Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

→

Archive 40

Files up for deletion

• File:USS Kentucky (BBG-1) concept artwork.jpg has been nominated for deletion
• File:Novomoskovsk, Russian Submarine, on duty.jpg has been nominated for deletion

-- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 03:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Operation Nautilus

Here is a incubator WikiProject Military history project that is related somewhat to this WikiProject: Operation Nautilus. WikiCopter (t • c • onau • omt) 20:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that it's way premature to build an overall topic box for this project that goes covers individual subs. I could see doing so for the highest level that would include all the various national lists and the type articles. And showing the already completed topic boxes is fine, but not combining both because of the extreme disparatities of scale.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

N-SHIPS?

Is there a notability guideline related to WPSHIPS? WP:N-SHIPS; or a more general one WP:N-WATERCRAFT ? (obviously, if they exist, they do not exist at these shortcuts) -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I vaguely remember a proposed notability guideline (which might have stuck on the slipway) but a quick search didn't find anything. Was Mjroots involved? Personally, I feel that it's better to stick with the GNG, but others may disagree... bobrayner (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

*ears burning* It's been long established that vessels over 100' long or 100 tons (by whatever measurement) should be capable of sustaining a stand alone article, subject to verifiability by reliable sources meaning that the WP:GNG is met. It is for this reason the the vast majority of fishing vessels are not notable enough to sustain stand alone articles. Vesses under 100'/100t may also be notable enough to sustain articles, subject to the above. The vast majority of commissioned naval vessels will be capable of sustaining stand alone articles. Mjroots (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Former U.S. Navy ship AFD heads-up

John B. Caddell - which was at one time YO-140 - has been nominated for deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Ship index articles

Editor JHunterJ has been moving ship index articles from prefix Name (disambiguation) to List of ships named prefix Name. Because there is discussion regarding the name of a ship index article for the HMS Hood series of articles, I've asked Editor JHunterJ to hold off on further name changes until we can make a determination on how we would like to proceed.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't we just call them "Name (ship)"? -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 02:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to focus much on the "ship indexes are not disambiguation pages" line of argument, since the distinction is a subtle one of internal norms and not something that would make a great deal of difference to the typical reader. However, parenthetical disambiguation is far from ideal, and the new titles look more natural, so I'm happy with moves like this. bobrayner (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to Editor JHunterJ's comment in §Deletion request, neither WP:SETINDEX nor WP:NCLIST require that set-index article titles take the form List of X ...; in our case List of ships named X. I believe that we should identify a thing by what it is. As disambiguation pages are title (disambiguation), so set-index titles should be title (index). Use of parenthetical disambiguators allows for the use of the ship prefix templates ({{HMS}}, {{USS}}, etc.) whereas List of ships named X does not.

And, something of something else is used far too often in WP articles. Yeah, I know, personal opinion, but I find myself rewriting sentences that take that form.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

If we are to have set-index pages where the disambiguation part of the title is (ship) as IP Editor 70.24.248.246 has suggested, it should be plural: ships.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why I merit a capital-E "Editor" title, nor why you are making this a "contrary-to" argument. WP:SETINDEX does indeed list two possible formats for set index titles: "Common Title Being Indexed" or "List of Things-Being-Indexed named Common-Title". As I said in the section above (which this should have just continued), I have no problem with any particular set of set index articles determining their own titles, as long as things that aren't disambiguation pages don't use (disambiguation) falsely. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Contrary-to because you wrote: Instead, they are list articles titled "List of XXX named YYY"; the "they" referred to the previous sentence's subject: set-index articles. I agree, set-index articles should not be disambiguated with the disambiguation nomenclature.

Capital-E Editor because, when referring to another editor, I always refer to that editor as Editor <User:name>. I chose to start a new topic because the previous topic is specifically about the various articles related to the several HMS Hoods.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to your contrary-to comment, my statement that the list articles are titled "List of XXX named YYY" instead of "YYY (disambiguation)" is true. Since we agree that other non-"(disambiguation)" titles are also possible, there's no need to paint it as if we disagree. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The only time a (ship) disambiguator should be used is when the vessel is a full rigged ship.

• Foo (barque)
• Foo (brigantine)
• Foo (ship)

Should there be more than one full-rigged ship with the same name, we dab by year of launch.

• Foo (1852 ship)
• Foo (1874 ship)

(ship) should not be used for other vessels that aren't full-rigged ships. Mjroots (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Can't the (ship) disambiguatior be used for other vessels if sources call them ships? bobrayner (talk) 09:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a case of WP:COMMONSENSE; as "ship" means "full-rigged ship", calling non-full-rigged ships "ships" in a disambiguator adds ambiguity. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

We no longer live in the age of sail, a ship is many more things than just a fully-rigged ship, in non-sail contexts. Though I suppose we could use the term "boat" instead of ship. But the proposed wikiproject for that WP:BOATS died on the order sheet. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 08:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Certainly not "boat" (unless it is one). Agree best to avoid ambiguity wherever possible - "steamship", "motorship", "liner", "tanker" etc etc could be chosen for clarity. Surely WP:RS is not particularly relevant - this is, after all, an index - a finding aid.Davidships (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

We may not live in the Age of Sail now, but there must be thousands of ship from that period that lack articles. Mjroots (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The merchant ships will cause the most problems as their rigs sometimes changed so it will be a judgement call for the editor who creates them. Warships are pretty well handled by the current system of index pages and pre-disambiguating names.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Re-rigging can be easily dealt with by use of redirects. Mjroots (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Did we come up with a specialized guideline over "List of ships named XXX"? Or do we continue to use that format when the Ship Index is not the primary topic for XXX? -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

TAFI

Hello, Please note that Adventure Galley, which is within this project's scope, has been selected to become a Today's Article for Improvement. The article is currently in the TAFI Holding Area, where comments are welcome about ideas to improve it. After the article is moved from the holding area to the TAFI schedule, it will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's Article for Improvement" section for one week. Everyone is invited to participate in the discussion and encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thank you, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC) (From the TAFI team)

America (privateer)

There should be an article for America (privateer) (suggested name). Instead of duplicating post, please see: Talk:America#America (ship)
~Thanks, ~Eric F 00:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC) 74.60.29.141 (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Really bad article that should be good

USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) is receiving an average of some over 1000 views a day and it's pretty bad. Can someone take a look and see if they can fix it up? Ryan Vesey 04:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Fortune (ship)

I've requested that Fortune (ship) be renamed, since fortune (disambiguation) lists many ships named "Fortune". So "Fortune (ship)" should redirect to the disambiguation page fortune. But I don't have a good name to move the current article to. Any suggestions are welcome, see talk:Fortune (ship). -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Article request: Hai Long ships

I stumbled upon an article on pl wiki about Hai Long class destroyers (pl:Niszczyciele typu Hai Long); the story is briefly summarized at a disambig (sic) at HMS Taku. This potential 5-article series would make a really nice DYK, I think. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

We need to update relevant pages to gender neutral pronouns.

Fairly straightforward. We must alter the pages away from feminine pronouns to gender neutral pronouns. The traditional reference to ships with feminine pronouns is offensive to women as it is a form of systemic sexual objectification.

-Gravitycollapse — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gravitycollapse (talk • contribs) 05:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It's good that you've started a discussion here, but please stop edit warring in relation to this. Can you provide sources which demonstrate that the tradition of referring to ships as female is now generally considered sexist? (and how does this relate to the tradition in some other parts of the world where ships are traditionally referred to as male?). Nick-D (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The usage of gendered pronouns to refer to inanimate objects is sexual objectification in any form. Be it feminine or masculine. It is also logically incorrect as inanimate objects do not have gender identities. Inanimate objects are referred to with neutral pronouns like "it." This is a common understanding in the English language that is only excepted when it comes to certain objects like ships or aircraft. This traditional usage of feminine pronouns to refer to ships or aircraft or cars or motorcycles is guilty of systemically objectifying women and reducing their bodies to the status of "objects" used among large bodies of men. It is both offensive and incorrect. Gravitycollapse (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Would you also argue that Spanish is sexist for having feminine and masculine words? It is not offensive, you have no argument. Ryan Vesey 06:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It is in fact very offensive that such feminization or masculinization takes place. But that is off topic at this point. I am specifically referring to the usage of feminine pronouns to describe ships in this project. It is offensive and it is not the correct usage of the English language. I will be gathering further citations with my colleagues and I will submit them here. Gravitycollapse (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You do that, but it's a waste of your time. Ships are referred to as "she". Ryan Vesey 06:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any citations to back up that argument? Or are you submitting to common usage? Gravitycollapse (talk) 06:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Gravitycollapse, let me put this bluntly: if you can get consensus to change through discussion (rather than heavy handed editing of articles), then the articles will change. Unilaterally stating that the changes "must be done" and "will be done" and acting on it based simply on the fact that you want it to happen will not fly here, and is a good way to get yourself blocked for disruptive editing. Discuss the issue in a collegiate fashion, and accept the consensus that develops. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The Chicago Manual of Style

It states that gender specific pronouns are to be used for specific genders. "He" for men and "she" for women. It also states that non-gendered objects should be referred to as "it."

From the point of proper grammar, there can be no argument made. The rules of the English language dictate that it be used when referring to inanimate objects or non-gendered objects.

Gravitycollapse (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

First, can you give us a source? Second, that's one manual of style. The author of The Good Grammar Guide expresses his view that ships should be referred to as it, but makes it clear that his view is a minority view. Grammar should be descriptive not prescriptive. Ryan Vesey 06:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not arguable that using she to describe a ship is grammatically incorrect. He and she are gendered pronouns. Ships do not have gender. What was referred to in the fact that the author was in the minority was that a majority of people misuse it and that the minority are correct.

With that aside, what this argument comes down to is tradition. That is why she is used to describe ships. Not proper English but tradition. And it is up to me to demonstrate why that tradition is offensive. I will do this in the coming days. Gravitycollapse (talk) 06:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

First, the author of the book I referenced never stated that a majority of people misuse it and that the minority are correct. He simply described the usage. And despite what you say, it is not a cut and dry issue. The term "she" to refer to ships has been labeled as an exception to the normal rule of referring to inanimate objects in English as "it" since 1640. Not an error, an exception. In 2002, Lloyd's List discontinued referring to ships as she and began to use it. (From "Gender Shifts in the History of English" by Anne Curzan) There's clearly a case to be made for either side; however, screaming "It's offensive" is not a case. With these in mind, following standard usage is the best decision. Ryan Vesey 07:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• WP:COMMONNAME. Ships are referred to as "she", except German and Russian ships, which are "he". Wikipedia is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS because somebody one day decided "I'm going to be offended by this". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, the sudden appearance and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality on this just scream WP:SOCK. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

To my knowledge there is only one German ship which is referred to as male, German battleship Admiral Scheer. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• • • WP:SHE4SHIPS, nuff said. Mjroots (talk) 07:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
      • [edit conflict] Not necessarily. I saw this user while looking at Special:Recentchanges for something else, so I reverted and left a friendly note. While I was working on something else, the user reverted, only to be reverted by someone else, who pointed out the guideline. Gravity proceeded to edit the guideline without discussion; the person who reverted that time said to come here for discussion. A malicious sockpuppet wouldn't start demanding that we do such and such, which Gravity has done when I've explained that English has always worked this way. Nyttend (talk) 08:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
        • Thanks for finding that Mjroots. Nyttend - perhaps so, but the instant battlegrounding is still a bit...odd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
          • I just see it as someone who's come here to right a great wrong. Nyttend (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

English has not always worked this way. Unless you're now attempting to argue that English became a language in the mid 1600s. Hence, it is tradition to use feminine pronouns for things like ships or aircraft. There are many traditions that are wrong. And as I have already told another user, if tradition was the only measure of language, we'd still be calling black people niggers. Using feminine pronouns to describe inanimate objects is demonstrably incorrect and it is systematically destructive towards women. It embeds the perception that the female body is a tool to be used by hoards of men at their whim. It seems that several of you agree with me on some level. However, there also seems to be a lot of passing the buck around to avoid responsibility. In order for a concept to be changed, there must be a first step. And if everyone argues the excuse that it's tradition, that there is no consensus or that it is too radical a change, then it will never change. Gravitycollapse (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

How dare you compare the term "nigger" to using feminine pronouns for ships. You should be ashamed of yourself. "Nigger" is used specifically to demean black people. There is zero negative connotation directed towards anything when I refer to a ship as "she". Ryan Vesey 02:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Aside from your sensationalism, I don't understand your comment "Unless you're now attempting to argue that English became a language in the mid 1600s". The exception was first described in 1640, that has nothing to do with when English became a language. Ryan Vesey 02:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I would suspect that the editor of The Chicago Manual of Style probably never served aboard a ship. A commissioned ship with a crew is a living, breathing thing that lives and dies with how well a crew is trained to operate her. A true sailor would never refer to a ship that he or she had served on as an "it". Just my opinion, and to me the cutter that I served on will always be a her or a she in my mind and that is one place that political correctness can never enter... Cuprum17 (talk) 02:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I was surprised at the feelings I developed towards HMAS Melbourne when I served in her. She was an old ship - I was there for her 25th anniversary of commissioning - she needed a lot of care and had many faults, but she looked after us and although clearly an inanimate object, that is not how it feels to serve in ship. I was not successful in holding back the tears when she was towed to the breakers' yard, even today the feelings are like those one might have towards a deceased member of your family. I am unimpressed by revisionist arguments by those who have only a passing knowledge of things maritime yet who seek to impose their ideology on the world. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

"English has always worked this way." - Check up-thread. English has not always worked this way. There is nothing inherent about the English language that requires gendered pronouns for inanimate objects. In fact, there are rules demonstrating quite the opposite. What this reduces the practice to is tradition. Nigger as a racial epithet was utilitarian for hundreds of years before it became a genuinely offensive racial epithet sometime in the late 1800s. Such is the evolution of language. We cannot discount the destruction caused by language misused. Especially when considering the pervasiveness of sexist language cloaked under the guise of terms of endearment or tradition. When you call a ship "she" you are reducing the concept of "she" to a conduit hosting the movements of men who control its every action. And who ultimately have the ability to destroy it. Gravitycollapse (talk) 02:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Gravitycollapse. Rather than a being a 'conduit hosting the movements of men who control its every action. And who ultimately have the ability to destroy it.' I think you'll find that the 'she' pronoun refers to the fact that a ship is a kind of 'mother' to those who sail in the vessel, in the same way that nature is referred to as 'mother nature'. Do you object to that too? Instead of being demeaning, it refers to the idea of a life-giving mother who cares for all onboard and who would perish without her. The sea can be a dangerous place. Anthropomorphism is common among humans. If anything it is a complimentary assertion to the special and unique role that females have in giving birth and nurturing every member of our species. Although I think your argument may have some merit, your combative style isn't going to help put forward a solid argument. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Neither does it exist to bring about social change, but rather to reflect it. Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Gravitycollapse: You've been linked to WP:SHE4SHIPS. That is Wikipedia policy. A consensus of editors across all aspects of Wikipedia is needed before that will be changed. This is most easily achieved, if it exists, through a request for comment. However, it's very clear that there will not be consensus here for the change in policy you wish implemented, so taking it to RfC will be the next step. Someone's already gotten angry enough at you to file an AN/I request, and you may well find yourself blocked for disruptive behavior on articles and here. If you want to get anything done, start an RfC and remain a lot more WP:CIVIL. Also, take this into account. In the Spanish language, the word for "the bread" (or any masculine verb) starts with "el" ("pan" in the case of bread). However, the word for the masculine pronoun happens to be él, or even just el (in certain instances and by certain speakers). Many languages have gender by default, and just because you feel it offensive doesn't make that cease to exist. gwickwire^talk_edits 03:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I will work on my civility with future posts. I will also investigate the RfC. However, in defense of my argument, I have to point out the fact that you are making a strawman argument. That the usage of gendered pronouns in other languages does not in itself defeat my position on the specific usage of feminine pronouns within the context of the articles I attempted to edit. - Gravitycollapse (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to make a strawman argument, or as we call it here an other stuff exists argument. I'm sorry if I came across that way. The specific usage of the pronouns in the articles you attempted to edit is guided by Wikipedia's Manual of Style. In that, here specifically, it says that the use is appropriate, and neither of the two uses (she/it) are looked more highly upon than the other. Also, it says that they shouldn't be changed without a significant reason. The only way to make a significant reason relating to offense or language would be through a consensus at RfC. gwickwire^talk_edits 03:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see how inanimate objects could be offended by the use of feminine pronouns. Nevertheless, Lloyd's Register is a strong argument and I will consider using it in the future when writing about ships. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Gravitycolapse, the solution is obvious. You write articles about ships (plenty of them still to be written) using gender neutral language. Once witten, SHE4SHIPS protects that style from change, something that I'm sure members of this WP will defend. Mjroots (talk) 06:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I came across this thread as I'm an ANI stalker. Others have already pointed to the MOS so rather than parrot that again I thought I'd throw in some WP:OR, and totally unsubstantiated by any RS, thought, which I have no intention of putting in any article but merely as alternative perspective. But as far as I've read and am familiar with, ships are referred to as she not as a form of sexual objectification but as a term of endearment by those who built and those who serve aboard said ship. A technical manual would refer to a ship as it. As Mjroots said, start an article using 'it' to refer to ships that will be preserved. Just my two cents. Blackmane (talk) 12:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Shiny_new_editor_Gravitycollapse_and_yet_another_MOS-ditching_editwar. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It was closed, no action. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

So do we interpret that as Cravitycollapse being right on all points, or that the decision to keelhaul him has been deferred to the project? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

No, we do not! 17:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't mean he was right, no. It just means that the discussion here is the proper venue at this time. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

A liner built of cement?

worth an article? Mjroots (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Been there for a while already at Gu Tian

Is it really the largest though? Daily Fail says 3000 tons, WP is more, but is he/she/it really bigger than the WWI US oil tankers? (See SS Selma (1919)) Andy Dingley (talk)

Strange, it didn't show up when I searched for "MV Gu Tian". I think it was the biggest concrete passenger liner, reading the article. Mjroots (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Just what is a "liner" anyway? 3000 tons seems a mite small for one. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

And where does it say that the ship carried passengers? Looks like a normal cargo ship to me. Tupsumato (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It's bigger than most of the WW2 oil tankers. Atlantus was (rounded) 260'x44'; Gu Tian (and the article is inconsistent in its spelling) was 345'x48'. Selma does look a mite bigger tho. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Worth a section in Concrete ship - suggest that the meagre content in Gu Tian is moved there. By the way, can't see any passenger reference in the article or references. And only the Daily Mail, in the headline only, called her a "liner" (presumably the sub meant "cargo liner", but even that wasn't right - see the Croatian Times article).

And no, Gu Tian wasn't the largest. Three WW2 USMC classes exceeded that:

• C1-S-D1 type (24 built) 350bp/366oa x 54 x 35ft - 4852grt 5004dwt 10950displ - steam 1300ihp
• B7-A1 tank barges (11 built) - 350bp/366oa x 54 x 35ft - 4968grt 5786dwt ??displ
• B7-A2 tank barges (22 built) - 360bp/375oa x 56 x 38ft - 5410grt 6600dwt ??displ

Davidships (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest digging for sources - and the proper name - before merging; she's certainly of a size where she should be notable. (As it is though, merge and redirect would probably be good.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

No doubt about the name, I think. It was written clearly on the hull in the usual places.Davidships (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

RV FLIP

I have moved RP FLIP to RV FLIP, for reasoning see the Talk Page. I hope that this is not controversial. I'll hold off editing the article itself for consistency until I find whether my hand is going to be bitten off. Davidships (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Replied on that talk page. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hyphenating Royal Australian Navy classes

At the risk of seeming grumpy, I've been reverting recent moves of articles on Royal Australian Navy warship classes which add hyphens to their names (for instance, Bay class minehunter to Bay-class minehunter). These moves have been made in very good faith and in accordance with WP:NC-SHIPS, but do not actually reflect the common names of Australian warship classes. I'm not all that familiar with the naming conventions used in other countries, but Australian works on RAN ship classes do not use hyphens. For instance, they're not used in any form in the semi-official history of the RAN which was released in 2001 (The Royal Australian Navy: A History, edited by David Stephens), Ross Gillett, the most prolific author of books on the RAN's warships, doesn't use them (see, for instance, his Australian and New Zealand Warships since 1946), and the RAN itself consistently doesn't use hyphens on its website (some examples: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]). As such, I think that applying the hyphens to Australian warship classes violates WP:COMMONNAME and possibly WP:ENGVAR. Note that there was a discussion of this on my talk page at User talk:Nick-D#Hyphenating ship classes, but I think that a broader discussion may be in order. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Commonname is fine, but it shouldn't violate standard English grammar. Use a hyphen in adjectival form, don't use a hyphen in the noun form. Seems fairly straightforward to me, unless Australia does not follow this convention (and I don't mean that the military doesn't, but Australian variant English as a whole), which I'm not aware of. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Hyphens are consistently not used in any form when referring to ship classes in the works above. Nick-D (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I hate to tell you, hoss, but all of the articles that you linked to above were grammatically correct except for the one on HMS Parramatta. The RAN is mostly using proper grammar as the hyphen only comes into play when the noun is modified by a compound adjective, i.e. Bathurst-class minesweeper or 15-inch shell. If the word class is the noun in that phrase, then no hyphen is needed, i.e. "The Bathurst class were built..." And you yourself said in this discussion on your talkpage: "It does appear to be used in Jane's Fighting Ships though based on the online edition." And I found grammatically correct references to Australian ship classes in Chesneau's Aircraft Carriers of the World and Whitley's Destroyers of World War Two. I suspect that much of the issue is that many people nowadays are grammatically illiterate. I see no reason to grant the RAN an exception to ordinary English grammar.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Or perhaps, instead of being illiterate when it comes to grammar, the standard grammar has changed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Well then, I guess I'm just an old fogey who can't keep up with all y'all younguns.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we can all find sources that have and do not have hyphens for warship classes... I'm more in favor of having a consistent guideline for all warships. That may just be me, though. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

No, you're not alone. I would argue that grammar standards have not changed, but that, with the much greater accessibility of raw writing on the Internet, the already poor grammar skills of people have simply become more apparent! That doesn't mean we stop trying to reach for a more perfect written word. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Nick-D added a note to the guidelines that would make an exception of RAN warships. Which I have no problem with him being bold and that this discussion has petered out somewhat. But I would add that I don't think RAN warships should be an exception, and I feel that the consensus here was in that direction as well. While some sources don't use the hyphens when referring to RAN warship classes, the same is true for RN warship classes, US classes, etc etc. It's more a style approach, and wikipedia has always drawn up its own one, making reference to other usages but not dependent on them. Another problem that occurs, if ships of some classes served in the RAN and also in other navies, should their class articles have a hyphen or not. The River-class frigates for example? And I will note that in a lot of the pages that Nick linked to use forms like 'River Class' - i.e. capitalising 'class', which we don't do for any classes, even the Australian ones. In short, I suggest that there be no style exceptions to this general rule of hyphenation, and the guideline should continue to reflect this, and that the remaining Australian warship classes be moved along with those of all the other navies. Is there consensus for this or not? Benea (talk) 10:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I had a look for sources using the hyphen or not, and though I find many that don't use it, I also find those that do [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], etc. Including some Australian publications there. Others use a variety of styles - I've seen Anzac class frigate, ANZAC class frigate, Anzac Class frigate and "Anzac" class Frigate, for example. Which makes me more inclined to think this is an in-house style issue. Benea (talk) 10:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for those sources. It doesn't seem sensible to me to apply a Wikipedia style to a topic in which it isn't commonly used simply for the sake of consistency given that it's going to look weird to most of the people who read the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

...just as Anzac class will look weird to people used to ANZAC class, etc. :-) Wikipedia has its own in-house style, which we use with things like endashes, and I think that is what we should stick with. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not such a good comparison - the lower case 'Anzac' in this case is the official and common name of all the Australian warships of that name (I once read a long-winded explanation of why the RAN uses this rather than the all-caps version; thankfully I can't remember any of the details!). Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay then, try italicizing versus non-italicizing. A lot of sources don't italicize the ship names, yet Wikipedia always does. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good point (I think that italics are a bit more common, but proving that point either way would be essentially impossible!) Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

As I'm a one man band here, I think it's time to acknowledge that consensus is against me. I have no objections to these articles being moved, though I'll grumble to myself when the moves occur ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with you, I don't like the hyphens either, and I think they look especially silly on double-barrelled names. But it's not an issue that bothers me enough to try and make an issue of it. Gatoclass (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedian in Residence: Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums

Hi all,

Just to let you know that the Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums are advertising for a Wikipedian in Residence (announcement). It's a funded post, part-time through spring and early summer, based in Newcastle (so may well suit a student). Applications are open until 4th March. They're particularly interested in the prospect of someone wanting to work with the shipbuilding & industrial history collections, and digitising some of the material they have in their archives.

Details are available on their website, and there's some details about other upcoming UK residency programs here.

Please pass this on to anyone who might be interested, and feel free to get in touch with me if you've any questions! Andrew Gray (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Sclass family of templates

I have finished the {{sclass}} family of templates. The newest and last member of the family is {{sclass2-}} for use with hyphenated article titles when the ship class is named for a common attribute: {{Sclass2|Flower|corvette}} produces: Flower-class corvette.

In the relatively recent past, the {{sclass}} family of templates was nominated for deletion because the original templates {{sclass}} and {{sclass2}} and the new {{sclass-}} templates were all forks - copies of the original {{sclass}}. Because of that, I created {{sclass/core}} which does all of the formatting for the four templates. Two of the templates, {{Sclass}} and {{Sclass2}} use {{sclass/core}} while the other two do not. {{sclass}} and {{sclass2}} are protected so I can't replace them with the sandbox versions that use {{sclass/core}}.

Test cases for all of the {{sclass}} templates are at the testcases page. Are there any admins who would be willing to move {{sclass/sandbox}} to {{sclass}} and {{sclass2/sandbox}} to {{sclass2}}?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS SC-715

A heads up here, for those that don't normally monitor the alerts page. Benea (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Resource extraction ships

Is there a Wikipedia article for Mineral resource extraction ships generally? I found an article for Drillships, which is also a Category of ships, Category:Drillships. But I have not been able to locate an article for this more general type of ship on Wikipedia, nor an appropriate Category that is broader than Category:Drillships.

I'm thinking of ships that might mine aggregates (sand, gravel, etc.) or metallic ores like gold and copper (as, for example, Nautilus Minerals, etc.), or even the never-operated but putatively-built-for-mineral-extraction ("manganese nodules off the seafloor") Glomar Explorer. Where would such ships resource extraction ships belong, beyond the more "drilling"-specific ships related to the oil and gas/energy industry belong? What is there proper category? What general article describes them? Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Much of those are dredges ; Glomar Explorer is also a salvage ship -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, good point on what Glomar Explorer actually "became". But as it was publicly announced during the early part of its life, Glomar Explorer was (to the public, if not to the "secret" player who was contracting for (and paying for) the ship) simply a resource extraction ship. And although I'm not certain, it does seem that "dredge" would be the correct type of ship for what GE was (publicly) announced to do—dredging manganese nodules off of the ocean floor—before its real purpose leaked out to the public after the US government was no longer able to keep it secret: salvage a sunk nuclear submarine.

My question still stands though: given that dredges are a type of resource extraction ship, and drillships are also a type of resourced extraction ship, and (some of the) floating oil and gas platforms are a type of resource extraction ship, where do we put a new resource extraction ship, such as the one being built by Nautilus Minerals, that does not fit in any of the other ship categories? It is, sort of, like a dredge. But if it is doing serious subsurface extraction of minerals, and the ocean floor starts to look more like this open-pit surface mine (photo here) than ordinary dredging operations, then I really think we will need a meta-category for resource extraction ships more generally, unless we already have one somewhere on Wikipedia that I have not, to date, been able to find. — N2e (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Cannot see the point of a Category to arbitrarily combine a range of vessels that do different things. Especially as neither of the examples given are really relevant. Glomar Explorer can't go in a category of ship that it wasn't (and wasn't intended to be - just a cover story). As for the Nautilus Minerals project, it looks most unlikely to happen, at least in the near future - they are in dispute with the PNG Govermnent, the German ship partners have walked away, and the shipyard is in administration.Davidships (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Canadian ships, eh

This nomination at CfD may be of interest to the project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Articles about basic terminology

Here in Wikipedia is written lot of articles about historic ship types, but there is not Historic ship itself, can anyone start it? :) User:Suwa (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

What exactly would the article cover? Parsecboy (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Replica Titanic

We are having a disagreement at Replica Titanic about whether the Popular Mechanics feasibility study was part of the Gous project, or whether it is independent. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

HMS Godetia (K226)

Hello! I'm not well versed in the technical data of warships, but I wondered if someone might be able to write the technical data for the HMS Godetia (K226) article. I believe much of the information can be found here, but as I say, I'm far from expert. Many thanks! ---Brigade Piron (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• I built an infobox for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! ---Brigade Piron (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

1885 USS Iris documentation

All,

I have the Description of Engines, Boilers, and Auxiliary Machinery document for the 1885 IRIS. It is a filled out form that contains lots of technical information for the ship. Is this of any use to anyone?

Skully09 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure it would be very useful. The article on the ship in question is USS Iris (1885). I don't have a ton of free time at the moment, so unfortunately I can't help with improving the article, but perhaps someone else around here can :) Parsecboy (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Requesting further review of pronoun usage

Style issue seems to be the most relevant topic available. Although this also carries an element of language usage as well as political relevance.

I would like comment on the relevance of converting feminine or masculine pronouns for inanimate objects, specifically ships in this project, to gender neutral pronouns. Gravitycollapse (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Edited this to provide some relevant source material

http://www.erudit.org/revue/meta/1990/v35/n4/003726ar.pdf

"Making Translations More « Native »: The Use of Feminine Pronoun for Inanimate Things"

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED266472&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED266472

"I'm No Lady Astronaut": Nonsexist Language for Tomorrow." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gravitycollapse (talk • contribs) 20:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The first article is interesting (though I do not agree with all the analysis), but the second is inaccesible at the present moment.Davidships (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

To which kind of gender-neutral pronouns? "It" or "xe"?--Auric talk 04:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• I strongly prefer "it" for ships. "She" looks archaic; our MoS explicitly allows both, and Lloyds apparently uses "it". What are the arguments for using "she"? --John (talk) 04:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Keep I see no reason to change the current convention. Ships have been described using the feminine pronoun for hundreds of years. Mariners universally refer to their ships as "she". "She" is the overwhelmingly accepted usage in reliable sources discussing ships in English. There have been no good reasons expressed for this change other than change for change's sake. Surely there are more important things to discuss on Wikipedia than this unnecessary waste of time. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - you might consider going back and re-wording this RFC, just to better explain to editors what it is you're trying to get comment on. I understand now, but only because I went trawling through the above to discover where the original disagreement started. On the issue itself, I have no strong objection to the use of "she" with regard to vessels. It makes particular sense in cases where the vessel has already been given a "female" name which seems to be far more common than ships with masculine names (though I would get a laugh out of naming a boat the Steve or Boris' Bounty). Yes, it's probably a bit archaic and "it" might be more "politically correct" but I'm not seeing a groundswell of off-WP anger against gender pronouns, in fact the opposite is probably true, as suggested above. Most quotes relating to vessels would be in that context anyway, "she handles beautifully" or "something across her bow" (you get my drift) so amending might cause some confusion in some cases. This convention seems to have extended (for obvious reasons) to space ships in science fiction, so we'll likely be seeing it for some time. Stalwart111 05:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose the suggestion. Both methods are equally acceptable and article writers have the choice of which to use. No need to take that choice away. I'd also oppose any attempt to force editors to always use she to refer to ships. Mjroots (talk) 06:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose the proposal, as per arguments here and in the earlier discussion. We here in Wikipedia will of course adapt to changes in language, but we will not be the ones to initiate them. Personally, I am okay with both "she" and "it", and will continue to use both in the articles I write. Tupsumato (talk) 07:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. As mentioned in the Manual of Style, both types of phrasing are acceptable - and they should remain so. Wikipedia is not censored and changing terminology that is very widely used and accepted by everyone isn't somehing we should do as part of a crusade or otherwise. Perhaps if and when it becomes notable that people are upset by it, it might be considered, but that hasn't happened (and, if sanity reigns, it never will). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• keep There is no problem here. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose While I strongly prefer she, I'll leave it at both are acceptable. She is more widely used and we should not be attempting to disctontinue it. Ryan Vesey 15:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I oppose Gravitycollapse's proposal to change to gender-neutral pronouns. I oppose this crusade against common usage. Editors are free to choose which pronouns to use. —Diiscool (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I have authored a few ship articles using "her" and "she", and edited many more. I have come to believe that this usage will someday be on the wrong side of history, so to speak, and as archaic as assigning gender to hurricanes. While common usage is important, it is not always determinative (people assign gender and feminine names to vehicles, locomotives, and objects as mundane as a Roomba, a usage which no doubt makes some sexist assumptions). As official usage changes, Wikipedia should too. In the meantime, why not avoid pronouns altogether? It can be done. Kablammo (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Some time ago I came across a suggestion from Tony1 to avoid the issue by avoiding pronouns. Hence TS King Edward, written by Dave souza and me, contains no "it", "she", or "her", except in direct quotes. In contrast, some articles on US fast battleships contain between 50 and 90 feminine pronouns. (I don't criticize the writers of those articles, who were following both tradition and convention, as I also have in the past.) Kablammo (talk)

• Comment I am relaxed about which way this goes, but I am still slightly taken with the OP's proposal and like Kablammo above I can't see the "she" usage persisting far into the future. I wonder, could some of those above saying so confidently that "she" is enormously more prevalent than "it" when talking about ships possibly provide some data to back up their assertions? It's quite hard for me to see Lloyds as being radical outliers in this usage. I now need to sample some of my nautical and naval books and see which usage they use and whether it varies over time. It would be great if others could do the same. --John (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This proposal is needless and just another attempt of one bored person trying to force others to be overly PC under the guise of "tradition changing". The current policy/guideline now is acceptable. I tend to err on the side of being PC myself but even this is too nonsensical and petty to get bothered about and yeah, I'm a woman. The fact that the prosper of this RfC likened the usage of feminine pronouns for ships to a highly inflammatory racial slur is just the cherry on top of it all really. No problem using that word but yeah, let's get pissed that the Titanic is being referred to as a "she". Jesus. 24.72.173.203 (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The change is unnecessary because the present policy allows the editor to use either she or it. If I am reading a ship article and it is used, I generally leave it alone with the exception that if it is used both ways in the same article then I will make some changes to make the article uniform. Personally, I prefer she, but I don't make the effort to go through dozens of articles just to change it to my preference; I have more important editting to do. I do think that tradition should count for something. Cuprum17 (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment; as Kablammo says above, pronouns causing this issue can be avoided with a little effort and the result looks natural as well as probably being more future proof against the language increasingly looking archaic. However, I've used feminine pronouns in the past to refer to ships. and feel no urge to go round rewriting the articles. As someone who has had limited input into ship articles, the proposal looks good as a recommendation, but should not be implemented in a heavy-handed way. . . dave souza, talk 21:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
• Outside comment by non-native English speaker. When ships are mentioned in English articles or books, I always see it referred to as "she". Wikipedia is not a soapboxing platform to spread new tendencies in language, or to promote political correction. See WP:ADVOCACY or WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - for the number of times this has come up, this should probably be included at WP:PERENNIAL. "She" is commonly used to refer to ships, and good grammar is descriptive, not prescriptive. In addition, omitting pronouns altogether results in a lot more of "Name of ship" and "the ship/vessel", which gets very repetitive in longer articles. For example, the article German battleship Bismarck has somewhere around 80 feminine pronouns (which refer to the subject of the article and numerous other ships), over 130 uses of "Bismarck" (and scores of other ships' names) and over 60 "the ship/vessel" constructions. Having three options to refer to a ship makes for better writing. And I presume this proposal would also have us not use the term sister ship. Where shall we redirect that article? Parsecboy (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Parsecboy, as an example of elimination of pronouns entirely I edited one section of Bismarck.[11]. I don't plan on doing the rest of the article, or reverting if you don't like my changes (I respect your work and the work of principal editors to articles, and will not seek to enforce my views), but it is possible to avoid, not only feminine pronouns, but all pronouns, without harming grammar or writing. Kablammo (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: MOS already allows both styles, and both are appropriate in different contexts. Many military ships are named after men, and it doesn't make sense to refer to them as feminine, but otherwise the use is and always has been overwhelmingly to do so, and not just in English, but throughout recorded maritime history. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 16:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - I oppose forcing a single style on editors. And I don't buy for a second the argument that using she/her for ships is somehow demeaning to women. Manxruler (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, and if anyone continues to wish to use that line of argument I think it is incumbent upon them to provide some actual evidence that this is an issue in real life. The media does not seem to be bombarded with angry feminists complaining that ships should not be called "she", at least that I have heard of. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's the issue. It is not a question of whether advocates of, or editors who use, feminine pronouns are intentionally sexist; they (and I) are not, at least we should not assume that they are. Undoubtedly the use by old salts of such pronouns for ships represents affection, trust, and similar emotions. The question rather is whether there is disrespect which can be conveyed by such usage. All you have to do is search for "why are ships called she" + "joke" to see many examples of that. And at least one of those ancient wheezes was set forth on Wikipedia some years ago (I can't find the link right now, and even if I could I would not post it) as a joking justification for such usage-- humour which many women quite justifiably would find offensive. Puerile jokes about broad beams, high maintenance, and the expense of paint and powder are not considered funny by many of us. Kablammo (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

We don't censor ourselves because somebody could turn something into a distasteful joke. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I censor myself routinely to avoid giving offense. Kablammo (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

There's a difference between "don't make a nasty joke" and "don't say the innocuous thing the nasty joke is based on". We don't avoid saying that somebody is skilled at language because the off-color pun about that exists. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, Bushranger. There needs to be an actual, real, reason if we're to self-censor like this. I simply do not see any reason at all to avoid this pronoun just because someone, somewhere, somehow might make cheap jokes based on the pronoun use. If we were to do that, then what's next? Manxruler (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose for now; support in year 2100 - The MOS permits both "she" and "it". Personally, if I were creating a ship article I'd use "it" because I'm sensitive to gender bias. But "she" is a very common standard. I'm sure the day will come, a century or two in the future when "she" is discouraged; and when that day comes, WP should follow suit. --Noleander (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose – There is no reason why we should stop using "she" if that is what ships are conventionally referred to. HueSatLum 17:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - in English a ship is treated as feminine. It is rare enough in English that nouns are given any gender, but the convention is there. Wikipedia is not a platform for personal campaigns. DiverScout (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Ship tons burthen

For the infobox of "ship characteristics" what does Ship tons burthen mean? Is it the gross tonnage or net tonnage of the ship? ShaneMc2010 17:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

See the Usage Guide.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

More detailed discussions can be found at

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Archive_30#Tons_Burthen_cannot_be_given_metric_equivalents and
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Archive_13#Proposal_to_deprecate_.22Tons_Burthen.22_in_infobox_and_hunt_down_metric_convertions_of_Tonnage.

"Burthen" is used for RN ships before 1873; displacement thereafter. Kablammo (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

"Burthen" is an old word for Tonnage, invariably builder's measure. Nineteenth century sources often give both builder's and register tonnage. Petecarney (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Has anybody ever heard of Ottomar gern?

I PRODed the article Ottomar gern because it is not in English and I cannot establish notability, but I want to do due diligence. Per Google Translate, the claim is being made that he built one of the first ever submarines in the 18th century. If true, it's is a fact missed by every reliable source I can find on submarine history. Has anybody here ever heard of him? Andrew³²⁷ 06:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't until now. He seems to be better known as Konstantin Borisovich Gern who designed a number of submarines in the mid-1800s. As a submarine pioneer I guess he is notable. --ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Now I can establish who he actually was and work on expanding the un-PRODed article. Andrew³²⁷ 20:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Pluralization of class template titles

I noticed that The Bushranger has recently been changing class template titles from singular to plural, example here. Bushranger argues that the singular is "grammatically odd" and that the article is about the ships (plural). But I don't agree it is grammatically odd at all. The class articles AFAIK are all named in the singular and no-one has ever claimed that is "grammatically odd" because the articles are about more than one ship. The class articles are singular because the article refers to a single class of ships, and I see no reason why the class template titles should not follow suit. Gatoclass (talk) 06:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

On one hand, the articles are singular as Gatoclass said, on the other hand, templates like {{US Presidents}} use the plural. I'm inclined to agree with The Bushranger as the navbox is essentially a list of ships. If it were more expansive, i.e. had links to pages other than the various ships, singular titles would be appropriate. Ryan Vesey 06:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

US Presidents is obviously a plurality, but a ship class article is about a single ship class, it's not just a "list of ships". Gatoclass (talk) 07:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The navbox; however, is a list of ships, even if the article is not. The navbox does not provide any other information than the list. If it listed something like various captains, designers, countries or whatnot, it would make sense for the navbox to be singular because it would be about the topic. Ryan Vesey 07:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

That's my logic exactly; the template title is the title describing the contents of the navbox - therefore plural. It just happens to contain a link to the (rightfully singular) class article. Note for instance that the second navbox on Topaze-class cruiser is "British naval ship classes of the First World War" - plural. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the "British naval ship classes of the First World War" template is at all relevant here because that is obviously a template referring to multiple ship classes. But other than that, I guess this depends to some degree on one's POV. I see the template header less as a title and more as the main link in a series of related links, and it seems counterintuitive to me to link from a plural to a singular because IMO it is going to make readers wonder why the class article isn't a plural as well. But I guess there are valid arguments on both sides of the fence here, so maybe we should just wait to see what the consensus is. Gatoclass (talk) 08:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The title in the nav box serves two purposes. One is as a link to the class article. Another is to label what is in the nav box. This second use is important when the box is in its hide-mode as it gives readers an indication of what is in the nav box. A hide-mode nav box with a singular title implies that when the box is in show-mode there is information about the class. That implication is clearly wrong.

One could change how the title is formed: Casco-class monitors or Casco-class monitors instead of Casco-class monitors for example.

The nav box serves a similar purpose to categories. Category:Casco-class monitors is a list of Casco-class monitors. The category title is similar to category titles for aircraft carriers, submarines, tugboats, etc.

And, how is this singular / plural issue any different from adding an 's' to a link in article text?

Anyone know how to turn a robot loose to move all of this type of template from non-hyphenated to hyphenated? After all, since there has been a big push in the last months to rename all of the class articles, should we not also rename these templates?

{{Casco class light draft monitor}} probably should be renamed to {{Casco-class monitor}} in keeping with WP:NC-SHIPS.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

or to {{Casco-class monitors}} to match the category name? Frietjes (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The file name is unimportant; what matters is what's displayed to the reader.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, renaming templates is pretty close to WP:BURO; the average reader sees nothing of the actual template name, just what it displays. There's no real need to move the templates either to hyphenated or to shortened names (which, at least in some cases, have been overshortened IMHO - "light draft monitor" should indeed be "monitor", but "torpedo cruiser" shouldn't be "cruiser". That's probably another kettle of fish though.) - it's transparent to the reader. As long as the header says the proper hyphenated class name (which I've been doing - the script that shows redirects in a different color is a great help), that's what matters. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Project 1231

need help in the translation of ru:Опытный малый погружающийся ракетный корабль проекта 1231 Vyacheslav84 (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, we can't help you until you start an article on it ... 2.101.33.243 (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Putting the URL in http://www.bing.com/translator/ at least seems to give a good start, subject of course to all the oddities of machine translation.Davidships (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Made a start (base) in English - can not continue, because of a specific text. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 07:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I've made a stab at a fair Anglicisation. I couldn't work out how "По версии В. Асинина, после смерти Хрущёва проект подвергся объективному анализу и в итоге был закрыт ввиду отсутствия перспектив" fits into the context, so I've left it out. More importantly, the original Russian article seems to contradict itself - it acknowledges the pre-war Brzezinski boat and Project 662, but then claims that Project 1231 was the result of an original idea by Khrushchev of combining a submarine and a ship.

the project in 1231 Khrushchev's idea but the idea of hybrid Ships appeared to him. "По версии В. Асинина, после смерти Хрущёва проект подвергся объективному анализу и в итоге был закрыт ввиду отсутствия перспектив" - ship was not built and has been closed for the final stage of the design. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand the Russian well enough, but what I don't understand is why the text says work was stopped in 1964, but then goes on to say "after the death of Khrushchev (ie 1971) the project was subjected to an objective analysis and [in sum] was shut down in view of an absence of perspective". Surely this contradicts the rest of the paragraph - which says the project had been shut down 7 years before this point? 2.101.33.243 (talk) 23:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

my mistake. after Khrushchev's retirement (отставки). corrected Thanks! Vyacheslav84 (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

What specific text are you struggling with? 2.101.33.243 (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

yes all the sections on arms engines housing etc. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Vyacheslav, I've tagged the image you use on the page as an infringement of Wikipedia's copyright violation policy. As far as I can see, the image has been copied from a copyright source with no valid non-free use rationale (and no prospect of ever getting one - since there is nothing to prevent a Wikipedia editor producing another artist's impression to replace it). I know it's hosted on the Russian Wikipedia - and that's another problem. Please understand that this is not a criticism of the article, or your efforts, merely an administrative task to uphold a core tenet of Wikipedia's values. If you think I'm wrong, please contest it by hitting "Contest this speedy deletion" here. 2.101.33.243 (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Eduard Aframeev. DIVING MISSILE-BOATS - image is used in the English version. ru:Википедия:Критерии добросовестного использования#Условия complete (full) analogy Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Policy (can verify the translation). Project 1231 analogy ru:Опытный малый погружающийся ракетный корабль проекта 1231. File:Project 1231.png analogy ru:Файл:Ныряющий катер.png. File in the Russian Wikipedia checked the local administrators (our licensing strictly). What claims? Bring to a slow removal if there is doubt: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 05:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I completely understand that the file is used in the Russian Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean it's use is acceptable here (it's not acceptable there either, but Russian Wikipedia doesn't seem to take a firm line ...) The fact is that this is a copyright image, and there is no justification for its use, because it is not necessary (it's ornamental) and it can be replaced (draw one yourself, or get someone to do so). It's copyright theft, in fact, and Wikipedia doesn't do that. 2.101.41.248 (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

A question on categorisation

When a ship is transferred from one navy to another, but remains with all its information in a single article, how should it be categorised in Category:Ships by navy? By the navy for which the article takes the ship's name from, with other navies having the redirects in their respective categories, or directly from all navies using the ship? For instance, taking, Belgian frigate Leopold I (F930), formerly HNLMS Karel Doorman (F827); should the article be in both Category:Karel Doorman-class frigates, piped to |Karel Doorman (as, being built and orignally operated by the Dutch, the main class category doesn't get an "of the Foo" appendage) and Category:Karel Doorman-class frigates of the Belgian Navy, or should it only be in Category:Karel Doorman-class frigates of the Belgian Navy, with the redirect using the RNLN's name in Category:Karel Doorman-class frigates? One (the former) is better for navigation from the article, but creates some awkwardness in the category listings, while the other (the latter) is better from navigation downwards through the category tree. I'm personally thinking the latter might actually be preferable, but would like opinons. (Ideally, an entirely new article would be created every time a ship changed navies, but that way lies madness...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Another, perhaps clearer example: USS Sheboygan became the Belgian Lieutenant ter zee Victor Billet. Does USS Sheboygan (PF-57) get categorised in both Category:Tacoma-class frigates<Category:Frigates and destroyer escorts of the United States Navy and Category:Tacoma-class frigates of the Belgian Navy<Category:Frigates of the Belgian Navy, or only in the former with the redirect Belgian frigate Lieutenant ter zee Victor Billet (F910) going in the latter? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

With the latter it's a bit tricky, some of the Tacoma-class ships were barely in the US Navy for any time and not long enough to count as defining under WP:Category. As such it would be better to have Category:Tacoma-class frigates of the US Navy as a subcat of Category:Tacoma-class frigates which itself remain a subcat of Category:Frigates and destroyer escorts of the United States but not of Category:Frigates and destroyer escorts of the United States Navy.

I know that doesn't answer your question. For that I would say if thereis an existing redirect add only the redirect to the national category, but if there isn't one add both cats to the article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hm, that's a good point. And thanks - that's how I'm leaning; it makes both the page and the catgories awkward-looking otherwise. Category:Ships by navy seems best navigated 'from the top down', with navigation from the article being assisted by navboxen. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Further pondering while driving led me to realise that that option actually provides a model example of synergy between categorisation and navboxes. Also, with regard to the Tacomas - my position would be that being assigned a name by a navy counts as defining, but that's another kettle o' fish. - The Bushranger posting as Aerobird from a public computer ^Talk 21:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

As MasterChef is on in the background here, I take it as a sign we should boil that fish kettle while we have a chance. As I understand it, "defining" means a characteristic that is the essence (wrong word?) of the article. So salmon comes under the Categories "Red colour fish" and "food fish" but not under the categories "Fish that Gregg Wallace has eaten" or "Fish that you can buy at Tesco". With the ships, the categories are three sorts: "type of", "national origin of" or "served in the navy of". My instinct is that a vessel that came home from the wars then sat in a dock until sold doesn't have much service to speak of in as much as a reader would expect of the term. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Today's secret ingredient is... one definition that I've seen tossed around at WP:CFD of "defining" is "something you'd expect to find in the lede"; as alternate names for the ship are included in the lede ("HMS Whatzit (ex-USS Whodat)") that would seem to fit. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Brazilian Navy ship prefix?

I've found a lot of things that indicate that the Brazilian Navy may use "NDCC" as a ship prefix. Is this an official thing? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not a ship prefix as we understand it, more that it's a type classification. NDCC stands for Navio de Desembarque de Carros de Combate (somewhat idiomatically translated as 'Ship Unloading Car Combat'), and it's used to describe their landing and transport type ships. Other types get different classifications, so São Paulo is NAe São Paulo - Navio-Aeródromo or 'Airfield-Ship'. When listing their own ships, they seem to just use the name without prefix, as here for example. Benea (talk) 08:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Ahhh, that makes a lot of sense, thanks. Now that you've mentioned it I recall "NAe" before. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

WWII Royal Navy photos

A quick heads-up...

There's a large tranche of WWII Royal Navy photographs recently uploaded to commons - around 2000 currently at commons:Category:Royal Naval photographer, and another thousand or so to come. Some are categorised, some aren't; there's a list of those needing checked for categorisation here.

The metadata's pretty good, usually identifying specific ships and dates, so it should be fairly easy to match them to articles. If you've any questions, feel free to shout here! Andrew Gray (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

External link spam

User:Sardine Sam has been adding either www.cruisecritic.com or www.cleancruising.com.au or both to liners article. They dont appear to add any value to the articles and I have left the user a spam warning. I dont have many ships on my watchlist so perhaps project members can have a look at the contributions. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this says it all. I've given the equivilant of a uw-only. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Going live with the sandbox version of the CSR template

I'm sure everyone loves our newest citation template, {{cite ship register}}. User:Trappist the monk made a great job in bringing the citation template more or less in line with other existing templates — see discussion and test cases — but the project has not progressed since the end of December.

Liking the new output more than the old, I propose that we go live with the sandbox version, do an AWB/manual conversion to the existing articles, and update the documentation. Tupsumato (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Nice work. bobrayner (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I like it! I'd like to further optimise the code, however, as there is a lot of duplication of effort in the code. I should have some time this weekend to work on it. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds great! Perhaps you could also add a space to those outputs where we have "(subscription required)"? Now it seems to be attached to the {{retrieved}} field. Tupsumato (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Space added.

@Huntster: I removed the changes that you made to {{csr}}. I intentionally left out the long-form names because the template is an editor's shortcut and the long-form names just clutter up the template. I am interested to know how the template can be further optimized; care to explain?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I would disagree with leaving out the long-form names, since checking for another possible string in a parameter of a cite template hardly hamstrings performance. The template was created so editors could get on with the more important business of writing ship articles, instead of memorising the names of several different citation templates for different registries; that would be undermined by expecting editors to memorise the right abbreviation for the name of the registry. Usability is important. bobrayner (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Trappist, as Bobrayner says above, the long form names add usability to the template, and will not impact performance or clutter in any way. Forcing the users to memorise specific codes is not good, making it less useful overall. Further, my goal is to combine the various switches, rather than having a separate switch function for every field. Given the errors shown on the testcase page, there's still plenty of fixes and tweaking that can be done. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess the errors are the mainly because the original idea was to drop the long forms and rely only on the abbreviations as parameters. I'm not against including the full registry names in the template as long as I don't have to use them. Tupsumato (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I presume that you refer to the error messages that appear in the examples table on the testcases page. They are there because I wanted to know how my version of the template would perform given the same conditions as the original bobrayner template. If my version of the template ever makes it out of the sandbox, I'll remove the error state tests.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

@bobrayner and @Huntster re: abbreviations: Surely editors are more clever than you give them (us) credit for being. The abbreviations in almost all cases use the first letter of each word in the registry's name: GL for Germanischer Lloyd for example. How hard is that to remember when compared to remembering how to spell non-English words like Germanischer or Norske or Registro? And you do have to get the spelling right or you will get an error message.

Your comments though do point out that not all registries follow the "first-letter-of-the-name" abbreviation rule: Clydebuilt / Clydesite, Equasis, Miramar Ship Index / Miramar, Russian Maritime Register of Shipping. So, for these I propose that the abbreviations be C, E, MSI, RMRS.

@Huntster re: combining switches: Are you sure? A value must be assigned to each local variable before it is passed to {{Citation/core}}. Is it possible to make assignments within a switch? I don't think so, at least, not according to this reference. Assignments will need to be made for |Publisher=, |IncludedWorkURL=, and |Title=.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

While we're at it, could we perhaps drop MMSI from the citation template? MarineTraffic.com is not a database that can be used as a source, and I see hardly any use for it in the citation template. We already have {{MMSI}} for presenting the MMSI number in the infobox with a handy link to the tracking website. Tupsumato (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Why not? Because it's a wiki?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

When it comes to technical details, yes, that's why. Also, I don't really see anything worth citing in there. AIS information is volatile and I think WP:PRIMARY may also apply when it comes to speed, position etc. data. Tupsumato (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I wanted a more complete reason for deletion. It is done.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I've tweaked the sandbox and live versions of {{cite ship register}} to support the abbreviations I mentioned above (with the exception of RS which I left as-is because the RS abbreviation is used on that registry's web site and on it's Wikipedia page). I then went through all of the article-space pages that link to {{cite ship register}} and changed the templates that used Clyebuilt (none), Equasis, and Mirimar to use the new abbreviations. All of the long-form names have been removed from the sandbox version; the documentation page now reflects the abbreviations supported by the sandbox version; the testcases page no longer tests long-form name versions of the live and sandbox templates.

Since the community has been mute on this topic for a week now, I am inclined to replace the live version of the template with the sandbox version and will do so tomorrow unless there is sufficient reason not to do so.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks good, although it may take a while for me to learn to use "E" instead of "Equasis". Could you add a "." after the retrieved fields? Tupsumato (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Done.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Wait, what? What's wrong with editors being able to use "Equasis" as a parameter? bobrayner (talk) 11:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I do agree with this one. While the classification societies have their respective abbreviations that are widely used, Equasis is just Equasis. Tupsumato (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Has this progressed? Tupsumato (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Has what progressed? {{cite ship register}} (my version) "went live" 22 February 2013.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Admin request

I've been meaning to do this for a long time, but it slipped my mind until now. Nautilus-class submarine (1914) is an article about a single submarine, rather than a class. Only one vessel was ever built, or planned for that matter, so under our usual standards the article should be at HMS Nautilus (1914). I'd have been bold and moved it myself long ago, but a redirect with history at that title continues to block the move. Perhaps an admin could delete it to facilitate the move? This move has been sitting around for 6 years now. Must be a record. Benea (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. When are you going to run for administrator, Benea? ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Much obliged! Well, if my adoring public demand it, then who am I to refuse! :) Benea (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't let Ed fool you - It's A Trap! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll be careful. You'll be dead! Benea (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I nominated you, Bushranger. Keep that in mind. I'll get your adminship taken away as fast as I granted it to you. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 11:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah! Yeah! Do it! Then maybe you can, as your first act, answer my {{sclass}} and {{sclass2}} edit requests. I'd be ever so appreciative.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, my fear is always that people will dig into my contributions and discover my massive scandals and my desire to kill all humans. But if it might help anyone out, I could give it a go... Benea (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see anything crazy in an admittedly cursory review of your contributions. You're a long-term content editor; as long as you don't mess up on policy questions (when the policies are just a tab away) or say that you want to immediately begin work in an area where you have little experience (like AfD), you should be fine. Sleep on it and tell us what you think. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

You could always request an editor review before you put yourself on the shooting line. Andrew³²⁷ 23:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

C'mon over Benea, you'll make a fine admin and find the extra buttons useful. Mjroots (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

{{sclass}} and {{sclass2}} edit requests have been answered; guess I can't be your first act.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)