested above. One difficulty when researching material to add to the lists is that it is not alway apparent that a vessel is a wreck from the first source one comes across. Some vessels do not become wrecks for weeks or months. By adding an entry to a list on first contact, it is much easier to expand the entry as further information becomes available. From a writer's viewpoint, this is far preferable to the approach of not adding an entry, finding a vessel was subsequently wrecked, and then trying to go back and find the original event which led to the subsequent wreck. Mjroots ( talk) 15:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Folks, I have just started this article. I have noticed this article: List of Empire ships (G). I see it is redlinked to Empire Garden. The last name of the ship was Southern Garden. Should the article be renamed as Southern Garden. Thanks. scope_creep Talk 23:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § "She" vs. "it" for ships
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 13:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
After noticing that dozens of the table of content calendars like the one found in List of shipwrecks in November 1862 had the 1st on the wrong day, I created an automatic {{ Calendar ToC}} which generates a very similar ToC but (1) automatically determines the month and year from the article title, (2) automatically determines which days should be linked, and (3) automatically puts the 1st on the correct day of the week. the template supports both a "flat list" format and a "calendar" format (see the examples in template:Calendar ToC). after some initial problems (mostly due to a misplaced nowrap and my complete failure to get feedback, details on my talk page) I am now requesting feedback on the precise format of the section links. in particular,
thank you for your feedback. Frietjes ( talk) 14:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Please consider commenting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MS Tor Hollandia. MS Tor Hollandia is a new article. I would appreciate if persons knowledgeable about sources and notability standards for ships could comment on the _topic_, not just current state of article. -- Doncram ( talk) 16:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I usually edit on spaceflight-related articles. This particular article is listed under the Spaceflight Wikiproject. The article
Ms. Tree (ship), is about a ship that catches
payload fairings. Recently a new sister ship "Ms. Chief" (almost the same exact ship) was introduced. We aren't that familiar with how articles should be formatted in the case of sister ships so we though it might be a good idea to ask editors over at this Wikiproject. We have general consensus that are both notable (see
talk), but making two separate articles for each ships does not seem to be the best approach.
OkayKenji (
talk page) 03:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Flag of convenience#Requested move 3 December 2019 which may be relevant to this project. Davidships ( talk) 15:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I have recently created a bot to remove completed infobox requests and am sending this message to WikiProject Ships since the project currently has a backlogged infobox request category. Details about the task can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 2, but in short it removes all infobox requests from articles with an infobox, once a week. To sign up, reply with {{ ping|Trialpears}} and tell me if any special considerations are required for the Wikiproject. For example: if only a specific infobox should be detected, such as {{ infobox journal}} for WikiProject Academic Journals; or if an irregularly named infobox such as {{ starbox begin}} should be detected. Feel free to ask if you have any questions!
Sent on behalf of Trialpears ( talk) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
After the November 2017 discussions on ship lists the consensus was added to
WP:SHIPDAB:Discussion at WP:SHIPS in November 2017 resulted in consensus that ships bearing the same name will be disambiguated by way of lists, such as List of ships named Albatross, with naval ships such as HMS Albatross, SMS Albatross, USS Albatross etc redirecting to the list.
It would helpful to specifically include the agreement that these lists are Set Index Articles and to link to the detailed guidance. I suggest we change the text to read "Discussion at WP:SHIPS in November 2017 resulted in consensus that ships bearing the same name will be disambiguated by way of lists, in the form of Set Index Articles, such as..... For editing guidance, see WP:SHIPMOS" Davidships ( talk) 14:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I am hoping you can help me. HMS Terror (I03) served in the Royal Navy for about 25 years and had several changes in her armament as military technology developed. I've managed to source the key changes and updated the article body but I now see that the infobox is a mess. Its list of armaments contains a strange mix of initial armaments and later replacements. Should the infobox display all the guns in place on the ship at any time, or just those in place at a specific moment (for example, when it was launched, commissioned or destroyed)? Thanks. From Hill To Shore ( talk) 02:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
There are comments at Talk:CSS Shenandoah#Article assessment for anyone interested. Otr500 ( talk) 08:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I've tried looking for a list of ships in the Dover Patrol but have not been able to locate one. I've drafted up a new navbox to help navigate between related articles but thought it would be worth getting your views before implementing it on so many articles. The list has been formed from ships named in:
I have linked the list to either our named article or the class article where the ship is listed (rether than redlink). However, there are many ships not included in the list (the book refers to 131 unnamed net drifters, 70 trawlers and 31 "MLs and CMBs" among others). The navbox is currently sitting in my sandbox. From Hill To Shore ( talk) 17:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Our article on the scow defines the type as "a type of flat-bottomed sailboat." It then goes on to give a bunch of examples of such sailboats.
However, if you look at almost any dictionary definition, it defines a scow as a type of barge; usually unpowered, and typically "carrying bulk material in an open hold". [3] [4] [5] The latter is certainly the definition I come across most often and am most familiar with; I never even heard of a sailing scow until looking at the wikipedia article.
The question then, is, should the article on "scow" be moved to "sailing scow" - which would seem to be the type described in the article? We could then use the "scow" namespace for the barge type. Gatoclass ( talk) 16:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I've just been over at WP:NC-SHIP. There was a move to ban use of the definite article, no consensus to do that was reached, and yet some unknown has gone ahead anyway and changed the guidelines. Also at some point someone inserted you could call a ship, he. Broichmore ( talk) 07:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
The original is in the collection of the State Library of Victoria, and the title is: Founding of Melbourne / Landing from the Yarra Basin / August 29th 1835 [picture].
-- Lenore10 ( talk) 07:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Do you want a fun and exciting Wiki challenge? An opportunity to get involved in some of the most important editing on Wikipedia? A giant shiny cup to display on your userpage? Well then you should join the WikiCup challenge! Folks of all experience levels are welcome to join. It's a good way for veteran editors to test their mettle, and for new users to learn the ropes. The competition revolves around content creation, such as good and featured articles, DYK's, reviewing such content, and more. See Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring for full details. Over the course of the year, users compete to create the most and best content in a round based format. The top performers in each round will advance to the next, until just 8 remain in the final round. Out of those, one Wikipedian will walk away with the coveted silver Wikicup. Could that user be you? Find out by signing up! Signups are open until January 31, 2020. May the editing be ever in your favor! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 21:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello all, I have an article at FAC that hasn't had many reviews and may be archived soon as a result. If you could take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ersatz Yorck-class battlecruiser/archive1 and see what needs fixing, I'd very much appreciate it. Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 13:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Could you kindly give your comments on the name of an obscure icebreaker article here. Tupsumato ( talk) 17:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't watch many ship articles, but I observe at HMS Manly (1804) and 1806 shipwrecks an apparent instance of Mdnavman to declare it had a Shipwreck in 1806. That it was grounded is of little doubt, but I doubt that necessarily amounts to a shipwreck (My guess is White was likely engaged in some clandestine hydrographic survey for nautical charts that the Admiralty might not have cared for others to know about giving the upcoming local political issues). While it was certainly an incident I contend it is not a shipwreck. I will perhaps let others decided if a grounding is a shipwreck; but my feeling I am right especially given nearly sailor I talk to who has navigated Poole Harbour will confirm they have ended up grounded (but by no means shipwrecked). While I case here of The Manly (1804) article and template may be a lack of due diligence there may be a case thee issue is more widespread. While moving the Manly to the 'incidents' section of Template:1806 shipwrecks might be a solution that leads to the issue of the naming of the Template:1806 shipwrecks which is I contend is misleading as on an article it immediately implies description of the ship. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 20:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I thought I saw an RfC on the gendered naming of ships recently; in my recollection, there was a consensus to do away with the female pronouns, but I don't know at what stage I saw that RfC, or how it was implemented. What I just saw in the MOS is basically "be consistent". Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 15:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Although I'm not particularly active on this WikiProject, I have created a number of ship articles, all of them Malta-related. I mainly wrote articles to cover the ship's sinking (eg. SS Sardinia (1888), HMS Nasturtium (1915), HMS Southwold (L10) and MV Star of Malta), while others seemed notable due to the vessels' size and characteristics, as well as the media attention they received when being ordered/built/entering service etc (eg. MV Jean de La Valette and MV Saint John Paul II). I am quite confident that the subjects of all of the above articles are notable, but I couldn't find any guidelines as to what are the notability criteria when I looked through this WikiProject. Are there any established criteria for ships or not?
I am thinking about writing a number of other ship articles, but I am not sure if they would be regarded as notable or not. Examples of articles which I have in mind are:
If there are no fixed notability criteria, could any members of this WikiProject provide advice on whether the above articles would be regarded as notable or not please?
Also, are naval ships automatically assumed to be notable? For example, assuming adequate sources are available, would articles about Maltese patrol boats (the larger patrol vessels only, not the RHIBs) be notable?
Thanks in advance! Xwejnusgozo ( talk) 00:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)