![]() | 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 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 |
Hey all, I've got a bit of an interesting question. Should ship class articles be in the past or present tense when class members are still in existence but out of service?
For reference, the example that brought this up is the past tense in the North Carolina-class battleship article; the South Dakota class and Iowa class articles are the same. Each of those three classes still have ships afloat, but none are in service.
To me, past tense makes more sense because ship class articles are more about how the ships were designed than what is happening with them today. That said, I don't feel strongly either way. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Is there any rule of thumb on the notability of merchant vessels based on grt? Just wondering about whether I should bother looking for more sources. Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Civilian ships that are under 100 ft (30 m) in length or tonnage of less than 100.Lyndaship ( talk) 09:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, if you have time, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Deutschland-class battleship/archive1 could use additional reviewers to avoid it being archived. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy ( talk) 16:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Repulse and her consort
Prince of Wales were sunk by Japanese aircraft on 10 December 1941 when they attempted to intercept landings in
British Malaya."
User Sturmvogel_66 keeps insisting using 'consort' in the lead. Consort may be a nautical term for main escort, yet this does not appear in many other ship article leads or history. Why must it appear in
HMS Repulse (1916) ?
Is it so significant to point it as a consort? It fails to appear in
Sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse?
Reply here, no ping please.
BlueD954 (
talk)
05:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Not clear what point BlueD954 is trying to make here. He removed the word from this article, but had just gone on a edit-spree, adding the word to at least 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 other articles. Is this all just soapboxing to make some kind of a point?? Further, he states he's retired, refuses to respond to any posts, but is busy editing a bunch of tv articles. Isn't some effective talk page engagement required here? - wolf 10:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
G'day all, does anyone have access to Jordan, John; Preston, Antony; Dent, Stephen (2009). "The Training Ship Jadran". Warship 2009. Conway: 56–62. ISBN 9781844860890.? Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
There's an odd error with {{ 2021 shipwrecks}}. It displays fine when viewing the template, but when viewing it as part of an article there's a stray "1=" after X-Press Pearl. I can't see any reason why this should happen. Mjroots ( talk) 14:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
A question has arisen over the scope of these categories (i.e.,
Category:1860s ships). I've understood these to be organizational categories that exist either for decades that don't have enough ships launched to warrant individual years (as in the case of
Category:1630s ships) or in the case of ships we don't have a specific launch date. Recently, an IP editor has started adding these categories to ship classes, and I've been reverting them on the basis that the categories are for ships, not classes. Sturmvogel 66 questioned this on my talk page and pointed out that many of the decade categories already have classes in them and suggested we discuss this more broadly here. Thoughts?
Parsecboy (
talk)
08:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
The date given in DANFS appears to be highly unlikely based on the transcribed log of USS Denver and histories of the two escorts, Lansdowne and Woodworth. See Talk:USS Majaba (AG-43) for details of why 7 November does not add up giving the activities of those ships on that date. Majaba was obscure except for the torpedoing. I am attempting to pin down a date using other ships in the vicinity, Most simply do not mention Majaba. That includes the tug USS Bobolink that was involved in the salvage which is not mentioned in that vessel's DANFS history. The 7 November date is used in an account of SeaBees but may be derivative from the DANFS material. Does anyone have or have access to sources that could pin the date that would not be derived from the questionable DANFS? Or, other eyes may see the reasons I question that date as being not valid. Particularly my not seeing the movements in the Denver log as being of a mobile vessel, not a hulk with engine and boilers destroyed and no mention of towing vessels in the log. Palmeira ( talk) 13:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Resolved and fixed. I lost track of "Novembers" so to speak. Finding the Nimitz "Gray Book" message and entry dates confirmed the 7 November 1942 date (as well as adding a bit of detail) got me on the right track realizing I'd mixed the Denver log November 1943 events. Palmeira ( talk) 15:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:GSI Mariner#Linking to list of Ship launches in 1971 which editors may wish to comment on Lyndaship ( talk) 18:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
As this appears to be a MOS:UL and a WP:MOBILE issue, there are various options open to us. I have listed three options below. It is entirely possible that there is something I've missed, so I'll not object to further proposals being put forward. Mjroots ( talk) 08:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Links to relevant lists to be made via the relevant field in ship infoboxes, as per the RMS Magdalena (1948) article which I have edited to act as an example of this method. This would not affect also linking via categories of navboxes.
Put launch by year list in "See also" to avoid the "Easter egg" issue. If a reader has any interest in seeing all the varied ships launched in a year they can do so.
I've just done a bit of major surgery to Wale. The Oxford Companion to Ships & the Sea (previous reference) does seem to have some horrible nonsense in it. What the article needs now is some good example of how the wale was used as a major structural component in shipbuilding. I am thinking of various mediaeval ships, right through to Napoleonic War vessels (and also USS Constitution). (Incidentally, neither HMS Victory nor USS Constitution say much about the hull structure.) Does anyone have sources that would enable them to add a bit to Wale? Even a good cross-sectional diagram would help.
Any thoughts? ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 20:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
There are numbers missing. Numbers are:
UB-134,135,137,138,139,140,141,146,147,151,152 and 153.
Are they not exist ? German navy never made these submarine in WWI ?
201 Type UB III Submarine planned , is it true ? Some of them don't have name when it's built ? 155 is the last number used in UB U-boat ?
Thank you.-- Comrade John ( talk) 15:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
G'day, has anyone had any joy getting an infobox image of a ship using a non-free-use rationale through GAN or FAC image reviews? I have an article at GA which I'd like to nominate for higher assessment, but while I've used NFURs for infobox images for biographies, I've never done it for a ship, and I cannot find a freely licensed image of the ship in question (the pretty obscure Yugoslav admiralty yacht and gunboat Beli Orao). An example of an NFUR that has been successfully used would be very helpful. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 11:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone know anything about a vessel called Ranger that apparently did salvage work in 1917? This involved lifting a 206 GRT barquentine that had sunk in the entrance to Newlyn and moving her to an inside berth. The salvaged vessel still had some or all of her cargo of coal on board (as the cargo was bought along with the wreck). My source refers to "the famous Ranger". The salvaged vessel was Waterwitch (1871) which should have an article shortly. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 20:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Found this picture on the Liverpool maritime museum site. It appears to have the incorrect date of build (presumably someone read across the lines wrongly in Lloyd's Register). Seems to have the same layout as other pictures of the ship in a salvage role - she seems to have had an upper deck removed, but all the portholes remain in the same place as far as I can tell, and the photos scale correctly if you use the height of a person as a measure. Not 100% sure it is free to use as it is undated, and probably of the ship in later trim. Picture quality is not good. Any thoughts? ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 21:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, some ships certainly have varied careers, don't they? I present MV Missourian (1921), which started off as a cargo ship and was rebuilt post-WWII as a passenger ship. There are a few gaps which need filling - service at Capitaine Potié, Code Letters under Italian and Saudi service, and her IMO number. Lyndaship, can you check Miramar for the latter please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots ( talk • contribs) 19:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Got to get to other, real world, things but a quick check of Pacific Marine Review for 1921 & 1922 gives an article, "The Motorships Californian and Missourian", that might be of some interest. So might the 1922 issue's "Two New All-American Motorships" and dates & characteristics in shipyard report showing keel Feb. 10, 1921 and launch date], engine photo and "Sea Trials of Motorship Missourian with data and photos. Palmeira ( talk) 14:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
This ship illustrates the fact that ship's stories often tell much larger stories than just what we ship lovers often see in the vessels themselves. The stories can be of tragedy and flight, as are so many of the ships associated with the refuge in Australia after the Japanese breach of the Malay Barrier. 's Jacob was just one and some of those stories were truly tragic as ships fleeing Singapore were caught. This one tells the story of trade, and if one follows the thread of the change from triangular trans Atlantic to Pacific to inter coastal runs one finds the turmoil in world shipping between the wars. Then there is the story of the post World War II emigration from Europe to new lands. More than one I've worked on, grand old liners in some cases, were part of the large exodus to such places as Australia. Sometimes we focus on the ship and its character but neglect to mention or link to those much larger stories. Palmeira ( talk) 13:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I've never seen this before. Two different naval ships with the same name and pennant number: SLNS Sayurala (2016) and SLNS Sayurala (P623). I suspect this is a mistake, but every source in both articles is dead so it's hard to check. GA-RT-22 ( talk) 15:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, I was reading about the IRINS Makran since it was in the news recently. The article lede calls it a "sea base", but the wikilink for that term (and "Expeditionary Sea Base" in the infobox) link to Expeditionary Transfer Dock, and I'm reasonably sure this Iranian ship doesn't "provid[e] the US Navy with the capability to perform large-scale logistics movements". Is there an existing article on the general ship type, not exclusive to the US Navy, that I may have overlooked? If not, there would seem to be a need for one. I defer to you on how best to present the information in IRINS Makran and similar articles. -- BDD ( talk) 14:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Can anyone from the project have a look at Draft:ONE Apus and provide their feedback on the draft? Looking to know if you feel this would satisfy notability guidelines based on your experience with AfD discussions involving the same. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 20:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Do you guys think these are enough for submission into mainspace? Draft:Poseidonia (ship) / Draft:Posidonia (ship) / Draft:The Moorcock (ship) ? -- 67.70.27.180 ( talk) 03:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
My first crack at a sailing ship. I would appreciate any constructive criticism as I've put this in the queue for GAN. Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 07:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
The article page for HMS Albion (1842) states it is a B class article (which it clearly isn't), but on the talk page both ratings are Start. Anyone come across that before? Martocticvs ( talk) 07:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Popular pages-- Coin945 ( talk) 06:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Way back in April 2020, there was this brief discussion here which referred to Template talk:Infobox ship begin § Remove colons, add bolding.
As part of that second discussion, I tweaked {{
Infobox ship career/sandbox}}
, {{
Infobox ship characteristics/sandbox}}
, and {{
Infobox ship class overview/sandbox}}
. I then forgot about it until the discussion was closed. I could have simply updated the live templates from their sandboxen. I chose not to do that. Instead, I have migrated those template sandboxen to
Lua and coded them in
Module:WPSHIPS utilities/sandbox.
For the most part, there is little that is obviously different between the live and sandbox versions of the templates. Examples and explanations of the differences are at Template:Infobox ship begin/testcases.
Without objections, I shall update {{
Infobox ship career}}
, {{
Infobox ship characteristics}}
, {{
Infobox ship class overview}}
, and
Module:WPSHIPS utilities.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 16:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I thought about putting this in the article talk page but wasn't sure anyone would ever see it. I don't think the name of this ship article is correct in any regard. According to Winfield and Colledge the ship was purchased by the Royal Navy in 1781 and commissioned by January 1782, surely making the date incorrect? Furthermore the ship was named Berwick before its acquisition by the RN and for the first half of its service; should the article not come under the original name of the ship even if it was more famous under its later name? I'd appreciate any comments, I could be completely wrong for all I know! Many thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk) 13:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SS Ben H. Miller. Spokoyni ( talk) 10:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I have contacted the publisher E. S. Mittler & Sohn regarding the copyrights of the maps in the „Krieg zur See 1914-1918” series, exactly those which were drawn by a cartograph named Herzog, about him are no data available. In his answer – in April of this year – the business manager of the publisher explained, that the archive of the publisher was completely destroyed at the end of World War II and they have no information about the cartograph either. Even no date of death is known. However, about the uploading of the maps and diagrams of the books into WikimediaCommons he also explained, that „there is no objection on behalf of the publisher” (verlagsseitig keine Einwendungen), but they do not know whether there is a third party involved with copyright claims, and if so, they do not have any impact on those.
Much of the Krieg zur See-series is to be read online. They are listed and linked on the German Wikipedia-article Marinearchiv under "Marinearchiv als Quelle"/"Amtliche Druckwerke". My intention – at first – is to upload the cards about the Battle off Heligoland, they are to be find in the first voulme of „Krieg in der Nordsee”:
Can someone help me to have these cards get uploaded on Commons? I can’t judge whether it is possible right now or not.-- Andreas ( talk) 12:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I have uploaded one of the images ( Die Gefechte in der Deutschen Bucht am 28. August 1914). Please check it and help when I made something wrong. -- Andreas ( talk) 13:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for helping me, but I do not understand why the former resolution with only 2,68 MB had to be transformed to 88 KB. With this current resolution the words of the explanations on the map can't be read.-- Andreas ( talk) 11:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Recently @ Heliastes21: created SY Hildegarde and SY Hiawatha, assumedly split off from SY Hildegarde and SY Hiawatha, and then WP:PRODed the later article claiming it was no longer needed due to the two new articles. I removed the prod because either it should have been kept as one article, or the splitting was correct and we need attribution per WP:PROSPLIT and the later article should redirect to one of the newer articles instead of being deleted. Since I do not have much experience with this WikiProject or the scope of its articles, I would appreciate any second opinions on the matter. Thank you, Aspects ( talk) 16:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Apparenty the Plimsoll Ship Data website was moved, meaning that many links are now broken and need to be corrected like this. The number after pdfs/ will be anything from 30 to 45, and the same as the two digit number prefixing a or b after the next / . Is this a task a bot can handle? Mjroots ( talk) 08:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
http://www.plimsollshipdata.org/pdffile.php?name=45a1071.pdf
https://plimsoll.southampton.gov.uk/shipdata/pdfs/45/45a1071.pdf
45a1071.pdf
is unchanged. But you also changed this:
http://www.plimsollshipdata.org/pdffile.php?name=43b0304.pdf
https://plimsoll.southampton.gov.uk/shipdata/pdfs/43/43b1232.pdf
|archive-url=<old-style-url>
will be skipped because, presumably, the archived snapshot is correct. Report any problems with the conversion here.|archive-url=
parameters and these three which, for whatever reason, I was not able to make sense of:
A related question (but which might affect the script). As what we see is a scan of a page of a book, just as we see it in the book itself, should not the 'publisher' be Lloyd's Register of Shipping? Or is that usurped by the portal which we happen to use to read it? If it is the latter, it should probably now read Southampton City Council as "plimsollshipdata.org" seems to be no longer functioning. Davidships ( talk) 01:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
. There are probably as many forms of templated and non-templated Lloyd's references as there are editors who place them. So my recommendation is to create a {{
cite plimsoll}}
template that requires only the filename to produce an acceptably formatted citation. A follow-on benefit to this is that next time, and there will likely be a next time, it is necessary to change the Plimsoll url, it gets done in one place and not in hundreds of places.I have hacked {{
cite plimsoll}}
. This template:
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
and supports all of the parameters that that template supports|filename=
which is the last bit after the last /
in the url|date=
from |filename=
|ship-name=
– the name of the ship as listed in LR|lr-number=
– the Numero d'Ordre or 'No. in Book' number from the leftmost column|guide=
– guidewords from the upper corner of the page in lieu of page numbers|subtitle=
– this parameter takes a keyword (1–3 uppercase-characters) that represents the subtitle. There are several common 'subtitles' used in currently existing LR citations. After a brief search, I found a handful; if you find others (top of the LR page), let me know. The subtitles that I found, with their associated keywords, are:
C
→ Chalutiers &c.NV
→ Navires a VoilesNVM
→ Navires a Vapeur et a MoteursSM
→ Steamers & MotorshipsSV
→ Sailing VesselsExample of a fully populated template:
{{cite plimsoll |ship-name=Herbert N. Edwards |lr-number=57979 |subtitle=C |guide=HEN-HEU |filename=30a0310.pdf}}
minimal implementation:
{{cite plimsoll |filename=30a0310.pdf}}
there is also crude error handling:
{{cite plimsoll |filename=30a0310}}
Anything missing? Anything not needed? Other comments? — Trappist the monk ( talk) 18:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
|subtitle=F
:
{{cite plimsoll |filename=44a0842.pdf |subtitle=F |ship-name=Empire Highway}}
|subtitle=F
, date should be constrained to the single date defined by the first two digits of the |filename=
.|subtitle=F
, template does not calculate a two-year date range.|lr-number=
to be the 'No. in Book' or 'Numero d'Ordre' because it is sequential, top-of-page-to-bottom, and printed in a larger font so is easier for a reader to find. This template only covers the period of 1930–1945 so whatever numbers were invented after that period are not relevant to this template.{{cite plimsoll |filename=44a0843.pdf |subtitle=R |shipname=Empire Sailor}}
|lr-number=
because the purpose of a citation is to help readers verify the text in our articles – the Numero d'Ordre and 'No. in Book' are helpful because they are sequential where as the Numero Officiel and Official No. are anything but sequential. I think that the template parameter name should remind editors which number is appropriate. I don't think that |number=
does that.|subtitle=R
needs adding to the documentation. I can see that it is possible to confuse the numbers, so I won't press the issue.
Mjroots (
talk)
18:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
|subtitle=C
-
Trawlers &c.]
Mjroots (
talk)
18:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
30a0311
30
– first year of a two-year range; in this case, 1930–1931a
– volume; a
volume I; b
volume II0311
– page number; first page is 0001
; even-numbered pages have French subtitle; odd-numbered pages have English subtitlelr-number
is 57996) →
30a0311 (first lr-number
is 57997)|subtitle=
? Because editors seem to have used the French or English according to the page that holds the ship-of-interest's information, {{
cite plimsoll}}
should probably maintain that distinction. I'm thinking that I will tweak the template so that it uses the odd / even page number to ensure the selection of the proper English or French heading as the subtitle. When an editor sets |filename=30a0311
(odd: English) and |subtitle=C
(meaning: Chalutiers &c.), the template will use the English heading: Trawlers &c. And, of course, the other way round for |subtitle=T
.|date=
to an individual year.|subtitle=T
→ Trawlers &c.; doc tweaked to add |subtitle=R
and |subtitle=T
.|lr-number=
if you so choose. I added it because the quality of the Register scans is significantly less than ideal so any aid to locating the correct ship seems worth having. Additionally, not all ships have names in the Nom du Navire / Steamer's Name column; see for example 57990 and 57991 on
this page – presumably Heron.I came across Combined gas or gas randomly as an unreferenced page. I added one reference, but couldn't find a good overview of the topic (other than in pages that copied Wikipedia). All of {{ Combined-marine-propulsion}} has similar problems. How should one find sources? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
MS Viking Grace was lately reassessed from Stub-class to C-class. The template on the talk page was edited to show the class as C. However, at Talk:MS Viking Grace, the rendered template shows the class as Start. What is causing this? JIP | Talk 16:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I've put a note on Talk:SS Absaroka regarding the post 1946 history of the ship. I've spent a bit of time trying to track down Lloyd's and other sources for the names after sale to the "Greek government" that is pretty solidly referenced. The only hint so far is an interesting one. A number of these old ships I've worked on ended up in the emigration/immigration business with more than one being with an Italian or Greek company. The Greek companies were very active out of Greece and the Balkans with destinations in Australia and the Americas. I do not have a "library" of sources regarding that activity, only running into it incidentally, so anyone with experience and sources there could possibly find an interesting history for this ship. As an aside, here is another loss of the old Plimsol search capability where names associated with tonnage and launch dates could be used with ranges to help locate "hits" in Lloyd's. Searches using the current capability gave good hits for Absaroka and none for the other names in my brief attempts. Palmeira ( talk) 15:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, there's a FAC pending at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Liberté-class battleship/archive1 that could use some reviewers to avoid being archived. If you have a minute to spare, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 23:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
USS Iowa (BB-61) is scheduled to be today's featured article on 27 August. A minor issue has been identified at WT:TFA which members of this WP might be able to address. Mjroots ( talk) 14:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I've created a new template, {{
USV}}
, analogous to {{
USS}}
to handle the USN vessels and the vessels of the
Ghost Fleet Overlord. The docs could use improving though.
Toddst1 (
talk)
23:59, 17 July 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 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 |
Hey all, I've got a bit of an interesting question. Should ship class articles be in the past or present tense when class members are still in existence but out of service?
For reference, the example that brought this up is the past tense in the North Carolina-class battleship article; the South Dakota class and Iowa class articles are the same. Each of those three classes still have ships afloat, but none are in service.
To me, past tense makes more sense because ship class articles are more about how the ships were designed than what is happening with them today. That said, I don't feel strongly either way. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Is there any rule of thumb on the notability of merchant vessels based on grt? Just wondering about whether I should bother looking for more sources. Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Civilian ships that are under 100 ft (30 m) in length or tonnage of less than 100.Lyndaship ( talk) 09:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, if you have time, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Deutschland-class battleship/archive1 could use additional reviewers to avoid it being archived. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy ( talk) 16:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Repulse and her consort
Prince of Wales were sunk by Japanese aircraft on 10 December 1941 when they attempted to intercept landings in
British Malaya."
User Sturmvogel_66 keeps insisting using 'consort' in the lead. Consort may be a nautical term for main escort, yet this does not appear in many other ship article leads or history. Why must it appear in
HMS Repulse (1916) ?
Is it so significant to point it as a consort? It fails to appear in
Sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse?
Reply here, no ping please.
BlueD954 (
talk)
05:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Not clear what point BlueD954 is trying to make here. He removed the word from this article, but had just gone on a edit-spree, adding the word to at least 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 other articles. Is this all just soapboxing to make some kind of a point?? Further, he states he's retired, refuses to respond to any posts, but is busy editing a bunch of tv articles. Isn't some effective talk page engagement required here? - wolf 10:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
G'day all, does anyone have access to Jordan, John; Preston, Antony; Dent, Stephen (2009). "The Training Ship Jadran". Warship 2009. Conway: 56–62. ISBN 9781844860890.? Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
There's an odd error with {{ 2021 shipwrecks}}. It displays fine when viewing the template, but when viewing it as part of an article there's a stray "1=" after X-Press Pearl. I can't see any reason why this should happen. Mjroots ( talk) 14:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
A question has arisen over the scope of these categories (i.e.,
Category:1860s ships). I've understood these to be organizational categories that exist either for decades that don't have enough ships launched to warrant individual years (as in the case of
Category:1630s ships) or in the case of ships we don't have a specific launch date. Recently, an IP editor has started adding these categories to ship classes, and I've been reverting them on the basis that the categories are for ships, not classes. Sturmvogel 66 questioned this on my talk page and pointed out that many of the decade categories already have classes in them and suggested we discuss this more broadly here. Thoughts?
Parsecboy (
talk)
08:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
The date given in DANFS appears to be highly unlikely based on the transcribed log of USS Denver and histories of the two escorts, Lansdowne and Woodworth. See Talk:USS Majaba (AG-43) for details of why 7 November does not add up giving the activities of those ships on that date. Majaba was obscure except for the torpedoing. I am attempting to pin down a date using other ships in the vicinity, Most simply do not mention Majaba. That includes the tug USS Bobolink that was involved in the salvage which is not mentioned in that vessel's DANFS history. The 7 November date is used in an account of SeaBees but may be derivative from the DANFS material. Does anyone have or have access to sources that could pin the date that would not be derived from the questionable DANFS? Or, other eyes may see the reasons I question that date as being not valid. Particularly my not seeing the movements in the Denver log as being of a mobile vessel, not a hulk with engine and boilers destroyed and no mention of towing vessels in the log. Palmeira ( talk) 13:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Resolved and fixed. I lost track of "Novembers" so to speak. Finding the Nimitz "Gray Book" message and entry dates confirmed the 7 November 1942 date (as well as adding a bit of detail) got me on the right track realizing I'd mixed the Denver log November 1943 events. Palmeira ( talk) 15:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:GSI Mariner#Linking to list of Ship launches in 1971 which editors may wish to comment on Lyndaship ( talk) 18:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
As this appears to be a MOS:UL and a WP:MOBILE issue, there are various options open to us. I have listed three options below. It is entirely possible that there is something I've missed, so I'll not object to further proposals being put forward. Mjroots ( talk) 08:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Links to relevant lists to be made via the relevant field in ship infoboxes, as per the RMS Magdalena (1948) article which I have edited to act as an example of this method. This would not affect also linking via categories of navboxes.
Put launch by year list in "See also" to avoid the "Easter egg" issue. If a reader has any interest in seeing all the varied ships launched in a year they can do so.
I've just done a bit of major surgery to Wale. The Oxford Companion to Ships & the Sea (previous reference) does seem to have some horrible nonsense in it. What the article needs now is some good example of how the wale was used as a major structural component in shipbuilding. I am thinking of various mediaeval ships, right through to Napoleonic War vessels (and also USS Constitution). (Incidentally, neither HMS Victory nor USS Constitution say much about the hull structure.) Does anyone have sources that would enable them to add a bit to Wale? Even a good cross-sectional diagram would help.
Any thoughts? ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 20:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
There are numbers missing. Numbers are:
UB-134,135,137,138,139,140,141,146,147,151,152 and 153.
Are they not exist ? German navy never made these submarine in WWI ?
201 Type UB III Submarine planned , is it true ? Some of them don't have name when it's built ? 155 is the last number used in UB U-boat ?
Thank you.-- Comrade John ( talk) 15:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
G'day, has anyone had any joy getting an infobox image of a ship using a non-free-use rationale through GAN or FAC image reviews? I have an article at GA which I'd like to nominate for higher assessment, but while I've used NFURs for infobox images for biographies, I've never done it for a ship, and I cannot find a freely licensed image of the ship in question (the pretty obscure Yugoslav admiralty yacht and gunboat Beli Orao). An example of an NFUR that has been successfully used would be very helpful. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 11:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone know anything about a vessel called Ranger that apparently did salvage work in 1917? This involved lifting a 206 GRT barquentine that had sunk in the entrance to Newlyn and moving her to an inside berth. The salvaged vessel still had some or all of her cargo of coal on board (as the cargo was bought along with the wreck). My source refers to "the famous Ranger". The salvaged vessel was Waterwitch (1871) which should have an article shortly. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 20:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Found this picture on the Liverpool maritime museum site. It appears to have the incorrect date of build (presumably someone read across the lines wrongly in Lloyd's Register). Seems to have the same layout as other pictures of the ship in a salvage role - she seems to have had an upper deck removed, but all the portholes remain in the same place as far as I can tell, and the photos scale correctly if you use the height of a person as a measure. Not 100% sure it is free to use as it is undated, and probably of the ship in later trim. Picture quality is not good. Any thoughts? ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 21:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, some ships certainly have varied careers, don't they? I present MV Missourian (1921), which started off as a cargo ship and was rebuilt post-WWII as a passenger ship. There are a few gaps which need filling - service at Capitaine Potié, Code Letters under Italian and Saudi service, and her IMO number. Lyndaship, can you check Miramar for the latter please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots ( talk • contribs) 19:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Got to get to other, real world, things but a quick check of Pacific Marine Review for 1921 & 1922 gives an article, "The Motorships Californian and Missourian", that might be of some interest. So might the 1922 issue's "Two New All-American Motorships" and dates & characteristics in shipyard report showing keel Feb. 10, 1921 and launch date], engine photo and "Sea Trials of Motorship Missourian with data and photos. Palmeira ( talk) 14:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
This ship illustrates the fact that ship's stories often tell much larger stories than just what we ship lovers often see in the vessels themselves. The stories can be of tragedy and flight, as are so many of the ships associated with the refuge in Australia after the Japanese breach of the Malay Barrier. 's Jacob was just one and some of those stories were truly tragic as ships fleeing Singapore were caught. This one tells the story of trade, and if one follows the thread of the change from triangular trans Atlantic to Pacific to inter coastal runs one finds the turmoil in world shipping between the wars. Then there is the story of the post World War II emigration from Europe to new lands. More than one I've worked on, grand old liners in some cases, were part of the large exodus to such places as Australia. Sometimes we focus on the ship and its character but neglect to mention or link to those much larger stories. Palmeira ( talk) 13:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I've never seen this before. Two different naval ships with the same name and pennant number: SLNS Sayurala (2016) and SLNS Sayurala (P623). I suspect this is a mistake, but every source in both articles is dead so it's hard to check. GA-RT-22 ( talk) 15:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, I was reading about the IRINS Makran since it was in the news recently. The article lede calls it a "sea base", but the wikilink for that term (and "Expeditionary Sea Base" in the infobox) link to Expeditionary Transfer Dock, and I'm reasonably sure this Iranian ship doesn't "provid[e] the US Navy with the capability to perform large-scale logistics movements". Is there an existing article on the general ship type, not exclusive to the US Navy, that I may have overlooked? If not, there would seem to be a need for one. I defer to you on how best to present the information in IRINS Makran and similar articles. -- BDD ( talk) 14:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Can anyone from the project have a look at Draft:ONE Apus and provide their feedback on the draft? Looking to know if you feel this would satisfy notability guidelines based on your experience with AfD discussions involving the same. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 20:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Do you guys think these are enough for submission into mainspace? Draft:Poseidonia (ship) / Draft:Posidonia (ship) / Draft:The Moorcock (ship) ? -- 67.70.27.180 ( talk) 03:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
My first crack at a sailing ship. I would appreciate any constructive criticism as I've put this in the queue for GAN. Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 07:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
The article page for HMS Albion (1842) states it is a B class article (which it clearly isn't), but on the talk page both ratings are Start. Anyone come across that before? Martocticvs ( talk) 07:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Popular pages-- Coin945 ( talk) 06:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Way back in April 2020, there was this brief discussion here which referred to Template talk:Infobox ship begin § Remove colons, add bolding.
As part of that second discussion, I tweaked {{
Infobox ship career/sandbox}}
, {{
Infobox ship characteristics/sandbox}}
, and {{
Infobox ship class overview/sandbox}}
. I then forgot about it until the discussion was closed. I could have simply updated the live templates from their sandboxen. I chose not to do that. Instead, I have migrated those template sandboxen to
Lua and coded them in
Module:WPSHIPS utilities/sandbox.
For the most part, there is little that is obviously different between the live and sandbox versions of the templates. Examples and explanations of the differences are at Template:Infobox ship begin/testcases.
Without objections, I shall update {{
Infobox ship career}}
, {{
Infobox ship characteristics}}
, {{
Infobox ship class overview}}
, and
Module:WPSHIPS utilities.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 16:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I thought about putting this in the article talk page but wasn't sure anyone would ever see it. I don't think the name of this ship article is correct in any regard. According to Winfield and Colledge the ship was purchased by the Royal Navy in 1781 and commissioned by January 1782, surely making the date incorrect? Furthermore the ship was named Berwick before its acquisition by the RN and for the first half of its service; should the article not come under the original name of the ship even if it was more famous under its later name? I'd appreciate any comments, I could be completely wrong for all I know! Many thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk) 13:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SS Ben H. Miller. Spokoyni ( talk) 10:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I have contacted the publisher E. S. Mittler & Sohn regarding the copyrights of the maps in the „Krieg zur See 1914-1918” series, exactly those which were drawn by a cartograph named Herzog, about him are no data available. In his answer – in April of this year – the business manager of the publisher explained, that the archive of the publisher was completely destroyed at the end of World War II and they have no information about the cartograph either. Even no date of death is known. However, about the uploading of the maps and diagrams of the books into WikimediaCommons he also explained, that „there is no objection on behalf of the publisher” (verlagsseitig keine Einwendungen), but they do not know whether there is a third party involved with copyright claims, and if so, they do not have any impact on those.
Much of the Krieg zur See-series is to be read online. They are listed and linked on the German Wikipedia-article Marinearchiv under "Marinearchiv als Quelle"/"Amtliche Druckwerke". My intention – at first – is to upload the cards about the Battle off Heligoland, they are to be find in the first voulme of „Krieg in der Nordsee”:
Can someone help me to have these cards get uploaded on Commons? I can’t judge whether it is possible right now or not.-- Andreas ( talk) 12:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I have uploaded one of the images ( Die Gefechte in der Deutschen Bucht am 28. August 1914). Please check it and help when I made something wrong. -- Andreas ( talk) 13:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for helping me, but I do not understand why the former resolution with only 2,68 MB had to be transformed to 88 KB. With this current resolution the words of the explanations on the map can't be read.-- Andreas ( talk) 11:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Recently @ Heliastes21: created SY Hildegarde and SY Hiawatha, assumedly split off from SY Hildegarde and SY Hiawatha, and then WP:PRODed the later article claiming it was no longer needed due to the two new articles. I removed the prod because either it should have been kept as one article, or the splitting was correct and we need attribution per WP:PROSPLIT and the later article should redirect to one of the newer articles instead of being deleted. Since I do not have much experience with this WikiProject or the scope of its articles, I would appreciate any second opinions on the matter. Thank you, Aspects ( talk) 16:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Apparenty the Plimsoll Ship Data website was moved, meaning that many links are now broken and need to be corrected like this. The number after pdfs/ will be anything from 30 to 45, and the same as the two digit number prefixing a or b after the next / . Is this a task a bot can handle? Mjroots ( talk) 08:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
http://www.plimsollshipdata.org/pdffile.php?name=45a1071.pdf
https://plimsoll.southampton.gov.uk/shipdata/pdfs/45/45a1071.pdf
45a1071.pdf
is unchanged. But you also changed this:
http://www.plimsollshipdata.org/pdffile.php?name=43b0304.pdf
https://plimsoll.southampton.gov.uk/shipdata/pdfs/43/43b1232.pdf
|archive-url=<old-style-url>
will be skipped because, presumably, the archived snapshot is correct. Report any problems with the conversion here.|archive-url=
parameters and these three which, for whatever reason, I was not able to make sense of:
A related question (but which might affect the script). As what we see is a scan of a page of a book, just as we see it in the book itself, should not the 'publisher' be Lloyd's Register of Shipping? Or is that usurped by the portal which we happen to use to read it? If it is the latter, it should probably now read Southampton City Council as "plimsollshipdata.org" seems to be no longer functioning. Davidships ( talk) 01:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
. There are probably as many forms of templated and non-templated Lloyd's references as there are editors who place them. So my recommendation is to create a {{
cite plimsoll}}
template that requires only the filename to produce an acceptably formatted citation. A follow-on benefit to this is that next time, and there will likely be a next time, it is necessary to change the Plimsoll url, it gets done in one place and not in hundreds of places.I have hacked {{
cite plimsoll}}
. This template:
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
and supports all of the parameters that that template supports|filename=
which is the last bit after the last /
in the url|date=
from |filename=
|ship-name=
– the name of the ship as listed in LR|lr-number=
– the Numero d'Ordre or 'No. in Book' number from the leftmost column|guide=
– guidewords from the upper corner of the page in lieu of page numbers|subtitle=
– this parameter takes a keyword (1–3 uppercase-characters) that represents the subtitle. There are several common 'subtitles' used in currently existing LR citations. After a brief search, I found a handful; if you find others (top of the LR page), let me know. The subtitles that I found, with their associated keywords, are:
C
→ Chalutiers &c.NV
→ Navires a VoilesNVM
→ Navires a Vapeur et a MoteursSM
→ Steamers & MotorshipsSV
→ Sailing VesselsExample of a fully populated template:
{{cite plimsoll |ship-name=Herbert N. Edwards |lr-number=57979 |subtitle=C |guide=HEN-HEU |filename=30a0310.pdf}}
minimal implementation:
{{cite plimsoll |filename=30a0310.pdf}}
there is also crude error handling:
{{cite plimsoll |filename=30a0310}}
Anything missing? Anything not needed? Other comments? — Trappist the monk ( talk) 18:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
|subtitle=F
:
{{cite plimsoll |filename=44a0842.pdf |subtitle=F |ship-name=Empire Highway}}
|subtitle=F
, date should be constrained to the single date defined by the first two digits of the |filename=
.|subtitle=F
, template does not calculate a two-year date range.|lr-number=
to be the 'No. in Book' or 'Numero d'Ordre' because it is sequential, top-of-page-to-bottom, and printed in a larger font so is easier for a reader to find. This template only covers the period of 1930–1945 so whatever numbers were invented after that period are not relevant to this template.{{cite plimsoll |filename=44a0843.pdf |subtitle=R |shipname=Empire Sailor}}
|lr-number=
because the purpose of a citation is to help readers verify the text in our articles – the Numero d'Ordre and 'No. in Book' are helpful because they are sequential where as the Numero Officiel and Official No. are anything but sequential. I think that the template parameter name should remind editors which number is appropriate. I don't think that |number=
does that.|subtitle=R
needs adding to the documentation. I can see that it is possible to confuse the numbers, so I won't press the issue.
Mjroots (
talk)
18:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
|subtitle=C
-
Trawlers &c.]
Mjroots (
talk)
18:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
30a0311
30
– first year of a two-year range; in this case, 1930–1931a
– volume; a
volume I; b
volume II0311
– page number; first page is 0001
; even-numbered pages have French subtitle; odd-numbered pages have English subtitlelr-number
is 57996) →
30a0311 (first lr-number
is 57997)|subtitle=
? Because editors seem to have used the French or English according to the page that holds the ship-of-interest's information, {{
cite plimsoll}}
should probably maintain that distinction. I'm thinking that I will tweak the template so that it uses the odd / even page number to ensure the selection of the proper English or French heading as the subtitle. When an editor sets |filename=30a0311
(odd: English) and |subtitle=C
(meaning: Chalutiers &c.), the template will use the English heading: Trawlers &c. And, of course, the other way round for |subtitle=T
.|date=
to an individual year.|subtitle=T
→ Trawlers &c.; doc tweaked to add |subtitle=R
and |subtitle=T
.|lr-number=
if you so choose. I added it because the quality of the Register scans is significantly less than ideal so any aid to locating the correct ship seems worth having. Additionally, not all ships have names in the Nom du Navire / Steamer's Name column; see for example 57990 and 57991 on
this page – presumably Heron.I came across Combined gas or gas randomly as an unreferenced page. I added one reference, but couldn't find a good overview of the topic (other than in pages that copied Wikipedia). All of {{ Combined-marine-propulsion}} has similar problems. How should one find sources? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
MS Viking Grace was lately reassessed from Stub-class to C-class. The template on the talk page was edited to show the class as C. However, at Talk:MS Viking Grace, the rendered template shows the class as Start. What is causing this? JIP | Talk 16:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I've put a note on Talk:SS Absaroka regarding the post 1946 history of the ship. I've spent a bit of time trying to track down Lloyd's and other sources for the names after sale to the "Greek government" that is pretty solidly referenced. The only hint so far is an interesting one. A number of these old ships I've worked on ended up in the emigration/immigration business with more than one being with an Italian or Greek company. The Greek companies were very active out of Greece and the Balkans with destinations in Australia and the Americas. I do not have a "library" of sources regarding that activity, only running into it incidentally, so anyone with experience and sources there could possibly find an interesting history for this ship. As an aside, here is another loss of the old Plimsol search capability where names associated with tonnage and launch dates could be used with ranges to help locate "hits" in Lloyd's. Searches using the current capability gave good hits for Absaroka and none for the other names in my brief attempts. Palmeira ( talk) 15:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, there's a FAC pending at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Liberté-class battleship/archive1 that could use some reviewers to avoid being archived. If you have a minute to spare, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 23:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
USS Iowa (BB-61) is scheduled to be today's featured article on 27 August. A minor issue has been identified at WT:TFA which members of this WP might be able to address. Mjroots ( talk) 14:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I've created a new template, {{
USV}}
, analogous to {{
USS}}
to handle the USN vessels and the vessels of the
Ghost Fleet Overlord. The docs could use improving though.
Toddst1 (
talk)
23:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)