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 45 | ← | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | → | Archive 55 |
There seems to be a push at present to remove pennant number from ship articles: [1] USS La Jolla (SSN-701) to USS La Jolla, [2] USS Torsk (SS-423) to USS Torsk etc. This is being done under WP:PRECISE.
I do not see this as an improvement and believe that they should be reverted. This is not merely an anodyne disambiguator (as WP:PRECISE covers) it is the pennant number, as much a part of the name in service as the christened name. This should be preserved in the article title, even when not needed for disambiguation. Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
If there is only one ship of the name, it is wrong to disambiguate, per WP:PRECISE.On an aside, there was a discussion at WT:Article titles to change the disambiguation scheme for ship names which resolved in "change is needed--and the likely disambiguation will be the launch date" but effort seems to have stalled on the precise method. That RFC, archived here, should be reviewed, since it is clear that your opinion "the pennant number is part of the name" is not shared by all or even many. -- Izno ( talk) 12:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
"the big number on the bow/island" amuses me--I couldn't tell you what USS Missouri's number is, but I can clearly tell you it's a modern battleship (the one of which I know, anyway). That said, I've only been removing the hull number where the topic has no ambiguity.
Regarding the RFC linked above, since you seem to be arguing against the discussion therein, if you want to have another RFC to overturn the previous, that's your prerogative. My suggestion is that the generalist reader (being such) has no idea nor does he care about the hull number and instead remembers the type of ship at which he's looking ("aircraft carrier" and etc.). I haven't reviewed all of the material regarding disambiguation of ship names, but I'm still sitting here puzzled regarding that most other domains on Wikipedia can figure out how to disambiguate sensibly by the type of thing which is being discussed in the article (sometimes adding a date, which usually makes it sufficiently defined). -- Izno ( talk) 16:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Specialists, however, will know launch dates within a few years, if not the exact date, and that's more than enough to discriminate between the WWII-era HMS Daring and the two more modern ones. Which, BTW, is something that can't be done by the pennant numbers. Oh, and did you realize that pennant numbers aren't always stable? So the same ship, especially during WWII, could have two or more pennant numbers. They're not like USN hull numbers, which are generally quite stable, but then I'm not advocating for changing USN articles only RN and Commonwealth ones that use pennant numbers.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 03:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
If we get rid of hull numbers in the article title, I do think the number should appear somewhere in the article, and we need a clear guideline as to where. The first sentence of the lead seems appropriate. Is this documented anywhere? Kendall-K1 ( talk) 20:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Hey all, the US Naval History and Heritage Command has uploaded a veritable treasure trove of images to their new website, many of which are of non-US ships and are available in highish-quality TIFF files. However, many of these were not taken by US Navy employees, meaning that they are not automatically placed in the public domain; they were instead donated in the past and are marked on the website with "Copyright Owner: Naval History and Heritage Command" ( example).
I'm happy to report that they've told me in an email that "... much of our collection here is donated material. Once those materials are signed over to us, they become property of the U.S. Navy. At that time, our position is that they enter the public domain. Thus, you are allowed to use them." If anyone needs me to forward this to OTRS, I or Parsecboy have copies of the email. Go find your ships! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
If NHHS claims to be the copyright owner, that's good enough for me. Gatoclass ( talk) 18:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Both of these articles need deckplans covering the pre-WWII period and if possible the period that the SS Kaiser Wilhelm II was being used as a transport. And one other thing that needs clarification. The text for that article reads:
" USS Agamemnon was decommissioned in late August and turned over to the War Department for further use as a U.S. Army Transport. Laid up after the middle 1920s..." has anyone been able to find a source that gives exactly how long she was used as a transport prior to being mothballed?
Graham1973 ( talk) 09:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
This discussion, seeking consensus to reduce the width of WPMILHIST infoboxen may be of interest to members of this project.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 16:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm looking for overview sources the history of guns (Artillery) submarines: use, efficiency, results, tactics use, etc. What do you advise? -- Vyacheslav84 ( talk) 12:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
FYI, HSV-2 Swift, alleged sinking / current event. Some eyes might be useful there. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 21:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
The Naval Vessel Register has once again changed the layout for links to ships in the NVR database (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Archive_48#nvr for the discussion of the previous change). While the old NVR links still work, they link to pages that are no longer being updated. Fortunately the introduction of {{ NVR url}} and {{ NVR SC url}} after the previous change made fixing the problem simpler. For those interested, a discussion of the update to these two templates can be found at Template talk:NVR url. — RP88 ( talk) 07:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi all - I came across the article INS Shivalik, which is currently rated as a GA, but it doesn't come close to what I'd consider to be a GA ship article. Anybody else have an opinion? Parsecboy ( talk) 18:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm trying to confirm the identity of a ship listed in a news article. The news article is located here. From searching around a bit I'm guessing the ship listed in the news article is the Oseberg Ship. Wondering if others here agree or have any other ideas of which ship it is? Thanks for any help you can provide. Offnfopt (talk) 08:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
The List of Type T2 tankers has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots ( talk) 17:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I've had an idea for a competition to run during 2017 with the aim of improving and creating ship articles. Anyone interested in such a competition or helping run it? Mjroots ( talk) 13:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi all, an article I have up at FAC hasn't gotten much attention as of yet. I'd greatly appreciate it if any interested editors could take a look - the review is here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Mecklenburg/archive1. Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 14:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that Ship simulator redirects to Ship Simulator, a videogame. Shouldn't there be something for various ship simulations (like bridge simulators, lifeboat aboard ship evacuation sims, engine room simulators, etc) that are used for ship's crew training? (like flight simulator for aircraft) -- 65.94.171.217 ( talk) 07:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I have added some information about the previous career of the Norwegian royal yacht, HNoMY Norge, which was originally a private luxury yacht but had an interesting war with the British Royal Navy. I'm really not sure how to add her previous incarnations into the infobox, which at a glance, makes it look as though it has been a Norwegian ship from the word go. Any help would be appreciated. Alansplodge ( talk) 22:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
{{
Infobox ship career}}
templates into it, one after the other, for each of a ship's 'careers', for example:
Cutty Sark.Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_November_15#Ancient_and_medieval_ships Someone got upset over these cats. Brad ( talk) 04:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi all, have been reviewing "stub" articles for 2 weeks now and several were wrongly classed and really "start" or "C". Noticed that WP Africa is holding a "destubathon" and with 8000+ stubs in our project it may be a great initiative to do in the future. It'd be great to have consensus to kick-off this activity, and would be great that a WP member with experience manages the event (I neither have knowledge to implement nor time to manage). Kind regards, DPdH ( talk) 07:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
So I have this draft up at Draft:Baylander (IX-514) -- does this ship take a ship prefix? -- 65.94.171.217 ( talk) 04:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Just to let folks know, there's an article within our scope at AfD here. Parsecboy ( talk) 02:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I would like some clarification on the following matter. Per WP:SHIPMOS, is it best practice to keep things pertaining to the operational service life of a ship on its individual article, rather than its ship-class article? Antiochus the Great ( talk) 15:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Greetings WikiProject Ships/Archive 49 Members!
This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.
Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.
Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
There's a RM discussion under way at Palmers Shipbuilding and Iron Company, if anyone wants to weigh in. I initiated it, but am currently in two minds about it. Note that the "Ltd" element of the proposed move has already attracted negative comment (thanks Bradv and Huntster), with which I agree, so should I think be dropped – I would remove it from the RM template but don't want to mess with it or attract any bots. Any thoughts gratefully received. Nortonius ( talk) 14:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Dear fellow editors. A few weeks ago I deleted an addition to the article on HMS Belfast. I posted on the article's talk page explaining my deletion. Some time later the editor - User:Otaku155 - whose addition to the article I had deleted edited my talk page comments. I later reverted this change, further commenting that I thought it was inappropriate for an editor to change the content of another's talk page post (per WP:TPO). The other editor has now edited my comments a second time, restoring their edit of my first comment, deleted my second entirely, and stating their opinion (in what seem to me to be defensive terms) that my original comments were unwarranted. Not wishing to get into a tit-for-tat revert war, I am posting this here. I would be grateful for other editors' comments. IxK85 ( talk) 13:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Per this reliably sourced announcement, https://news.usni.org/2016/12/13/secnav-mabus-to-officially-designate-first-orp-boat-uss-district-of-columbia-ssbn-826 , Secretary Mabus will officially designate the USS Columbia as SSBN-826 tomorrow, USS Columbia (SSBN-826). Safiel ( talk) 01:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Could I get some eyes/comments over at this article and the talk page. Issue is regarding this good/long standing revision being gutted and replaced with a complete mess. Cheers. Antiochus the Great ( talk) 16:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm looking for a photo of kentledge weights that go into ships. Can anyone help? Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 02:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
The wreck of a "wooden sailing vessel", believed to be the Bristol Packet which stranded in 1808 off Minehead in the Bristol Channel, has recently been scheduled as an ancient monument (see Historic England listing). I think that makes it notable enough for an article, but I'm unsure what to call it. It seems unconnected with the Hayle and Bristol Steam Packet Company or Bristol General Steam Navigation Company which came later. Any exemplar articles about wrecks of sailing ships I could look at for inspiration?— Rod talk 08:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
An example could be King Philip (clipper). Regards Newm30 ( talk) 11:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
465 | Bristol Packet S 01 | W. Day | 249 | N.Eng P Tpsds |
6 | A. Harris | 15 | Du Lvrpl | A1 4 |
Entry number in register | Name of ship, vessel type (S denotes full-rigged ship), built 1801 | Captain | Tonnage, no other letters here denotes a two deck vessel | Place of building (New England, USA) Pine topsides |
Vessel in 6th year of her age | Owner | Draught when loaded | Surveyed at Dublin, registered at Liverpool | First class vessel, first quality materials Surveyed in April 1806 |
Thanks to all for help - the initial article is now at Bristol Packet (1801 ship). Further improvements obviously welcome. — Rod talk 10:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
There appears to be a serious issue with the referencing on the article for HMS Hydra (A144). While the article (which contains vast amounts of elaborate detail about the ship's career) has large number of citations, a lot of these appear to be simply photos, maps or descriptions of places where Hydra is said to have operated, with no mention of Hydra or her operations. Large chunks of the article are therefore unreferenced. Should the article be trimmed back to what can be verified? Nigel Ish ( talk) 21:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Over on Type 093 submarine, I and another editor have come into some disagreement over what sources are saying. I have taken my concerns to the talk page ( number of boats, proposal for handling variants) but do not expect fruitful discussion with the other editor (whom I strongly suspect to be a sockpuppet with whom I have had a poor working relationship with in the past.)
Analysis/opinions/comments from others on the issues would be most helpful. Thanks! - RovingPersonalityConstruct ( talk, contribs) 03:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
G'day all, the Spanish ship Fenix (1749) article has been listed for peer review. If anyone is interested in taking part in the review, the page can be found here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Spanish ship Fenix (1749)/archive1. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 15:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Dear wikiproject colleagues, I've recently created a navigation template for the "Santa Fe-class submarines" of the Argentine Navy, and need help to fix 2 problems in it:
I modeled existing templates, but obviously missed something... Will appreciate help and guidance to fix this ASAP. Thanks and Happy 2017, DPdH ( talk) 09:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion taking place on whether to mention the coal bunker fire theory in the main Titanic article or at RMS Titanic alternative theories. Interested editors are invited to join the conversation. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
My list of missing topics about vehicles is updated - Skysmith ( talk) 19:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
[4] and Talk:La Amistad#Flag. Your opinions will be apreciated. Thank you in advance. -- Nicola Romani ( talk) 15:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
There's a discussion about a move to Superliner on the Talk page. In ictu oculi ( talk) 09:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I've dropped Sailing faster than the wind from this project, since it's not about ships. I added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Sailing, where I felt it belonged. There is a discussion about the article's title at Talk:Sailing faster than the wind#Awkward title. User:HopsonRoad 13:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The WikiJournal of Science is a start-up academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's scientific content. It is part of a WikiJournal User Group that includes the flagship WikiJournal of Medicine. [1] [2]. Like Wiki.J.Med, it intends to bridge the academia-Wikipedia gap by encouraging contributions by non-Wikipedians, and by putting content through peer review before integrating it into Wikipedia. Since it is just starting out, it is looking for contributors in two main areas: Editors
Authors
If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.
|
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 10:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Anyone able to sort out this article. Seems to be about submarines in Pakistan navy yet to be built. And what are "SSP programmes"? Thanks — Iadmc ♫ talk 04:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I know almost nothing about ships and even less about all the complex technicalities of ship infoboxes, article title formats and even notability criteria. So if anyone wants to take on the SS Vauban stub that I've just created, I am sure it can be improved. And, if not, I don't mind if it is deleted. Sorry for the burden but I might learn something as I have it on my watchlist. - Sitush ( talk) 05:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Canadian Coast Guard modified Severn class motor lifeboat is there any alternative title for this article that would not be as lengthy? Brad ( talk) 21:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
OK. I'm going to close this out as resolved with Oppose and will update the talk page for the article. Thank you all for contributing! KNHaw (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but I wanted to do my due diligence before making changes to an article that might cause controversy. Given that this project was mentioned in the talk page for the article, I figured this would be a good place to make my intentions known.
So, the article ARA Suboficial Castillo (A-6) details how the vessel was originally known as the USS Takelma (ATF-113) for it's 50 year career in the US Navy. Later it was sold and is currently in service with the Argentine Navy as the ARA Suboficial Castillo (A-6), having a 24 year career there. The US name is a redirect to the main article using the Argentine name.
Guidance has been given under Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Ships_that_changed_name_or_nationality that "An article about a ship that changed name or nationality should be placed at the best-known name, with a redirect from the other name." As such, I propose that the US Navy name is more appropriate for the main article and the Argentine name for the redirect, given the time of service for both navies. Before I make this change, however, I want to open up the question for discussion.
I have posted this question in the article talk page as well as here in order to get feedback. Are there any concerns with my proposal? I plan on doing the work within the next week or so, so please let me know.
Thanks, KNHaw (talk) 05:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm having troubles with an IP editor, 97.94.122.93, who's just called me a white supremacist in the edit summary for reverting him on Japanese aircraft carrier Sōryū. His edit history suggests a real chip on his shoulder. Can an admin deal with him appropriately?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 02:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.
For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 00:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
My name is Jim Halley and I am Founder-Editor of Aeromilitaria, the quarterly on military aviation history published by Air-Britain {Historians) Ltd which was founded in 1948. I use my laptop for editing and writing articles and books. I have not been involved with Wikipedia before and have chosen this method as the most likely one to get an answer that tells me what I have done wrong!
I wrote an article on HMS Victorious in the Pacific in 1943 for the Spring 2010 issue which contained some items which I thought important. These centered around the Fighter Control system. On arrival at Norfolk, Virginia, her aircraft were disembarked and most of the crew assigned ashore while modifications were incorporated for duty in the Pacific, including changing flight deck operations to conform with US Navy practice. This paved the way for a standard used by both USN and RN for the rest of the war.
Victorious used the call-sign USS Robin to avoid the enemy finding out that Victorious had left European waters. A merchant ship was adapted as a dummy carrier and moved around Scottish waters to fool the Luftwaffe reconnaissance aircraft. They fell for it.
The current website for Victorious mentions the large number of USN visitors to the Fighter Control Room which had an advanced layout. Among them was Rear-Admiral Ramsey who inspected the system of fighter control and ordered it to be used on the new Boxer-class carriers which were being built at that time. The Royal Navy manual for Fighter Control Officers was also adopted and became standard. Both these innovations greatly improved the defence of ships from air attack.
In the past I have seen comments in emails about Victorious being taken over by the US Navy and manned by US personnel. These were in error; Victorious retained its crew and squadrons at all times except when cross-decking.
J J Halley Shepperton England — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimHalley ( talk • contribs) 17:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I've copied everything as you suggested and replied there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimHalley ( talk • contribs) 13:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Jaco IV has moved the page Greek cruiser Georgios Averoff to Armored cruiser Georgios Averoff (1910) in violation of WP:NCSHIP and I cannot revert the move because he's done it multiple times. Can some admin either revert this series of moves or move it over the redirect? BTW, this user has a habit of doing this sort of thing, if you'll check his edit history.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 22:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I created a new disambiguation page at ship identifier, with redirects from "Ship name", "Ship names" (pre-existing redirect to Ceremonial ship launching), "Ship naming" (pre-existing redirect to Ceremonial ship launching), "Ship number", "Ship identification number", "Vessel identifier", "Vessel identification number" and "Vessel number". I'm not very familiar with this subject and mostly relied on links at Category:Ship names and its subcategory Category:Ship identification numbers, so it should be reviewed by others to add any other relevant links. Also, the page could use better descriptions so readers better understand the differences between the listed articles.
I created it after trying to find the article for naming of ships with "MV", "MS", etc. without knowing what the article could be titled (I eventually found what I was looking for at ship prefix). When typing in the search box, " Ship names" appeared as a link, so I clicked it and was taken to Ceremonial ship launching, which doesn't directly relate to the subject "ship names". I stumbled through various articles until I found the category Category:Ship names. Given the bad redirect for "ship names", I started to create a disambiguation page for relevant articles at "ship name", but later decided that "ship identifier" would be the better title since many links were for numeric identifiers rather than "names". AHeneen ( talk) 00:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
There are comments relevant to the project concerning article "class assessment" at Talk:USS Indianapolis (CA-35). Otr500 ( talk) 02:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Suggested merge of Category:Sailboat components to Category:Sailing ship components. Maybe if that's right, we can consider Category:Sailboats v. Category:Sailing ships. -- B.S. Lawrence ( talk) 15:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Per United States Lighthouse Service: "On March 15, 1942 the Lighthouse Service/USGG tender "Acacia" was sunk by U-161." There's a little bit of info about the "Speedwell-class USCGC Acacia" at the U-161 article, from a 1987 book by David Grover. Could a bit more be found, and an article created? -- do ncr am 01:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
It is necessary to supplement: Surface-underwater ship. -- Vyacheslav84 ( talk) 16:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
In general, at first the article was about the intermediate type of ships that wage war as surface ships, but at the same time they can submerge as submarines. -- Vyacheslav84 ( talk) 11:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Editors may wish to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SMX-25, regarding a semi-submersible warship concept. User:HopsonRoad 14:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Looking at details of English ships of the line, I observed frequent repetition of the unusual fraction "17⁄94". Can anyone enlighten me on the significance of this, please? Bjenks ( talk) 03:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
MS Regal Star has been nominated for deletion. MS Sea Wind has also been nominated for deletion. Mjroots ( talk) 12:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Does anyone have any more details about [5] which appears to be a report of an attempt to sabotage the destroyer HMS Peterel (1899). Are there any other sources which confirm that this event happened? If so does anyone have more details, for example, where did the event occur? What were the consequences? Nigel Ish ( talk) 21:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
We currently have an article Gilmore (1824 ship), which mentions "re-constructed and lengthened especially for the Australian passenger trade in 1829", but no details of voyages until "First convict voyage ... November 1831", with two convict voyages to Hobart and Sydney.
We also have mentions (not wiki-linked to Gilmore (1824 ship)) of a Gilmore arriving at the Swan River Colony in Western Australia in December 1829, in:
or February 1830
Are these both the same ship? http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/32834558 suggests that they are.
(Pinging specific editors who may be interested: @ Nedvol, Acad Ronin, and Newm30:
Mitch Ames ( talk) 14:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
@ Mitch Ames:, yes she is the one. Regards Newm30 ( talk) 19:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I have just completed a new article about Royal Mail Lines' 1939 flagship RMS Andes. I will be grateful for any proof reading, copy editing and improvements that colleagues think it may need.
I apologise for not including a photo or other image of the whole ship. Wikimedia Commons has none and I am not skilled at finding non-copyright images elsewhere. There are of course good photos of Andes online, and colourful RML official posters of her by the artist commercial Kenneth Shoesmith, but I have no idea of their copyright status.
When I completed QSMV Dominion Monarch in August 2014 I failed to find a non-copyright image of her too. On that occasion Mjroots kindly stepped in with a small colour image of the "Dominion Maniac" in profile. It still heads that article to this day, and is still Commons' only image of the DM.
I will be grateful to anyone who can come to the rescue with a suitable picture of Andes for the new article's infobox. And I will be likewise grateful to anyone who can add any more pictures of the DM, to complement the one Mjroots managed to provide three years ago.
Best wishes to everyone in the ships project, Motacilla ( talk) 11:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Are there any good reference/resource starting points for researching contemporary yachts? Or is the advice mainly to check newspapers related to the national origin/residence of the yacht? I thought there might be some magazine or reliable blog that covers these sorts of things but perhaps not? (Please {{ ping}} me when you respond.) czar 06:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Archive 49/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Ships.
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Ships, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.
Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Hey all - can someone with a Miramar account lend me a hand? I'm looking for a Swedish SS Pollux that was sunk in a collision with the battleship SMS Elsass on 23 March 1912, but I don't have access to Miramar. Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 18:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I have just completed a new article about Royal Mail Lines' passenger liner RMS Asturias (1925), the sister ship of RMS Alcantara (1926). I have tried to make the article comparable with Alcantara in length and detail. That is less than the RMS Andes (1939) article (see above), but I hope the content is sufficient. Enjoy! Best wishes, Motacilla ( talk) 22:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
There's a big mess of reference errors in the List of shipwrecks in 1838. This is the diff between the last version which didn't show any reference errors and the current version. I can't work out what the hell has gone wrong and need to be AFK for a couple of hours. Would appreciate assistance in fixing this. Mjroots ( talk) 08:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Noticed there are two GA noms from months ago that need reviewing. Brad ( talk) 20:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Has there any policy agreement that default sort should sometimes ignore the first part of merchant ship names? For example, in Category:Container ships, CMA CGM Bougainville > Bougainville, MSC Beatrice > Beatrice. Surely a name is name? Davidships ( talk) 13:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I think there is an abnormal situation on this template. We have an article on the Fitzgerald/ACX Crystal collision, but it does not take the primary listing position on this template, instead each ship is listed as the primary articles, while the collision article is a sub article listing. Shouldn't this be flipped around, since this template is the shipwreck template, the articles on the incidents or wrecks should take primary place of purpose, if they exist. -- 65.94.169.56 ( talk) 04:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
An AfD discussion affecting four American Cruise Lines ships is taking place here. Mjroots ( talk) 18:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Is transcluded here: User:HopsonRoad 09:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion regarding this section on the talk page of RMS Mauretania which can be found here. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I can find no evidence to support the existence of the Lakshadweep Class of Indian Navy hospital ship, nor of the ship INS Lakshadweep. Please see Talk:Lakshadweep Class#Does this exist? Is there any reason to not nominate for deletion? Verbcatcher ( talk) 21:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lakshadweep Class Verbcatcher ( talk) 16:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Does anyone know what ships SpaceX uses to recover Dragon capsules after splashdown? -- 65.94.42.131 ( talk) 04:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion over the flags in the SS Pendleton article. I'm not getting into an edit war, but I'm pretty sure that Toddst1 is wrong and that my edit was correct. Eyes needed please. Mjroots ( talk) 16:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
This
recent change to {{
infobox ship career}}
template data (since reverted) has me wondering about the correctness of this sentence in the |Ship status=
guidance:
|Ship in service=
should be enough.The documentation for |Ship decommissioned=
indicates that decommissioning applies to warships. The documentation for |Ship in service=
indicates that that parameter applies to civilian ships. In the |Ship status=
guideline, are we not improperly mixing these two things? Is the recommendation to use
(or some text that has similar meaning) rather redundant when |Ship status=
{{
ship in active service}}
|Ship commissioned=
or |Ship in service=
are set with dates but |Ship decommissioned=
or |Ship out of service=
are not?
I wonder if the |Ship status=
guidance should recommend that it be omitted when:
|Ship commissioned=
or |Ship in service=
are setFor those ships that may quietly fade away, then the guideline should recommend
with a date when the ship was last known to be active.
|Ship status=
{{ship in active service}}
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 10:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
{{ship in active service}}
for stylistic reasons (it does not capitalize the first word) and because it automatically adds and updates the "as of" year; I consider this to be manually inputted detail that should be ommitted by default. As for wording, most large commercial databases (IHS Sea-web, Equasis, classification society databases) use the wording "In Service/Commission" for the status; I have used "In service" in Wikipedia, omitting "active" (from the automatic template) as I consider it redundant and "commission" from the industry practice because civilian ships are not "commissioned". I agree that the wording in the guideline could be revised, but I am against removing the field altogether from the template; current status is relevant information even though it's usually trivial (most ships are by default in service) and does not change that often (rapid changes can be addressed in the text and |Ship fate=
overrides the field in the end).
Tupsumato (
talk) 21:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)A requested move discussion has been initiated for USS California (ACR-6) to be moved to USS San Diego (ACR-6). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion Talk:USS California (ACR-6)#Requested move 19 July 2017. Pennsy22 ( talk) 05:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
For USS Cochise (YT-216) can anyone figure out why the infobox won't go to the top of the page? There are also some areas in the article where a space doesn't work either. Brad ( talk) 03:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Stars and Stripes has obtained, via an FIOA request, the report on the USS Antietam's grounding, https://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/navy-probe-blames-captain-s-judgment-in-uss-antietam-grounding-1.480879 . I have tagged the article as needing an update and giving a heads up here. Safiel ( talk) 20:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
USS Blue Ridge (LCC-19) has been a mess for a while now. It consists of very long quotes with unclear sources, probably in violation of copyright. It rambles so much that it's nearly unreadable. This article could really use some attention. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 12:07, 3 August 2017 (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 45 | ← | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | → | Archive 55 |
There seems to be a push at present to remove pennant number from ship articles: [1] USS La Jolla (SSN-701) to USS La Jolla, [2] USS Torsk (SS-423) to USS Torsk etc. This is being done under WP:PRECISE.
I do not see this as an improvement and believe that they should be reverted. This is not merely an anodyne disambiguator (as WP:PRECISE covers) it is the pennant number, as much a part of the name in service as the christened name. This should be preserved in the article title, even when not needed for disambiguation. Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
If there is only one ship of the name, it is wrong to disambiguate, per WP:PRECISE.On an aside, there was a discussion at WT:Article titles to change the disambiguation scheme for ship names which resolved in "change is needed--and the likely disambiguation will be the launch date" but effort seems to have stalled on the precise method. That RFC, archived here, should be reviewed, since it is clear that your opinion "the pennant number is part of the name" is not shared by all or even many. -- Izno ( talk) 12:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
"the big number on the bow/island" amuses me--I couldn't tell you what USS Missouri's number is, but I can clearly tell you it's a modern battleship (the one of which I know, anyway). That said, I've only been removing the hull number where the topic has no ambiguity.
Regarding the RFC linked above, since you seem to be arguing against the discussion therein, if you want to have another RFC to overturn the previous, that's your prerogative. My suggestion is that the generalist reader (being such) has no idea nor does he care about the hull number and instead remembers the type of ship at which he's looking ("aircraft carrier" and etc.). I haven't reviewed all of the material regarding disambiguation of ship names, but I'm still sitting here puzzled regarding that most other domains on Wikipedia can figure out how to disambiguate sensibly by the type of thing which is being discussed in the article (sometimes adding a date, which usually makes it sufficiently defined). -- Izno ( talk) 16:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Specialists, however, will know launch dates within a few years, if not the exact date, and that's more than enough to discriminate between the WWII-era HMS Daring and the two more modern ones. Which, BTW, is something that can't be done by the pennant numbers. Oh, and did you realize that pennant numbers aren't always stable? So the same ship, especially during WWII, could have two or more pennant numbers. They're not like USN hull numbers, which are generally quite stable, but then I'm not advocating for changing USN articles only RN and Commonwealth ones that use pennant numbers.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 03:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
If we get rid of hull numbers in the article title, I do think the number should appear somewhere in the article, and we need a clear guideline as to where. The first sentence of the lead seems appropriate. Is this documented anywhere? Kendall-K1 ( talk) 20:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Hey all, the US Naval History and Heritage Command has uploaded a veritable treasure trove of images to their new website, many of which are of non-US ships and are available in highish-quality TIFF files. However, many of these were not taken by US Navy employees, meaning that they are not automatically placed in the public domain; they were instead donated in the past and are marked on the website with "Copyright Owner: Naval History and Heritage Command" ( example).
I'm happy to report that they've told me in an email that "... much of our collection here is donated material. Once those materials are signed over to us, they become property of the U.S. Navy. At that time, our position is that they enter the public domain. Thus, you are allowed to use them." If anyone needs me to forward this to OTRS, I or Parsecboy have copies of the email. Go find your ships! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
If NHHS claims to be the copyright owner, that's good enough for me. Gatoclass ( talk) 18:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Both of these articles need deckplans covering the pre-WWII period and if possible the period that the SS Kaiser Wilhelm II was being used as a transport. And one other thing that needs clarification. The text for that article reads:
" USS Agamemnon was decommissioned in late August and turned over to the War Department for further use as a U.S. Army Transport. Laid up after the middle 1920s..." has anyone been able to find a source that gives exactly how long she was used as a transport prior to being mothballed?
Graham1973 ( talk) 09:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
This discussion, seeking consensus to reduce the width of WPMILHIST infoboxen may be of interest to members of this project.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 16:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm looking for overview sources the history of guns (Artillery) submarines: use, efficiency, results, tactics use, etc. What do you advise? -- Vyacheslav84 ( talk) 12:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
FYI, HSV-2 Swift, alleged sinking / current event. Some eyes might be useful there. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 21:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
The Naval Vessel Register has once again changed the layout for links to ships in the NVR database (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Archive_48#nvr for the discussion of the previous change). While the old NVR links still work, they link to pages that are no longer being updated. Fortunately the introduction of {{ NVR url}} and {{ NVR SC url}} after the previous change made fixing the problem simpler. For those interested, a discussion of the update to these two templates can be found at Template talk:NVR url. — RP88 ( talk) 07:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi all - I came across the article INS Shivalik, which is currently rated as a GA, but it doesn't come close to what I'd consider to be a GA ship article. Anybody else have an opinion? Parsecboy ( talk) 18:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm trying to confirm the identity of a ship listed in a news article. The news article is located here. From searching around a bit I'm guessing the ship listed in the news article is the Oseberg Ship. Wondering if others here agree or have any other ideas of which ship it is? Thanks for any help you can provide. Offnfopt (talk) 08:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
The List of Type T2 tankers has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots ( talk) 17:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I've had an idea for a competition to run during 2017 with the aim of improving and creating ship articles. Anyone interested in such a competition or helping run it? Mjroots ( talk) 13:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi all, an article I have up at FAC hasn't gotten much attention as of yet. I'd greatly appreciate it if any interested editors could take a look - the review is here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Mecklenburg/archive1. Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 14:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that Ship simulator redirects to Ship Simulator, a videogame. Shouldn't there be something for various ship simulations (like bridge simulators, lifeboat aboard ship evacuation sims, engine room simulators, etc) that are used for ship's crew training? (like flight simulator for aircraft) -- 65.94.171.217 ( talk) 07:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I have added some information about the previous career of the Norwegian royal yacht, HNoMY Norge, which was originally a private luxury yacht but had an interesting war with the British Royal Navy. I'm really not sure how to add her previous incarnations into the infobox, which at a glance, makes it look as though it has been a Norwegian ship from the word go. Any help would be appreciated. Alansplodge ( talk) 22:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
{{
Infobox ship career}}
templates into it, one after the other, for each of a ship's 'careers', for example:
Cutty Sark.Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_November_15#Ancient_and_medieval_ships Someone got upset over these cats. Brad ( talk) 04:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi all, have been reviewing "stub" articles for 2 weeks now and several were wrongly classed and really "start" or "C". Noticed that WP Africa is holding a "destubathon" and with 8000+ stubs in our project it may be a great initiative to do in the future. It'd be great to have consensus to kick-off this activity, and would be great that a WP member with experience manages the event (I neither have knowledge to implement nor time to manage). Kind regards, DPdH ( talk) 07:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
So I have this draft up at Draft:Baylander (IX-514) -- does this ship take a ship prefix? -- 65.94.171.217 ( talk) 04:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Just to let folks know, there's an article within our scope at AfD here. Parsecboy ( talk) 02:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I would like some clarification on the following matter. Per WP:SHIPMOS, is it best practice to keep things pertaining to the operational service life of a ship on its individual article, rather than its ship-class article? Antiochus the Great ( talk) 15:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Greetings WikiProject Ships/Archive 49 Members!
This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.
Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.
Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
There's a RM discussion under way at Palmers Shipbuilding and Iron Company, if anyone wants to weigh in. I initiated it, but am currently in two minds about it. Note that the "Ltd" element of the proposed move has already attracted negative comment (thanks Bradv and Huntster), with which I agree, so should I think be dropped – I would remove it from the RM template but don't want to mess with it or attract any bots. Any thoughts gratefully received. Nortonius ( talk) 14:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Dear fellow editors. A few weeks ago I deleted an addition to the article on HMS Belfast. I posted on the article's talk page explaining my deletion. Some time later the editor - User:Otaku155 - whose addition to the article I had deleted edited my talk page comments. I later reverted this change, further commenting that I thought it was inappropriate for an editor to change the content of another's talk page post (per WP:TPO). The other editor has now edited my comments a second time, restoring their edit of my first comment, deleted my second entirely, and stating their opinion (in what seem to me to be defensive terms) that my original comments were unwarranted. Not wishing to get into a tit-for-tat revert war, I am posting this here. I would be grateful for other editors' comments. IxK85 ( talk) 13:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Per this reliably sourced announcement, https://news.usni.org/2016/12/13/secnav-mabus-to-officially-designate-first-orp-boat-uss-district-of-columbia-ssbn-826 , Secretary Mabus will officially designate the USS Columbia as SSBN-826 tomorrow, USS Columbia (SSBN-826). Safiel ( talk) 01:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Could I get some eyes/comments over at this article and the talk page. Issue is regarding this good/long standing revision being gutted and replaced with a complete mess. Cheers. Antiochus the Great ( talk) 16:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm looking for a photo of kentledge weights that go into ships. Can anyone help? Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 02:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
The wreck of a "wooden sailing vessel", believed to be the Bristol Packet which stranded in 1808 off Minehead in the Bristol Channel, has recently been scheduled as an ancient monument (see Historic England listing). I think that makes it notable enough for an article, but I'm unsure what to call it. It seems unconnected with the Hayle and Bristol Steam Packet Company or Bristol General Steam Navigation Company which came later. Any exemplar articles about wrecks of sailing ships I could look at for inspiration?— Rod talk 08:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
An example could be King Philip (clipper). Regards Newm30 ( talk) 11:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
465 | Bristol Packet S 01 | W. Day | 249 | N.Eng P Tpsds |
6 | A. Harris | 15 | Du Lvrpl | A1 4 |
Entry number in register | Name of ship, vessel type (S denotes full-rigged ship), built 1801 | Captain | Tonnage, no other letters here denotes a two deck vessel | Place of building (New England, USA) Pine topsides |
Vessel in 6th year of her age | Owner | Draught when loaded | Surveyed at Dublin, registered at Liverpool | First class vessel, first quality materials Surveyed in April 1806 |
Thanks to all for help - the initial article is now at Bristol Packet (1801 ship). Further improvements obviously welcome. — Rod talk 10:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
There appears to be a serious issue with the referencing on the article for HMS Hydra (A144). While the article (which contains vast amounts of elaborate detail about the ship's career) has large number of citations, a lot of these appear to be simply photos, maps or descriptions of places where Hydra is said to have operated, with no mention of Hydra or her operations. Large chunks of the article are therefore unreferenced. Should the article be trimmed back to what can be verified? Nigel Ish ( talk) 21:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Over on Type 093 submarine, I and another editor have come into some disagreement over what sources are saying. I have taken my concerns to the talk page ( number of boats, proposal for handling variants) but do not expect fruitful discussion with the other editor (whom I strongly suspect to be a sockpuppet with whom I have had a poor working relationship with in the past.)
Analysis/opinions/comments from others on the issues would be most helpful. Thanks! - RovingPersonalityConstruct ( talk, contribs) 03:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
G'day all, the Spanish ship Fenix (1749) article has been listed for peer review. If anyone is interested in taking part in the review, the page can be found here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Spanish ship Fenix (1749)/archive1. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 15:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Dear wikiproject colleagues, I've recently created a navigation template for the "Santa Fe-class submarines" of the Argentine Navy, and need help to fix 2 problems in it:
I modeled existing templates, but obviously missed something... Will appreciate help and guidance to fix this ASAP. Thanks and Happy 2017, DPdH ( talk) 09:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion taking place on whether to mention the coal bunker fire theory in the main Titanic article or at RMS Titanic alternative theories. Interested editors are invited to join the conversation. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
My list of missing topics about vehicles is updated - Skysmith ( talk) 19:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
[4] and Talk:La Amistad#Flag. Your opinions will be apreciated. Thank you in advance. -- Nicola Romani ( talk) 15:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
There's a discussion about a move to Superliner on the Talk page. In ictu oculi ( talk) 09:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I've dropped Sailing faster than the wind from this project, since it's not about ships. I added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Sailing, where I felt it belonged. There is a discussion about the article's title at Talk:Sailing faster than the wind#Awkward title. User:HopsonRoad 13:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The WikiJournal of Science is a start-up academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's scientific content. It is part of a WikiJournal User Group that includes the flagship WikiJournal of Medicine. [1] [2]. Like Wiki.J.Med, it intends to bridge the academia-Wikipedia gap by encouraging contributions by non-Wikipedians, and by putting content through peer review before integrating it into Wikipedia. Since it is just starting out, it is looking for contributors in two main areas: Editors
Authors
If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.
|
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 10:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Anyone able to sort out this article. Seems to be about submarines in Pakistan navy yet to be built. And what are "SSP programmes"? Thanks — Iadmc ♫ talk 04:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I know almost nothing about ships and even less about all the complex technicalities of ship infoboxes, article title formats and even notability criteria. So if anyone wants to take on the SS Vauban stub that I've just created, I am sure it can be improved. And, if not, I don't mind if it is deleted. Sorry for the burden but I might learn something as I have it on my watchlist. - Sitush ( talk) 05:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Canadian Coast Guard modified Severn class motor lifeboat is there any alternative title for this article that would not be as lengthy? Brad ( talk) 21:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
OK. I'm going to close this out as resolved with Oppose and will update the talk page for the article. Thank you all for contributing! KNHaw (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but I wanted to do my due diligence before making changes to an article that might cause controversy. Given that this project was mentioned in the talk page for the article, I figured this would be a good place to make my intentions known.
So, the article ARA Suboficial Castillo (A-6) details how the vessel was originally known as the USS Takelma (ATF-113) for it's 50 year career in the US Navy. Later it was sold and is currently in service with the Argentine Navy as the ARA Suboficial Castillo (A-6), having a 24 year career there. The US name is a redirect to the main article using the Argentine name.
Guidance has been given under Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Ships_that_changed_name_or_nationality that "An article about a ship that changed name or nationality should be placed at the best-known name, with a redirect from the other name." As such, I propose that the US Navy name is more appropriate for the main article and the Argentine name for the redirect, given the time of service for both navies. Before I make this change, however, I want to open up the question for discussion.
I have posted this question in the article talk page as well as here in order to get feedback. Are there any concerns with my proposal? I plan on doing the work within the next week or so, so please let me know.
Thanks, KNHaw (talk) 05:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm having troubles with an IP editor, 97.94.122.93, who's just called me a white supremacist in the edit summary for reverting him on Japanese aircraft carrier Sōryū. His edit history suggests a real chip on his shoulder. Can an admin deal with him appropriately?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 02:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.
For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 00:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
My name is Jim Halley and I am Founder-Editor of Aeromilitaria, the quarterly on military aviation history published by Air-Britain {Historians) Ltd which was founded in 1948. I use my laptop for editing and writing articles and books. I have not been involved with Wikipedia before and have chosen this method as the most likely one to get an answer that tells me what I have done wrong!
I wrote an article on HMS Victorious in the Pacific in 1943 for the Spring 2010 issue which contained some items which I thought important. These centered around the Fighter Control system. On arrival at Norfolk, Virginia, her aircraft were disembarked and most of the crew assigned ashore while modifications were incorporated for duty in the Pacific, including changing flight deck operations to conform with US Navy practice. This paved the way for a standard used by both USN and RN for the rest of the war.
Victorious used the call-sign USS Robin to avoid the enemy finding out that Victorious had left European waters. A merchant ship was adapted as a dummy carrier and moved around Scottish waters to fool the Luftwaffe reconnaissance aircraft. They fell for it.
The current website for Victorious mentions the large number of USN visitors to the Fighter Control Room which had an advanced layout. Among them was Rear-Admiral Ramsey who inspected the system of fighter control and ordered it to be used on the new Boxer-class carriers which were being built at that time. The Royal Navy manual for Fighter Control Officers was also adopted and became standard. Both these innovations greatly improved the defence of ships from air attack.
In the past I have seen comments in emails about Victorious being taken over by the US Navy and manned by US personnel. These were in error; Victorious retained its crew and squadrons at all times except when cross-decking.
J J Halley Shepperton England — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimHalley ( talk • contribs) 17:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I've copied everything as you suggested and replied there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimHalley ( talk • contribs) 13:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Jaco IV has moved the page Greek cruiser Georgios Averoff to Armored cruiser Georgios Averoff (1910) in violation of WP:NCSHIP and I cannot revert the move because he's done it multiple times. Can some admin either revert this series of moves or move it over the redirect? BTW, this user has a habit of doing this sort of thing, if you'll check his edit history.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 22:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I created a new disambiguation page at ship identifier, with redirects from "Ship name", "Ship names" (pre-existing redirect to Ceremonial ship launching), "Ship naming" (pre-existing redirect to Ceremonial ship launching), "Ship number", "Ship identification number", "Vessel identifier", "Vessel identification number" and "Vessel number". I'm not very familiar with this subject and mostly relied on links at Category:Ship names and its subcategory Category:Ship identification numbers, so it should be reviewed by others to add any other relevant links. Also, the page could use better descriptions so readers better understand the differences between the listed articles.
I created it after trying to find the article for naming of ships with "MV", "MS", etc. without knowing what the article could be titled (I eventually found what I was looking for at ship prefix). When typing in the search box, " Ship names" appeared as a link, so I clicked it and was taken to Ceremonial ship launching, which doesn't directly relate to the subject "ship names". I stumbled through various articles until I found the category Category:Ship names. Given the bad redirect for "ship names", I started to create a disambiguation page for relevant articles at "ship name", but later decided that "ship identifier" would be the better title since many links were for numeric identifiers rather than "names". AHeneen ( talk) 00:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
There are comments relevant to the project concerning article "class assessment" at Talk:USS Indianapolis (CA-35). Otr500 ( talk) 02:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Suggested merge of Category:Sailboat components to Category:Sailing ship components. Maybe if that's right, we can consider Category:Sailboats v. Category:Sailing ships. -- B.S. Lawrence ( talk) 15:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Per United States Lighthouse Service: "On March 15, 1942 the Lighthouse Service/USGG tender "Acacia" was sunk by U-161." There's a little bit of info about the "Speedwell-class USCGC Acacia" at the U-161 article, from a 1987 book by David Grover. Could a bit more be found, and an article created? -- do ncr am 01:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
It is necessary to supplement: Surface-underwater ship. -- Vyacheslav84 ( talk) 16:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
In general, at first the article was about the intermediate type of ships that wage war as surface ships, but at the same time they can submerge as submarines. -- Vyacheslav84 ( talk) 11:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Editors may wish to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SMX-25, regarding a semi-submersible warship concept. User:HopsonRoad 14:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Looking at details of English ships of the line, I observed frequent repetition of the unusual fraction "17⁄94". Can anyone enlighten me on the significance of this, please? Bjenks ( talk) 03:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
MS Regal Star has been nominated for deletion. MS Sea Wind has also been nominated for deletion. Mjroots ( talk) 12:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Does anyone have any more details about [5] which appears to be a report of an attempt to sabotage the destroyer HMS Peterel (1899). Are there any other sources which confirm that this event happened? If so does anyone have more details, for example, where did the event occur? What were the consequences? Nigel Ish ( talk) 21:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
We currently have an article Gilmore (1824 ship), which mentions "re-constructed and lengthened especially for the Australian passenger trade in 1829", but no details of voyages until "First convict voyage ... November 1831", with two convict voyages to Hobart and Sydney.
We also have mentions (not wiki-linked to Gilmore (1824 ship)) of a Gilmore arriving at the Swan River Colony in Western Australia in December 1829, in:
or February 1830
Are these both the same ship? http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/32834558 suggests that they are.
(Pinging specific editors who may be interested: @ Nedvol, Acad Ronin, and Newm30:
Mitch Ames ( talk) 14:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
@ Mitch Ames:, yes she is the one. Regards Newm30 ( talk) 19:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I have just completed a new article about Royal Mail Lines' 1939 flagship RMS Andes. I will be grateful for any proof reading, copy editing and improvements that colleagues think it may need.
I apologise for not including a photo or other image of the whole ship. Wikimedia Commons has none and I am not skilled at finding non-copyright images elsewhere. There are of course good photos of Andes online, and colourful RML official posters of her by the artist commercial Kenneth Shoesmith, but I have no idea of their copyright status.
When I completed QSMV Dominion Monarch in August 2014 I failed to find a non-copyright image of her too. On that occasion Mjroots kindly stepped in with a small colour image of the "Dominion Maniac" in profile. It still heads that article to this day, and is still Commons' only image of the DM.
I will be grateful to anyone who can come to the rescue with a suitable picture of Andes for the new article's infobox. And I will be likewise grateful to anyone who can add any more pictures of the DM, to complement the one Mjroots managed to provide three years ago.
Best wishes to everyone in the ships project, Motacilla ( talk) 11:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Are there any good reference/resource starting points for researching contemporary yachts? Or is the advice mainly to check newspapers related to the national origin/residence of the yacht? I thought there might be some magazine or reliable blog that covers these sorts of things but perhaps not? (Please {{ ping}} me when you respond.) czar 06:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Archive 49/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Ships.
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Ships, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.
Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Hey all - can someone with a Miramar account lend me a hand? I'm looking for a Swedish SS Pollux that was sunk in a collision with the battleship SMS Elsass on 23 March 1912, but I don't have access to Miramar. Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 18:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I have just completed a new article about Royal Mail Lines' passenger liner RMS Asturias (1925), the sister ship of RMS Alcantara (1926). I have tried to make the article comparable with Alcantara in length and detail. That is less than the RMS Andes (1939) article (see above), but I hope the content is sufficient. Enjoy! Best wishes, Motacilla ( talk) 22:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
There's a big mess of reference errors in the List of shipwrecks in 1838. This is the diff between the last version which didn't show any reference errors and the current version. I can't work out what the hell has gone wrong and need to be AFK for a couple of hours. Would appreciate assistance in fixing this. Mjroots ( talk) 08:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Noticed there are two GA noms from months ago that need reviewing. Brad ( talk) 20:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Has there any policy agreement that default sort should sometimes ignore the first part of merchant ship names? For example, in Category:Container ships, CMA CGM Bougainville > Bougainville, MSC Beatrice > Beatrice. Surely a name is name? Davidships ( talk) 13:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I think there is an abnormal situation on this template. We have an article on the Fitzgerald/ACX Crystal collision, but it does not take the primary listing position on this template, instead each ship is listed as the primary articles, while the collision article is a sub article listing. Shouldn't this be flipped around, since this template is the shipwreck template, the articles on the incidents or wrecks should take primary place of purpose, if they exist. -- 65.94.169.56 ( talk) 04:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
An AfD discussion affecting four American Cruise Lines ships is taking place here. Mjroots ( talk) 18:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Is transcluded here: User:HopsonRoad 09:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion regarding this section on the talk page of RMS Mauretania which can be found here. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I can find no evidence to support the existence of the Lakshadweep Class of Indian Navy hospital ship, nor of the ship INS Lakshadweep. Please see Talk:Lakshadweep Class#Does this exist? Is there any reason to not nominate for deletion? Verbcatcher ( talk) 21:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lakshadweep Class Verbcatcher ( talk) 16:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Does anyone know what ships SpaceX uses to recover Dragon capsules after splashdown? -- 65.94.42.131 ( talk) 04:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion over the flags in the SS Pendleton article. I'm not getting into an edit war, but I'm pretty sure that Toddst1 is wrong and that my edit was correct. Eyes needed please. Mjroots ( talk) 16:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
This
recent change to {{
infobox ship career}}
template data (since reverted) has me wondering about the correctness of this sentence in the |Ship status=
guidance:
|Ship in service=
should be enough.The documentation for |Ship decommissioned=
indicates that decommissioning applies to warships. The documentation for |Ship in service=
indicates that that parameter applies to civilian ships. In the |Ship status=
guideline, are we not improperly mixing these two things? Is the recommendation to use
(or some text that has similar meaning) rather redundant when |Ship status=
{{
ship in active service}}
|Ship commissioned=
or |Ship in service=
are set with dates but |Ship decommissioned=
or |Ship out of service=
are not?
I wonder if the |Ship status=
guidance should recommend that it be omitted when:
|Ship commissioned=
or |Ship in service=
are setFor those ships that may quietly fade away, then the guideline should recommend
with a date when the ship was last known to be active.
|Ship status=
{{ship in active service}}
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 10:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
{{ship in active service}}
for stylistic reasons (it does not capitalize the first word) and because it automatically adds and updates the "as of" year; I consider this to be manually inputted detail that should be ommitted by default. As for wording, most large commercial databases (IHS Sea-web, Equasis, classification society databases) use the wording "In Service/Commission" for the status; I have used "In service" in Wikipedia, omitting "active" (from the automatic template) as I consider it redundant and "commission" from the industry practice because civilian ships are not "commissioned". I agree that the wording in the guideline could be revised, but I am against removing the field altogether from the template; current status is relevant information even though it's usually trivial (most ships are by default in service) and does not change that often (rapid changes can be addressed in the text and |Ship fate=
overrides the field in the end).
Tupsumato (
talk) 21:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)A requested move discussion has been initiated for USS California (ACR-6) to be moved to USS San Diego (ACR-6). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion Talk:USS California (ACR-6)#Requested move 19 July 2017. Pennsy22 ( talk) 05:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
For USS Cochise (YT-216) can anyone figure out why the infobox won't go to the top of the page? There are also some areas in the article where a space doesn't work either. Brad ( talk) 03:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Stars and Stripes has obtained, via an FIOA request, the report on the USS Antietam's grounding, https://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/navy-probe-blames-captain-s-judgment-in-uss-antietam-grounding-1.480879 . I have tagged the article as needing an update and giving a heads up here. Safiel ( talk) 20:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
USS Blue Ridge (LCC-19) has been a mess for a while now. It consists of very long quotes with unclear sources, probably in violation of copyright. It rambles so much that it's nearly unreadable. This article could really use some attention. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 12:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)