![]() | 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 60 | ← | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | → | Archive 70 |
With some hesitation to start another endless, circular, no decision discussion (Above's perpetual is getting perpetual and is not aging in a cask like fine old wine!) we have total confusion of pages on these topics. It is a situation unique to light vessels as far as I know (with a possible exception of some ferry boats taking on the name of a crossing). It cannot help but confuse readers having little knowledge of such matters and perpetuates more blunders beyond Wikipedia, some of which rely on Wikipedia. Stations are named. Those big letters denote stations, not the vessels. Some pages are titled for stations, for example Brenton Reef Light with the ships occupying the station in sections. Others give the ship the station name, even station names made up by museums as in United States lightship Portsmouth (LV-101) and United States lightship Chesapeake (LV-116) (misleading about "name" specifically). Then we have the vessels, as in Light Vessel No.57. Is it worth taking on an effort to either make articles about stations as in the first case above with the vessels on assignment briefly described? A combination, stations and vessels with the vessel articles dealing with ship specifics (some interesting innovations in some) and the stations listed? As is is a mess. Palmeira ( talk) 01:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Another example of the absolute mess. NANTUCKET, the station, and two vessels now both historic NANTUCKET ships. Using the current page titles, United States lightship Nantucket (LV-112) indeed had a long presence at the station. It is historic. Then so is United States lightship Nantucket (WLV-612)! The station page, Lightship Nantucket (which probably should be "Lightship station Nantucket" instead) makes it clear. There were a number of vessels at that station prior to LV-112 and then two followed before the station was occupied by a large buoy. I will try to address that mess, but it appears to be widespread in the light station/lightship arena. I suspect some comes from somewhat parochial interests that are doing the job (much appreciated by me) of preserving these vessels and even using made up names for the stations or altered history for the vessels. That PR effort should not extend to articles here. Palmeira ( talk) 19:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
The Greek mine countermeasures vessel HS Kallisto was cut in two in a collision with a container ship yesterday. Article has been nominated at WP:ITNC. Whilst everything in the body of the article is referenced, much of what is in the infobox isn't. Article needs a description section above the history section, giving details of dimensions, engines, equipment carried etc with references. Mjroots ( talk) 06:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to invite the opinions of the project in the ongoing discussion at Talk:ESPS#Spanish warships. Tevildo ( talk) 20:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
There exists short stub article screw sloop with a fair number, 198, of inbound links. It should perhaps be merged to Steam frigate or to sloop-of-war (perhaps specifically to Sloop-of-war#Decline, which gives a little context perhaps worth consulting before jumping along its link to Steam frigate). Please consider commenting at informal merger proposal discussion, at Talk:Screw sloop#Merge (revived in 2020). -- Doncram ( talk) 22:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/179487474 page 27. Trying to decipher the abbreviations: 050°T (I understand 50 degrees, but what does T mean?), c/c, c/s
Also, this page only covers March 7th hours 00 to 16, but where are March 7th hours 16 to 24?
Also: on "weather observation sheet pages": option 4 for "position" is D.R. -- what does it stand for? And, why is position taken at 0800, 1200 and 2000 - in a rather non-uniform fashion?
-- Wesha ( talk) 06:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
In marine navigation, Dead reckoning or DR, in which one advances a prior position using the ship's course and speed. The new position is called a DR position. It is generally accepted that only course and speed determine the DR position. Correcting the DR position for leeway, current effects, and steering error result in an estimated position or EP. An inertial navigator develops an extremely accurate EPThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 09:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Any idea what the item "Secured from flight quarters." means? It appears multiple times throughout the logbook, and it looks like it is somehow related to aircraft. -- Wesha ( talk) 23:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you everybody, behold. If there is interest and somebody would like to help me with adding more details to the article in English that we collected in ru-wiki, I would appreciate that. -- Wesha ( talk) 22:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
The talk page for HMS Bat is redirected to a DAB page - can someone fix it? Nigel Ish ( talk) 20:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
FYI; there is an RM at Talk:Naval Facilities Engineering Command that could use a few extra sets of eyes. Cheers - wolf 12:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Who should be given in the infobox of ships as the sponsor? One who bestows the launching ceremony, or the commissioning ceremony? Pahlevun ( talk) 07:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
(Just saw this) Agree with Ship's Sponsor being removed from navbox and prose per WP:SHIPSNOTCREWS. Same reason that random, non-notable crew do not need to be mentioned (ie: "Lt. So-and-so became first officer of USS Whatever for six months starting back when no-one-gives-a-crap. There was a ceremony. With party hats. And pizza.".) Just my 0.02¢ Cheers - wolf 13:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Can anyone help me find dates for keel laying, launching, completion, characteristics, a history of ownership and ports of registry for Galaxy F ( IMO number: 9048471, MMSI number: 371544000) since 1992? I need that information to include in the infobox for this article, in case it is confirmed that the two ships are the same. Pahlevun ( talk) 20:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Does anyone have a reference for the Code Letters carried by SS City of Boston? Reported in The Times of 14 March 1870 that a brig-rigged steamship, commercial code DGGC reported her machinery wanting repairs, date of report "30th(?) February 1870". Would suggest that 20th is the correct date. This fits in with other reports of 25 Feb that both her cylinders had burst. Note that CoB had three masts, but the loss of one may have given the appearance of a brig. Mjroots ( talk) 17:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
There is a requested move of an article within this project, at Talk:Clipper#Requested_move_28_November_2020.
Kablammo ( talk) 23:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Yesterday I made the page North West America for the ship of that name. I've made other ship pages whose page names have been appropriately italicized, but it had been a while and I forgot if I just used italic quotes when creating the page name, or something else—probably using italic quotes for the page title. Checking this wikiproject it looked like the "Infobox ship begin" template would take care of styling the page name with italics appropriately without any extra work on my part, so I made the page name without italics assuming the template would take care of it automatically.
But it didn't, unless I'm confused. Reading the template info and other pages about italicizing page names just left me confused. So I'm posting here in hopes that someone can set me straight on a couple questions:
1) How best to fix the North West America page so the title displays in italics.
2) How best to do this in the future, since I will probably make similar pages, someday. I think in the past I've created ship pages with the page name being ''North West America'' or ''Princess Royal'' (1778 sloop) (for Princess Royal (1778 sloop))
Thanks! Pfly ( talk) 01:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
infobox ship begin}}
. Article titles like
North West America do not follow that pattern so the infobox must be instructed how to format the title. Documentation for all of this is at
Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide § Title styling.{{
infobox ship begin}}
would work for North West America—it seemed to for
Margaret (1791 ship) and
Atahualpa (ship). I think I understand now though: it worked for those because of the disambig parts (I assume). Anyway, thanks again, I think understand better now.
Pfly (
talk)
05:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)At List of museum ships, does the "from" column indicate where the ship was built, or who it was built for? I only ask because the Japanese battleship Mikasa is listed as being "from" Japan, but it was actually built at Barrow-in-Furness in the UK, and PNS Hangor (S131) which is shown as "from" Pakistan but built in France. I asked this on the talk page back in September, but answer came there none. Alansplodge ( talk) 15:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard § Titanic conspiracy theories. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
21:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
There was a
tfd that intended to delete {{
sclass}}
and {{
sclass2}}
. These were no longer used because we finally got round to hyphenating all ship-class article titles. The {{
sclass-}}
and {{
sclass2-}}
templates were intended to be short-term templates that would no longer be needed once ship-class article titles were hyphenated. The time for these two to go away has come.
I have cloned {{sclass-}}
and {{sclass2-}}
into {{sclass}}
and {{sclass2}}
. {{sclass-}}
and {{sclass2-}}
are now redirects to {{sclass}}
and {{sclass2}}
. I have also tweaked the documentation to remove mention of {{sclass-}}
and {{sclass2-}}
.
When editing ship articles, change {{sclass-}}
and {{sclass2-}}
to {{sclass}}
and {{sclass2}}
as you encounter then. I have added {{sclass-}}
and {{sclass2-}}
to
Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects § Other templates so that any editor using that tool with general fixes turned on will automatically rename the templates.
Someday, when all of the {{sclass-}}
and {{sclass2-}}
templates have been renamed, the redirects should be deleted.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 18:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
This edit identified ship names without the definite article as the preferred form. Two days later, this edit refined that part of WP:NCSHIPS. Both of these edits were made in October 2012 and both as the result of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships)/Archive 4 § Use of "The" in front of ships' names. Another modification was made in February 2013 at this edit. I don't know if that change was discussed.
At this edit, the 'preferred' / 'not recommended' annotation was removed. Before removal, the annotation had stood for 7 years, 10 months, and 28 days or 7 years, 7 months, and 6 days (however you want to gauge it). Because that portion of NCSHIPS had been stable for so long, I reverted noting the discussion mentioned above.
My revert was reverted. I'll not play that game. I believe that the revert of my revert should be overturned. After the seven-year-standing text is restored, we should discuss here to see if there is consensus to change the definite article advice.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 17:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I support the revert of Trappist the monk per the reasons given. As for the use of the definite article, I find its use clunky and tiresome to read, so support maintaining non-use as the "preferred" option. I also think it's important to maintain overall consistency, which is another reason for having a preferred option. However, per Davidships, its use nonetheless is almost unavoidable in certain circumstances, so a little flexibility in imposing the preferred usage is also not inappropriate. Gatoclass ( talk) 10:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
In all the above the conclusion appears to be, that with some exceptions, the use is allowable at the discretion of editors. Can that be agreed to? Or is this to be another "perpetual discussion" without conclusion — to carry on the fine drink comments — to age as was a smaller than giant casks of Port I once saw in Vila Nova de Gaia that was laid down before the United States declared independence with an aroma evident in that part of the bodega justifying its sparing use as ancient aroma and taste in the brand's finest products. Palmeira ( talk) 12:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
T::here is no place or need for the definite article in the title or infobox.
For some reason, RexxS has decided to attempt to force a result here, despite the fact that we haven't come to a conclusion, as far as I can tell. Interested editors are invited to keep flogging the horse here. Parsecboy ( talk) 15:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment: The definite article is not required anywhere when the ship prefix or model names are used, as with 'USS Enterprise', 'CVN-80', and 'Enterprise-A' (the letter A serves as an ordinal).
The definite article is required when referring to a particular ship's name when not using its prefix: "the Enterprise", "the Titanic".
The definite article is required, though with this example: "the CVN-80 vessel", where the definite article relates to the word vessel.
When, for example, comparing CVN-65 and CVN-80, then one can, for the sake of easier readability, use the 65 or the 80, if the items have been made known before, that both are CVN-xx. But such a construct is more informal, and should not be used everywhere.
"These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise..." refers to this Enterprise being a starship; moreover, the definite article here might:
On the unlikely occasion that the first an third points might not hold, then the rationale for "the Enterprise" would still apply, if then with an addition of the word starship.
HMS Queen Elizabeth goes without the definite article because of the prefix. If the prefix (HMS) is omitted, then the definite article should not be used in this case, because the word Queen serves in place of the prefix here. But it must be italicised. Therefore: "Queen Elizabeth sailed away".
Some confusion might arise with this:
The first being the monarch, the latter the ship. Apparently, it would even be grammatically correct.
But if we were to refer to the ship only by its name, then the definite article would apply with "the Elizabeth", or "the Victoria". In and of itself, it would not be grammatically incorrect, but I would discourage this use, if the name also contains a title, as it would be very, very informal, because the word Queen is omitted.
Otherwise, "the Elizabeth" and "the Victoria" would be reasonable, but only, if the ships' names would be standalone, and would not contain a title.
As soon as a title is included with a name, such as Miss Marple, or Sister Inviolata and Sister Euphemia, then the definite article is omitted.
Where the definite article is permitted and required, is this: "the USS Enterprise starship, "the HMS Queen Elizabeth battleship", "the HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier", and so on. - Mardus / talk 11:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Have avoided the definite article in all the ship articles I've written, but don't overly care if the guideline gets changed. However, would prefer that we avoid inconsistent approaches within any one article, and also the mass addition/deletion of definite articles via AWB or similar. Is it possible to approach this as we do with ENGVAR in cases where geographic origins aren't clear: that is, existing articles with a consistent style be maintained unless there's a specific reason to change? -- Euryalus ( talk) 21:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I also agree that there is no need for a rule. The one exception is for ships with a prefix beginning with HM; no definite article should precede that prefix when it is used as a prefix . Kablammo ( talk) 23:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
The search "includes a chronological list of all ships" currently produces 252 hits, e.g. List of ship commissionings in 1981 which says: "The list of ship commissionings in 1981 includes a chronological list of all ships commissioned in 1981." It's odd to claim "all" for a list that will never be complete and shouldn't be complete due to notability. The formulation has been used at least since 2005. Are there any objections to remove the word "all" from all these lists? PrimeHunter ( talk) 10:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
{{
Infobox ship career}}
so that it adds the article to a dated category (month and year taken from the value assigned to |Ship commissioned=
)?Comment - no list should claim to include "all ships", as that is an impossible task. Suggest "all" is replaced with "some" wherever it occurs. Mjroots ( talk) 19:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
and shouldn't be complete due to notability. That's one of the explicit purposes of lists - including items that aren't individually notable. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi there! Based on the discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Full rigged ship, I have submitted Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BattyBot 54. @ Chris the speller: wrote:
There are about a thousand articles that contain the parameter
Ship sail plan = Full rigged ship
but should be
Ship sail plan = Full-rigged ship
according to well-known dictionaries and common understanding of compound modifiers. About a hundred or so are unlinked, and it wouldn't hurt to link them while we're at it. There may or may not be spaces on either side of the equals sign.
If you have any questions or concerns about this bot request, your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BattyBot 54. Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 00:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
See Talk:Kanimbla / Kurra-Ba and Kosciusko - the article is currently about a pair of similar ships, I've suggested to @ Merbabu: that it be split into ones about each ship. I'm not sure what the norms are here. It would be useful if others could have a look and comment. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 17:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, if anyone has the time, I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Gneisenau/archive1, which hasn't drawn much attention thus far. Thanks! Parsecboy ( talk) 16:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
An article on a naval shipbuilding company is proposed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civmec (2nd nomination). I can understand reasoning behind first deletion due in concerns about notability, however as information has now been added that company will be building ships for the Royal Australian Navy, I believe the company is notable. Please provide feedback at proposed deletion page. Regards Newm30 ( talk) 11:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Concerns have been expressed by an editor about the validity of WP:SHIPSNOTCREWS on the talk page of this article. Interested editors are invited to comment Lyndaship ( talk) 18:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Does anybody know where Peterhead, as in the boat type, should link to? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 05:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Like me you may have found your notifications full of the results of Admiralty being moved to British Admiralty and replaced with disambiguation. This was on basis of brief discussion - two respondents to the move discussion. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 12:39, 7 January 2021 (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 60 | ← | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | → | Archive 70 |
With some hesitation to start another endless, circular, no decision discussion (Above's perpetual is getting perpetual and is not aging in a cask like fine old wine!) we have total confusion of pages on these topics. It is a situation unique to light vessels as far as I know (with a possible exception of some ferry boats taking on the name of a crossing). It cannot help but confuse readers having little knowledge of such matters and perpetuates more blunders beyond Wikipedia, some of which rely on Wikipedia. Stations are named. Those big letters denote stations, not the vessels. Some pages are titled for stations, for example Brenton Reef Light with the ships occupying the station in sections. Others give the ship the station name, even station names made up by museums as in United States lightship Portsmouth (LV-101) and United States lightship Chesapeake (LV-116) (misleading about "name" specifically). Then we have the vessels, as in Light Vessel No.57. Is it worth taking on an effort to either make articles about stations as in the first case above with the vessels on assignment briefly described? A combination, stations and vessels with the vessel articles dealing with ship specifics (some interesting innovations in some) and the stations listed? As is is a mess. Palmeira ( talk) 01:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Another example of the absolute mess. NANTUCKET, the station, and two vessels now both historic NANTUCKET ships. Using the current page titles, United States lightship Nantucket (LV-112) indeed had a long presence at the station. It is historic. Then so is United States lightship Nantucket (WLV-612)! The station page, Lightship Nantucket (which probably should be "Lightship station Nantucket" instead) makes it clear. There were a number of vessels at that station prior to LV-112 and then two followed before the station was occupied by a large buoy. I will try to address that mess, but it appears to be widespread in the light station/lightship arena. I suspect some comes from somewhat parochial interests that are doing the job (much appreciated by me) of preserving these vessels and even using made up names for the stations or altered history for the vessels. That PR effort should not extend to articles here. Palmeira ( talk) 19:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
The Greek mine countermeasures vessel HS Kallisto was cut in two in a collision with a container ship yesterday. Article has been nominated at WP:ITNC. Whilst everything in the body of the article is referenced, much of what is in the infobox isn't. Article needs a description section above the history section, giving details of dimensions, engines, equipment carried etc with references. Mjroots ( talk) 06:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to invite the opinions of the project in the ongoing discussion at Talk:ESPS#Spanish warships. Tevildo ( talk) 20:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
There exists short stub article screw sloop with a fair number, 198, of inbound links. It should perhaps be merged to Steam frigate or to sloop-of-war (perhaps specifically to Sloop-of-war#Decline, which gives a little context perhaps worth consulting before jumping along its link to Steam frigate). Please consider commenting at informal merger proposal discussion, at Talk:Screw sloop#Merge (revived in 2020). -- Doncram ( talk) 22:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/179487474 page 27. Trying to decipher the abbreviations: 050°T (I understand 50 degrees, but what does T mean?), c/c, c/s
Also, this page only covers March 7th hours 00 to 16, but where are March 7th hours 16 to 24?
Also: on "weather observation sheet pages": option 4 for "position" is D.R. -- what does it stand for? And, why is position taken at 0800, 1200 and 2000 - in a rather non-uniform fashion?
-- Wesha ( talk) 06:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
In marine navigation, Dead reckoning or DR, in which one advances a prior position using the ship's course and speed. The new position is called a DR position. It is generally accepted that only course and speed determine the DR position. Correcting the DR position for leeway, current effects, and steering error result in an estimated position or EP. An inertial navigator develops an extremely accurate EPThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 09:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Any idea what the item "Secured from flight quarters." means? It appears multiple times throughout the logbook, and it looks like it is somehow related to aircraft. -- Wesha ( talk) 23:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you everybody, behold. If there is interest and somebody would like to help me with adding more details to the article in English that we collected in ru-wiki, I would appreciate that. -- Wesha ( talk) 22:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
The talk page for HMS Bat is redirected to a DAB page - can someone fix it? Nigel Ish ( talk) 20:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
FYI; there is an RM at Talk:Naval Facilities Engineering Command that could use a few extra sets of eyes. Cheers - wolf 12:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Who should be given in the infobox of ships as the sponsor? One who bestows the launching ceremony, or the commissioning ceremony? Pahlevun ( talk) 07:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
(Just saw this) Agree with Ship's Sponsor being removed from navbox and prose per WP:SHIPSNOTCREWS. Same reason that random, non-notable crew do not need to be mentioned (ie: "Lt. So-and-so became first officer of USS Whatever for six months starting back when no-one-gives-a-crap. There was a ceremony. With party hats. And pizza.".) Just my 0.02¢ Cheers - wolf 13:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Can anyone help me find dates for keel laying, launching, completion, characteristics, a history of ownership and ports of registry for Galaxy F ( IMO number: 9048471, MMSI number: 371544000) since 1992? I need that information to include in the infobox for this article, in case it is confirmed that the two ships are the same. Pahlevun ( talk) 20:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Does anyone have a reference for the Code Letters carried by SS City of Boston? Reported in The Times of 14 March 1870 that a brig-rigged steamship, commercial code DGGC reported her machinery wanting repairs, date of report "30th(?) February 1870". Would suggest that 20th is the correct date. This fits in with other reports of 25 Feb that both her cylinders had burst. Note that CoB had three masts, but the loss of one may have given the appearance of a brig. Mjroots ( talk) 17:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
There is a requested move of an article within this project, at Talk:Clipper#Requested_move_28_November_2020.
Kablammo ( talk) 23:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Yesterday I made the page North West America for the ship of that name. I've made other ship pages whose page names have been appropriately italicized, but it had been a while and I forgot if I just used italic quotes when creating the page name, or something else—probably using italic quotes for the page title. Checking this wikiproject it looked like the "Infobox ship begin" template would take care of styling the page name with italics appropriately without any extra work on my part, so I made the page name without italics assuming the template would take care of it automatically.
But it didn't, unless I'm confused. Reading the template info and other pages about italicizing page names just left me confused. So I'm posting here in hopes that someone can set me straight on a couple questions:
1) How best to fix the North West America page so the title displays in italics.
2) How best to do this in the future, since I will probably make similar pages, someday. I think in the past I've created ship pages with the page name being ''North West America'' or ''Princess Royal'' (1778 sloop) (for Princess Royal (1778 sloop))
Thanks! Pfly ( talk) 01:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
infobox ship begin}}
. Article titles like
North West America do not follow that pattern so the infobox must be instructed how to format the title. Documentation for all of this is at
Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide § Title styling.{{
infobox ship begin}}
would work for North West America—it seemed to for
Margaret (1791 ship) and
Atahualpa (ship). I think I understand now though: it worked for those because of the disambig parts (I assume). Anyway, thanks again, I think understand better now.
Pfly (
talk)
05:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)At List of museum ships, does the "from" column indicate where the ship was built, or who it was built for? I only ask because the Japanese battleship Mikasa is listed as being "from" Japan, but it was actually built at Barrow-in-Furness in the UK, and PNS Hangor (S131) which is shown as "from" Pakistan but built in France. I asked this on the talk page back in September, but answer came there none. Alansplodge ( talk) 15:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard § Titanic conspiracy theories. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
21:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
There was a
tfd that intended to delete {{
sclass}}
and {{
sclass2}}
. These were no longer used because we finally got round to hyphenating all ship-class article titles. The {{
sclass-}}
and {{
sclass2-}}
templates were intended to be short-term templates that would no longer be needed once ship-class article titles were hyphenated. The time for these two to go away has come.
I have cloned {{sclass-}}
and {{sclass2-}}
into {{sclass}}
and {{sclass2}}
. {{sclass-}}
and {{sclass2-}}
are now redirects to {{sclass}}
and {{sclass2}}
. I have also tweaked the documentation to remove mention of {{sclass-}}
and {{sclass2-}}
.
When editing ship articles, change {{sclass-}}
and {{sclass2-}}
to {{sclass}}
and {{sclass2}}
as you encounter then. I have added {{sclass-}}
and {{sclass2-}}
to
Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects § Other templates so that any editor using that tool with general fixes turned on will automatically rename the templates.
Someday, when all of the {{sclass-}}
and {{sclass2-}}
templates have been renamed, the redirects should be deleted.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 18:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
This edit identified ship names without the definite article as the preferred form. Two days later, this edit refined that part of WP:NCSHIPS. Both of these edits were made in October 2012 and both as the result of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships)/Archive 4 § Use of "The" in front of ships' names. Another modification was made in February 2013 at this edit. I don't know if that change was discussed.
At this edit, the 'preferred' / 'not recommended' annotation was removed. Before removal, the annotation had stood for 7 years, 10 months, and 28 days or 7 years, 7 months, and 6 days (however you want to gauge it). Because that portion of NCSHIPS had been stable for so long, I reverted noting the discussion mentioned above.
My revert was reverted. I'll not play that game. I believe that the revert of my revert should be overturned. After the seven-year-standing text is restored, we should discuss here to see if there is consensus to change the definite article advice.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 17:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I support the revert of Trappist the monk per the reasons given. As for the use of the definite article, I find its use clunky and tiresome to read, so support maintaining non-use as the "preferred" option. I also think it's important to maintain overall consistency, which is another reason for having a preferred option. However, per Davidships, its use nonetheless is almost unavoidable in certain circumstances, so a little flexibility in imposing the preferred usage is also not inappropriate. Gatoclass ( talk) 10:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
In all the above the conclusion appears to be, that with some exceptions, the use is allowable at the discretion of editors. Can that be agreed to? Or is this to be another "perpetual discussion" without conclusion — to carry on the fine drink comments — to age as was a smaller than giant casks of Port I once saw in Vila Nova de Gaia that was laid down before the United States declared independence with an aroma evident in that part of the bodega justifying its sparing use as ancient aroma and taste in the brand's finest products. Palmeira ( talk) 12:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
T::here is no place or need for the definite article in the title or infobox.
For some reason, RexxS has decided to attempt to force a result here, despite the fact that we haven't come to a conclusion, as far as I can tell. Interested editors are invited to keep flogging the horse here. Parsecboy ( talk) 15:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment: The definite article is not required anywhere when the ship prefix or model names are used, as with 'USS Enterprise', 'CVN-80', and 'Enterprise-A' (the letter A serves as an ordinal).
The definite article is required when referring to a particular ship's name when not using its prefix: "the Enterprise", "the Titanic".
The definite article is required, though with this example: "the CVN-80 vessel", where the definite article relates to the word vessel.
When, for example, comparing CVN-65 and CVN-80, then one can, for the sake of easier readability, use the 65 or the 80, if the items have been made known before, that both are CVN-xx. But such a construct is more informal, and should not be used everywhere.
"These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise..." refers to this Enterprise being a starship; moreover, the definite article here might:
On the unlikely occasion that the first an third points might not hold, then the rationale for "the Enterprise" would still apply, if then with an addition of the word starship.
HMS Queen Elizabeth goes without the definite article because of the prefix. If the prefix (HMS) is omitted, then the definite article should not be used in this case, because the word Queen serves in place of the prefix here. But it must be italicised. Therefore: "Queen Elizabeth sailed away".
Some confusion might arise with this:
The first being the monarch, the latter the ship. Apparently, it would even be grammatically correct.
But if we were to refer to the ship only by its name, then the definite article would apply with "the Elizabeth", or "the Victoria". In and of itself, it would not be grammatically incorrect, but I would discourage this use, if the name also contains a title, as it would be very, very informal, because the word Queen is omitted.
Otherwise, "the Elizabeth" and "the Victoria" would be reasonable, but only, if the ships' names would be standalone, and would not contain a title.
As soon as a title is included with a name, such as Miss Marple, or Sister Inviolata and Sister Euphemia, then the definite article is omitted.
Where the definite article is permitted and required, is this: "the USS Enterprise starship, "the HMS Queen Elizabeth battleship", "the HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier", and so on. - Mardus / talk 11:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Have avoided the definite article in all the ship articles I've written, but don't overly care if the guideline gets changed. However, would prefer that we avoid inconsistent approaches within any one article, and also the mass addition/deletion of definite articles via AWB or similar. Is it possible to approach this as we do with ENGVAR in cases where geographic origins aren't clear: that is, existing articles with a consistent style be maintained unless there's a specific reason to change? -- Euryalus ( talk) 21:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I also agree that there is no need for a rule. The one exception is for ships with a prefix beginning with HM; no definite article should precede that prefix when it is used as a prefix . Kablammo ( talk) 23:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
The search "includes a chronological list of all ships" currently produces 252 hits, e.g. List of ship commissionings in 1981 which says: "The list of ship commissionings in 1981 includes a chronological list of all ships commissioned in 1981." It's odd to claim "all" for a list that will never be complete and shouldn't be complete due to notability. The formulation has been used at least since 2005. Are there any objections to remove the word "all" from all these lists? PrimeHunter ( talk) 10:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
{{
Infobox ship career}}
so that it adds the article to a dated category (month and year taken from the value assigned to |Ship commissioned=
)?Comment - no list should claim to include "all ships", as that is an impossible task. Suggest "all" is replaced with "some" wherever it occurs. Mjroots ( talk) 19:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
and shouldn't be complete due to notability. That's one of the explicit purposes of lists - including items that aren't individually notable. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi there! Based on the discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Full rigged ship, I have submitted Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BattyBot 54. @ Chris the speller: wrote:
There are about a thousand articles that contain the parameter
Ship sail plan = Full rigged ship
but should be
Ship sail plan = Full-rigged ship
according to well-known dictionaries and common understanding of compound modifiers. About a hundred or so are unlinked, and it wouldn't hurt to link them while we're at it. There may or may not be spaces on either side of the equals sign.
If you have any questions or concerns about this bot request, your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BattyBot 54. Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 00:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
See Talk:Kanimbla / Kurra-Ba and Kosciusko - the article is currently about a pair of similar ships, I've suggested to @ Merbabu: that it be split into ones about each ship. I'm not sure what the norms are here. It would be useful if others could have a look and comment. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 17:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, if anyone has the time, I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Gneisenau/archive1, which hasn't drawn much attention thus far. Thanks! Parsecboy ( talk) 16:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
An article on a naval shipbuilding company is proposed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civmec (2nd nomination). I can understand reasoning behind first deletion due in concerns about notability, however as information has now been added that company will be building ships for the Royal Australian Navy, I believe the company is notable. Please provide feedback at proposed deletion page. Regards Newm30 ( talk) 11:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Concerns have been expressed by an editor about the validity of WP:SHIPSNOTCREWS on the talk page of this article. Interested editors are invited to comment Lyndaship ( talk) 18:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Does anybody know where Peterhead, as in the boat type, should link to? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 05:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Like me you may have found your notifications full of the results of Admiralty being moved to British Admiralty and replaced with disambiguation. This was on basis of brief discussion - two respondents to the move discussion. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 12:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)