Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 53

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

→

Archive 60

Other ships

Useful links: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 51#Ship Index _pages - another try

I've been doing a bit of work creating ship index pages for the Italian and French Navies. While the other ships template works well for ships which have a prefix like HMS and USS it doesn't seem ideal for navies which do not use them. It seems slightly incongruous to have a pointer to "For other ships with the same name, see Italian ship Leonardo da Vinci (or French ship Nautilus)" and then create an index page for Italian ship Leonardo da Vinci when what we are seeking is to dab only warships where as ship without a prefix invites confusion with civilian ships. How do people feel about changing it to "For other warships with the same name" and the index page title to Italian warship Leonardo da Vinci for example? Lyndaship (talk) 08:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

So the options mentioned are: [[Italian ship Leonardo da Vinci]], [[French ship Nautilus]], [[Italian warship Leonardo da Vinci]].

Why not give the Index page, the ship list, a disambiguation term? Say, [[Leonardo da Vinci (Italian warship)]]. - DePiep (talk) 10:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I think a ship index page is to list other warships of the same navy and name, a standard dab page is where Nautilus for instance would be disambigulated. Also just adding a dab term on the ship index page would not solve the problem on the article page which currently says "for other ships see French ship Nautilus" Lyndaship (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

If you want to index list Italian warships with that name, the word Italian must be in the title somehow. But is is not part of the ship's name definitely (unlike "USS" is), so we're not obliged to use it as prefix. A bracketed DAB term looks most OK to me. And about "For other": solve same way as one does for "For other ships see HMS Victory" N? (That is: use an other hatnote). - DePiep (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Whoops yes. I left out the nationality designation in my original post - what I want it to say is "For other Italian warships with the same name see Italian warship Leonardo da Vinci" Lyndaship (talk) 11:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

BTW, don't give the index page a disambiguation term if it's not at the base name. SIAs (including ship indexes) use "List of Xes named Y" if not at the base name "Y". So it would be [[List of ships named Leonardo da Vinci]] or [[List of Italian warships named Leonardo da Vinci]] if it weren't at [[Italian warship Leonardo da Vinci]], etc. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Why make a ship index page for just Italian warships when one covering all ships named Leonardo da Vinci would be more useful - that's my understanding of "generic ship name" in WP:SHIPMOS? There are several merchant ships of that name, including two passenger liners which are quite likely to get articles at some point (both already have WP:it articles). Davidships (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the ship index instructions can be interpreted that way but I don't think that is what was intended especially as the last line in notes states "Not all navies have categories of ship names." Civilian ships are not in Navies. I still feel that a ship index page is for ships of both the same Navy and Name only. A civilain ship named Leonardo da Vinci would be disambigulated on the normal dab page Lyndaship (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

IMO SHIPMOS is quite clear about these DAB/SAI lists, for example USS Enterprise has its own page, also mentioning the upper Enterprise (disambiguation) and similar HMS Enterprise pages. It requires manual maintenance to keep these pages consistent and complete. Incidentally: USS Enterprise is a true DAB page while HMS Enterprise is a SAI ship list(?); the USS page does not have {{Shipindex}}(?); and some USS names are repeated (re-listed) in the Enterprise (disambiguation)(?). - DePiep (talk) 11:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

So my follow up question is: what makes ship lists being {{Shipindex}} or {{Disambiguation}}? (Why do we have both, and by what distinction?). See also Category:Set indices on ships (0), Category:Ship disambiguation pages (733). - DePiep (talk) 12:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not seeing why this section in WP:SHIPMOS is only about warships. It doesn't say so, it's just that the examples were written that way years ago (the minor note at the end hardly qualifies the whole substantive section). This is not a fanciful interpretation of "If there has been more than one ship with the same name, create a ship index page for the generic ship name", it's what it says - not "If there has been more than one warship with the same name, create a ship index page for the generic ship name, separately for each navy" (by the way, "HMS Enterprise" is a generic ship page name, the generic ship name is "Enterprise"). We had a long related discussion about lists of ships of the same name (whether called index or list) only in November, which led to the following being added to WP:SHIPDAB "Discussion at WP:SHIPS in November 2017 resulted in consensus that ships bearing the same name will be disambiguated by way of lists, such as List of ships named Albatross, with naval ships such as HMS Albatross, SMS Albatross, USS Albatross etc redirecting to the list." Davidships (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for showing a link to the previous discussion of which I was unaware Davidships . Obviously this has been debated before and decided. I was viewing it from a warship perspective for which I don't think the solution works very well. I note in the ships named Albatross example given some of the individual ships listed do not link back to the page. Also it seems to be not used very much, there's hundreds of standard individual navy ship index pages but not many ships named ones. I dread to think how long one of these ships named ones would be for a very common name used across multiple languages. Anyhow whats decided is decided, I'll not rock the boat! Lyndaship (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Steam barge Margaret Olwill

I had read this article [1] about the discovery of the wreckage of the steam barge Margaret Olwill. There seems to be enough information from other sources for an article but I wasn't sure if it meets notability standards. Shinerunner (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

A 54-metre 925grt cargo vessel built 1887, wrecked in 1899 and now rediscovered as a wreck, which may well tell more. I wouldn't have doubt about notability - at a quick glance online there will certainly be enough reliable material for a nice little article. Looking forward to reading it! Davidships (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

A welcome to a new editor

Welcome to a youthful new editor, GreatLakesShips. He is doing fine work on ship articles.

GreatLakesShips, watchlist this page, if you haven't already, and if you have questions, run into problems, want help with sources, or otherwise need assistance, please post here. This project has many fine editors here who can help. Kablammo (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

More deprecation of {{sclass}}, {{sclass2}}

I have further deprecated templates {{sclass}}, {{sclass2}}, and replaced them in article space with the hyphenating {{sclass-}}, {{sclass2-}}. They are deprecated for years, because they produce a non-hyphenated (non-adjectival) target pagename, which is incorrect. They should not be promoted any more.

I have removed all instances from mainspace (1000+ articles). In the process I saved any bluelinks that might get lost (I created their hyphened redlink when that was missing; ~80). Instances outside of mainspace I left untouched, because we cannot edit pages like archives, closed discussions, userpages. These pages may use the old form forever. I also changed code to: warning & categorise errors when in mainspace, separate old {{sclass}} code from modern {{sclass-}} code (By splitting the code page modern ones can develop further without having to serve old deprecated versions). - DePiep (talk) 10:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Infobox help

Meteor III

Meteor III yacht launching
History
Germany
Owner	Kaiser Wilhelm II
Builder	Archibald Cary Smith
General characteristics
Tonnage	162 NT 170 GT
Length	161 ft (49 m) 120 ft (37 m) (water-line)
Beam	27 ft (8.2 m)
Draft	15 ft (4.6 m)
Sail plan	Schooner 11,612 ft (3,539 m)2

Meteor III (yacht), an upcoming DYK, listed grt and n[r]t figures in the displacement field. They are not displacement. I converted the field to "tonnage", but apparently the type of infobox used in the article does not support that field. Can anyone help? Kablammo (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

A similar issue is present in Jefferson (yacht); at that time the measure was Builder's_Old_Measurement#American_tons_burthen. Kablammo (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

That infobox template does not fall within the WP:SHIPS remit. Your options appear to be: replace with a ship info box; add a tonnage parameter to {{Infobox sailing yacht}}; or, omit tonnage from the article. You might consider using the appropriate {{GT}}, {{NetT}}, {{GRT}}, or {{NRT}} templates.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I'd be fine with putting it in the text, but as long as the infobox allows only displacement, it will be filled with incorrect information. I have posted to Template talk:Infobox sailing yacht. Kablammo (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC) (corrected to add "only" before displacement-- as displacement/weight is a measure for some classes. Kablammo (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC))

Thanks for the infobox-- We will see what the sailing folks want to do.

Is my change to your infobox an acceptable way to show area? Kablammo (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

{{convert|11,612|sqft|abbr=on}} → 11,612 sq ft (1,078.8 m²)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Now used in the article, but with GRT and NRT measures. Kablammo (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

SS Choctaw

Hello fellow project members! On the day of March 4, 2018 I created an article named SS Choctaw. Ever since its creation, the article has not been reviewed. Could someone please review the it? GreatLakesShips (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

It looks to have already been assessed as B-class, was there something else you're thinking of? Parsecboy (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking of the reviewing of the article, not the class assessment. Thanks though. The article can be seen here:New pages feed GreatLakesShips (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see - that's not something I've ever worried about (maybe because articles I create as an admin are automatically reviewed). I took care of it. Parsecboy (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Cancelled ships in class category?

I finally got around to turning the small articles on cancelled US submarines into redirects, but before I started I had a thought: should the resulting redirects remain in the class category? I figured they should remain in Category:Cancelled ships of the United States Navy, but what about the class category? I tend to think yes. RobDuch (talk) 03:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I would think they belong in the class category. Parsecboy (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Texan schooner Independence

Texan schooner Independence, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Project banner needs assessment tuning

There are some options I think we should begin using for assessing articles:

• SIA-class (Set Index Article) This would replace using disambig-class on {{ship index}} articles. It should auto-assess based on the presence of the ship index template in the main article space.
• Redirect-class should auto-assess based on the presence of #redirect in the main article space.
• Draft-class Although I'm not a big fan of draft articles, this class should auto-assess based on it being in the draft namespace. There are other options I may add here after I look into this further. Brad (talk) 04:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I second the suggestions. Having a SIA-class would reduce confusion when editors try to apply disambig rules to ship index pages. It would also remove the current necessity of having to create an entry for the Talk page. Having a Redirect-class would also makes great sense. Acad Ronin (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't we need to make an entry on the talk page anyway? Otherwise the redirect won't identify under WP:SHIPS. Tupsumato (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

When I say auto-assess, the project banner would still need to be placed on the talk page but wouldn't require the |class= be filled in. We already have this capability with templates and categories. This helps when tagging multiple new entries. Brad (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Without any further comments I will work on getting the proposed changes implemented. Brad (talk) 04:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

On hold Brad (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Cumberland Packet

Wreck of the Cumberland Packet on the Island of Antigua in a dreadful Hurricane

Hi, coming across this image, I was wondering if this might be of any interest. Thank you for your time. :) Lotje (talk) 07:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Lotje: - Any verification for the date of the wreck? Could be a useful addition to the list of shipwrecks in 1809. Mjroots (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mjroots: - I do not have a clue, have been looking for details on the Hurricane seasons in that area, but till now, without any success. Sorry. Lotje (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The caption of the illustration says it was published on 6 May 1809, which narrows things down a bit. Parsecboy (talk) 14:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The Duke of Cumberland Packet(nb) was wrecked in a hurricane on Antigua on 5 Sept 1804 London Courier and Evening Gazette, 16/11/1804. Davidships (talk) 15:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

And to muddy the water still further, Colledge Ships of the Royal Navy, Vol 2 (1970) has: "DUKE OF CUMBERLAND brig, 180bm. Hired as packet 1803-05". But found also reports of an Admiralty packet Duke of Cumberland in service in the same area in the mid-1870s. Davidships (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

This is the commons:category:Duke of Cumberland (ship, 1777), she was built in 1777, and wrecked at Antigua in 1804. It's at least the second packet ship (out of Yarmouth) named thus. An earlier Duke of Cumberland was recorded as early as 1762, it was wrecked off the Scillies in 1776. Broichmore (talk) 12:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

HMS Sarawak (K591)

I've been doing some work on the Colony class frigates and I've come across some conflicting sources as in the Sarawak article. I guess Navsource online is not RS but is uboatnet now regarded as RS? Most of these ships do not have a DANFs record. From OR (which I know must not be mentioned or used in the article), mostly looking at the Navy Lists at the National Library of Scotland site but also at convoys escorted and normal time spans for construction of these series ships I've come to the conclusion that uboatnet is right and Navsource is wrong. If Navsource is not RS I intend to remove all mention of it and just use uboatnet and Danfs (when available) to source the articles. Anything wrong in that? Lyndaship (talk) 11:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look in Lenton this afternoon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, got distracted. U-boat.net is regarded as generally reliable, but not highly reliable, and so no suited for A or FA class. I'm not fond of navsource, but haven't looked at it in quite a few years, so really can't offer a valid opinion. I've got Lenton in my lap at this moment and will update the article accordingly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that U-boat.net is a strong source for German U-boats, their successes and what happened to them (and often quotes the source where the info comes from, but may be less good for details of Allied surface ships (such as this), although the build dates for Sarawak do match up with those in Friedman's US Small Combatants.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah Nigel but in this case I think Friedman is wrong and Navsource has taken the dates from him. The Navy lists show the Sarawak in commission with a named Captain in Feb 44 and a full crew of officers in Apr 44. That fits in with the sequential construction and normal time span from LD to launch to completion for these ships. Certainly there was operational problems with getting them fit for service (look at the comments from Monsarrat on uboatnet for Perim) so its quite possible that Sarawak was not accepted from the builders until June but she was in commission from Feb as uboatnet says. Lyndaship (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

If you want another source that I have found generally reliable, try Bauer, K. Jack; Roberts, Stephen S. (1991). Register of Ships of the U.S. Navy, 1775-1990: Major Combatants. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. ISBN 0-313-26202-0.. On p. 248, they list Sarawak as laid down 28 Sep 43, launched 25 Oct 43, "to Britain" 18 July 44, and struck 19 July 46. Of course, it's uncertain what they mean by "to Britain". One thing I've discovered is that no source is perfect, especially where typos creep in. I've also noticed the armament for the class; it seems to me that the eight Y-guns should actually be K-guns, especially with the required topside arrangement for Y-guns, which would be on the centerline. I know they redirect to the same paragraph, but physically they're very different weapons. Four depth charge storage racks for K-guns can be observed on the starboard side near the stern in this photo of the lead ship; two are abreast the aft deckhouse and two more are near the stern depth charge tracks. RobDuch (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Brown, David K. (2007). Atlantic Escorts: Ships, Weapons & Tactics in World War II. Barnsley: Seaforth Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84415-702-0. states on page 106 an anti-submarine armament of a Hedgehog, 4 depth charge throwers and two rails.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I've come to the conclusion there's so many uncertainties on the class as a whole that I'm going to leave well alone. Beyond the launch and completion dates I asked about there's armament as detailed above, if they were ever USS as mentioned on the talk page and uboatnet has some being launched before they were even ordered Lyndaship (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed name change for some Fantasque class destroyers

You might like to comment on these name change proposals French destroyer Terrible, French destroyer Triomphant, French destroyer Fantasque, L'Indomptable Lyndaship (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Checking for "rust"

Hello guys. I've just created my first single-ship article in 2 months. College kept me busy, and now thankfully spring break started. I fear I might be a bit rusty, so if you guys would please give it a read and correct what you see fit I'd be grateful (NMS Alexandru cel Bun). Torpilorul (talk) 08:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Rust prevention effective - looks good. Davidships (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Bad day for editing...

You guys, sorry for the bother. I really, really wanted to do this article. Even though I feel kinda dizzy today, with a slight headache. You guys now, please, spell-check it and such, all that stuff: Naval operations in Romanian-occupied Soviet waters. Torpilorul (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

New important article

I say "important" because it's related to WW1, of which we're still in its centenary for a few more months. You guys know the drill: check it, make corrections if necessary, and do please expand it if you can. Although the amount of actions suit the fleet's size, any addition is welcomed: Romanian Black Sea Fleet during World War I. Torpilorul (talk) 14:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I have no notes on the article, but I applaud & enjoy your enthousiam! - DePiep (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Ugly referencing style

I have noticed - not sure in all the articles but definitely in most big ones about ships - a very odd referencing style: the books with their complete info are written in a separate section, and they are quoted through the article only via their authors. Guys...why? I get it, it makes referencing faster as it's less to write, but when you want to copy the info in a related article, you can't just copy the reftag right away, as it contains only the authors. This one slows me down considerably, not sure if others too. Also, let's assume you're a new reader. Just found out about the Wiki. You go to an article like this, click the reftag, and all you get is one or several names that don't really tell you anything. And if you're unaware as a reader of the "bibliography" section, this might be even more confusing. To me it's quite annoying, I will never ever write my articles like this. Just felt the need to share my thoughts on this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Torpilorul (talk • contribs) 12:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Not odd. That referencing style has a rather long history and is supported by outside style manuals (The Chicago Manual of Style among others) which en.wiki has adapted for its use. You are, of course, free to use any referencing style that you choose to use as long as you use it consistently and do not change an article's already established style without first establishing a consensus at the article's talk page.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The reason is that many of these articles cite books with multiple pages - it's very redundant to have twenty or thirty footnotes for the same source in the format "Lastname, Firstname. Year. Title. Location: Publisher. ISBN. Page X", where the only thing that changes is the page number. If you're only using a given source once, or for just one page, it's not clunky to use full references in the footnotes, but as Trappist points out, using short cites (either in footnotes or parenthetical references) to [clutter] is specifically advised in WP:CITE (and is described in more detail here). Parsecboy (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Join

How do I join the group? A 10 fireplane (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome - all you have to do is add your name to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Participants. Let us know if you need help with anything. Parsecboy (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia but love ships, how do I add my name to the members list? A 10 fireplane (talk)

Just copy this code to the members section:

# {{User|A 10 fireplane}}

Parsecboy (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you I did it :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A 10 fireplane (talk • contribs) 15:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Ending the system of portals

Hello, there's a proposal to delete all Wikipedia portals. Please see the discussion here. --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Index pages

I've come across a couple of ship index pages where the user has created an index to pages that don't exist. I don't see how this is helpful to anyone and instead a redirect to the ship class would be more appropriate. Of course I can understand why index pages would be useful but in the same way that we don't create dab pages full of red links why create index pages for non-existent articles? For example Italian submarine Velella links to two non-existent articles. Polyamorph (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Note, this has now been explained to me by Lyndaship, I get it now...Polyamorph (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

A-Class review for L 20e α-class battleship needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for L 20e α-class battleship; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 08:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Ship launch articles - discussion on ANI

This discussion of ANI about an editor creating unreferenced "List of ship launches in ..." articles is probably relevant to this Wikiproject as many of these list articles are either unreferenced or poorly referenced. There should really be a source for all of the entries on each list, rather than relying on the link to the individual ship article where the information may be sourced.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Not directly related to the above issue, but a cautionary word on referencing for long ship list articles. There seems to be a technical limit of 1300 references per article, and beyond that the whole system fails. There's probably only one example at the moment: referencing in List of ships built by Harland and Wolff collapsed back on 11 March 2017 when that limit was reached - it now has 1314 refs, and could still grow. As a consequence even the five main reference sources in the intro para are no longer identifiable (except through the Edit page - not a recommended method for visitors!). Davidships (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem with that list isn't a limit on the number of references but rather the template include size limit of 2M bytes. See Help:Template#Template_limits. From the compile statistics:

Post‐expand include size: 2097146/2097152 bytes

the report also give a count of templates processed:

1 Template:Reflist

1309 Template:Cite_web

1496 Template:Ship

624 Template:SS

524 Template:MV

2993 Template:Main_other

187 Template:HMS

1496 Template:Ship/maintenancecategory

28 Template:RMS

so the problem is just that List of ships built by Harland and Wolff is just a big damn list that should probably be split into more digestible portions.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree re split. Partly my fault as I added all the references to the list, which was unreferenced at one point. Suggest "List of ships built by Harland and Wolff (1859-1939)" and "List of ships built by Harland and Wolff 1940-2002" would be a reasonable split. Open to suggestions for other places to split. Mjroots (talk) 09:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ttm for correcting my guess at the explanation. Yes, Mjr, I agree one split is enough, but might be better to make it a decade earlier at 1929/1930 so that all WW2 deliveries are on the same page - it is a little less than halfway through the page as it is, but pretty close to halfway through the yard numbers. Davidships (talk) 12:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Now split into List of ships built by Harland and Wolff (1859-1929) and List of ships built by Harland and Wolff (1930-2002). Mjroots (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Register of Ships

Question , Are there any UK , France , Russia , Germany , Japan , Italy and Austria-Hungary's register of Ships book selling outside ? Please recommend , thank you. -- Comrade John (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The Ian Allan series (such as "French Warships of World War I" (or WWII)) is good for one navy and war at a time. If you want the whole world for a given period, Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships is on abebooks.com for around $50 US per volume. Each volume contains information for ships built during its period only. For example, in the WWII volume information on ships built in WWI will only cover modernizations in the WWII period. The volumes are 1860-1905, 1906-1921, 1922-1946, and 1947-1995. The last volume was originally 1947-1982 in two volumes, but the 1947-1995 update consolidated them. RobDuch (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The UK's national shipping register was published annually as the Mercantile Navy List, from the early 1850s until the 1960s. Copies of originals and of more recent reprints can be found on internet booksellers Amazon, AbeBooks etc. Also many volumes 1858-1940 are available and searchable online at CLIP, and a few in Google Books. Davidships (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I should add that Ian Allan includes only launch dates and fates, plus their books have never been updated to include final fates since original publication, which for the US was the 1960s. Also, Conway's does not include auxiliaries, and for destroyers and smaller includes only launch dates and fates. RobDuch (talk) 00:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

For my understanding , The ship have 5 main information: Laid down , Launched , Commissioned , Decommissioned and Fate , if it got recommissioned and second decommissioned date included , it would be fantastic , does outside world got a register of Ships book that list those information above or it scattered all over the different kind of ships book ? -- Comrade John (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

See WP:SHIPS/R - plenty of registers online linked from there. Also the Plimsoll Ship Data website has all Lloyd's Registers for 1930-45 inclusive. Mjroots (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you brother but still need more book resources. -- Comrade John (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

They are book sources, digitized for internet viewing. Take a look. Mjroots (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Ship has two dates

When I checking those warships date , I always came across two versions of date with difference reference such as USS O-1 (SS-62) , it's launched date have two versions:

1. 9 July 1918 , Come from DANFS.

2. 9 October 1918 , Come from NavSource.

Don't know which one is the correct date so can I put them both into the infobox and text with providing both references ? -- Comrade John (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

DANFS isn't perfect, but I'd say that it's better than Navsource.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

You might find the answer in contemporary American newspapers. Mjroots (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Friedman has 9 July 1918, Register also has 9 July. RobDuch (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Silverstone also has 9 July Lyndaship (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

So , when it comes to two dates like this , either put both dates or put a date that have many reference support ? -- Comrade John (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd say go with the date that's in 3 out of 4 refs. RobDuch (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

If you look at the photos on the Navsource page two of them are captioned "just before christening the submarine, at the Portsmouth Navy Yard, Kittery, Maine, on 9 July 1918" and "being prepared for launching at the Portsmouth Navy Yard, Kittery, Maine, 8 July 1918. She was launched on the following day." I reckon the 9 October date is more likely a completed date Lyndaship (talk) 07:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Project banner needs assessment tuning

There are some options I think we should begin using for assessing articles:

• SIA-class (Set Index Article) This would replace using disambig-class on {{ship index}} articles. It should auto-assess based on the presence of the ship index template in the main article space.
• Redirect-class should auto-assess based on the presence of #redirect in the main article space.
• Draft-class Although I'm not a big fan of draft articles, this class should auto-assess based on it being in the draft namespace. There are other options I may add here after I look into this further. Brad (talk) 04:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I second the suggestions. Having a SIA-class would reduce confusion when editors try to apply disambig rules to ship index pages. It would also remove the current necessity of having to create an entry for the Talk page. Having a Redirect-class would also makes great sense. Acad Ronin (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't we need to make an entry on the talk page anyway? Otherwise the redirect won't identify under WP:SHIPS. Tupsumato (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

When I say auto-assess, the project banner would still need to be placed on the talk page but wouldn't require the |class= be filled in. We already have this capability with templates and categories. This helps when tagging multiple new entries. Brad (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Without any further comments I will work on getting the proposed changes implemented. Brad (talk) 04:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

On hold Brad (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Italian post war pennants/designations

Does anybody know or can they point me to an authoritative source as to how these pennants should appear? We currently have a mix of for example S-501, S 501 and S501. Lyndaship (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I think your referring to the hull numbers, if so it would be SS-501. SS meaning submarine, 501 being the name/class A 10 fireplane (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The Marine Militare website does not space the numbers/letters (S501) on their website. Jane's Fighting Ships and Conway's and Combat Fleets of the World on the other hand, spaces them (S 501). The Marine Militare also gave their ships a prefix, "ITS", according to the website. Consensus among the secondary sources is spaced; primary source, not spaced. Nobody I can see, puts dashes. Llammakey (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't think to go there. On looking I discovered that although the English version of Marina Militare doesn't space them the Italian language version does! So we do have conformity between the primary and secondary. I've started to correct the links and text on Wikipedia to conform. The few with dashes I have found were all on transferred US ships and therefore probably sourced from US books and sites which often think that no designation can be correct unless it includes a dash Lyndaship (talk) 10:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Hidden category: ship prefix templates

FYI

Category talk:Ship prefix templates#Hidden. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

infobox tweaks as a result of upcoming wikitext parsing

At WMF they are saying that some changes to the way wikitext is parsed are on the horizon. Which means that some things must be fixed. Their example of one kind of fix? Arthur Foss.

Here is a before and after for that article. I tweaked and then undid the tweak because that article is the example used in a mass mailing.

I have a quick and dirty AWB script that will tweak those articles with both ship infoboxen and NRHP infoboxen where the two are connected. In writing that script I have found that apparently for such articles the closing |} we use for ship infoboxen are often omitted because {{infobox NRHP}} without |embed=yes 'closes' the ship infobox.

Add ?action=parsermigration-edit to any article url to see the before and after. This is an edit preview page so you can make source edits at the bottom and preview the results.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

MS Dalmatia

I would be grateful if someone could expand MS Dalmatia. If it helps, the ship's IMO number was 7516761. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

There's plenty enough material in the Fakta om Fartyg source used to write a decent article and fill the infobox. Mjroots (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Filled in the infobox from Sea-web. Tupsumato (talk) 05:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Ship index pages with all red links

There is a conversation on my talk page about the validity of these. Editors are invited to comment Lyndaship (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

As the initaitor of the conversation I would prefer to continue on the article's talk page here. Talk:Italian ship Uragano. thanks Dom from Paris (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Why not have the discussion here? - ^theWOLFchild 00:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Too late I'm afraid and I've been advised to drop it. Dom from Paris (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to the people who commented. I think this is the fifth time I have been involved in a discussion on this and I'm getting a little disheartened. I am wondering if it would be possible to put some policy on the ship project page specifically stating that ship index articles with all red links are acceptable as the set index rules do not preclude it and hopefully it would prevent having to go over the same ground again with editors who question it. Also Dom raised an interesting point about sourcing, Trappist has done a search and has found that only some 650 of 5700 ship index pages have any inline cites and generally these are only for some of the ships listed or for other things mentioned on the index page (battle honours etc). I would hold that theres no need for an inline cite to prove the ship existed as the individual or class article will give sources and inline cites look messy but I can't square that with policy. I know on Royal Navy ships we use the template college but even thats a bit so so as it only covers ships up to the date of publication and as new ships are built they are added to the list but won't feature in colleges book. Lyndaship (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Unless I am very much mistaken projects do not.fix.policy or guidelines as these are community wide but publish advice pages about how best to interpret guidelines and.policy with reference to the project's scope. I think there may be.need for clarification in the page about SETINDEX pages. Set index states that it is a standalone list and their guidelines should.be.followed. There are common selection criteria for these lists here WP:CSC. There are basically 3 types of lists and I think yours falls.under the third type that allows for non notable entries alongside notable ones. My problem is that if all the entries are redlinks and there are no sources whatsoever how can anyone (except for the creator and a handful of experts) know that at least one of the ships is notable. My suggestion is that before creating a list create at least a stub for one of the ships or failing.that add sources to indicate notability.fpr at.least one ship. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Seems more trouble than it's worth as they're just links. Again, I think that you're being too strict with WP:CSC as set index pages aren't full-blown lists.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I disagree because it says at the top of WP:SETINDEX

      "Fundamentally, a set index article is a type of list article. The criteria for creating, adding to, or deleting a set index article should be the same as for a stand-alone list. The style of a set index article should follow the style guidelines at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists." 

it can't be any clearer than that I think. If we really want to be strict then the 5400 articles that do not have any references should all be tagged as needing sources but I don't see the point so long as at least one of the entries is a bluelink. I personally think that any new lists that arrive that have no references and no blue link should be tagged. Let's be honest if someone has the information necessary to create the set index then they have a source so it should be no trouble to add that as a reference and not adding it is plain lazy. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

You've laid out the reasons for your objection quite well; I just do not believe that following your idea is an improvement worth the extra time required to implement it. It just seems rather stupid to require a source for a redlink and than to remove that requirement once it's turned blue. In short I don't believe that a ship index page needs to follow WP:CSC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Once it's turned blue that means that the page has been started and sources should exist on the individual article page, so no need to repeat them on a list, but that is just my opinion. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Any editing needed?

Does anyone need some proof reading or any help editing? A 10 fireplane (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC) A 10 fireplane (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

There's a "Things you can do" listing in the nav box on the right-hand side of the project page. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Got it thanks :) A 10 fireplane (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I've been working on creating ship indexes for Italian WWII ships. I've noticed there's a lot of articles in which a ship is mentioned but they have not been linked back to the ship article (albeit red link). If you put for example "torpedo boat Orione" into the wikipeda search box and then put the quotes back in on the results you will see 10 articles the phrase features in, I think 6 of them need to be linked - this can be expanded by looking for associated articles were it's probably only mentioned as Orione. Look at my contribs for all the ship names which need doing. All help is welcome Lyndaship (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Lyndaship: Ok, sorry it took a while to respond, what do you need done? A 10 fireplane (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

If you go to Category:Italian Navy ship names you'll find all the ships which need doing as I described above Lyndaship (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Lyndaship: I don't see a "Category:Italian Navy ship names" is it located on the Wikiproject ships, if possible could you link the page, thanks A 10 fireplane (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Lyndaship: ok I found it, sure thing I'll start working :) A 10 fireplane (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Soviet Warship Development: 1917-1937

Anyone got this book? I require some scans from it. Torpilorul (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Anything in particular? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I require the material about the Russud-class landing craft. It's pages 97-98, more or less. Please send them to bota_tobias@yahoo.com Torpilorul (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Andy Dingley you there mate? I really need that stuff. Torpilorul (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. I was out all yesterday and I'm working at the moment. I'll dust the scanner off when I've finished soon. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Foo-built ships/Ships built in Foo

Category renaming discussion at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 May 3#Foo-built_ships. Proposal to rename 54 categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

A-Class review for Yugoslav torpedo boat T7 needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Yugoslav torpedo boat T7; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 09:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

On name changes and hatnotes

Can I get an opinion or two over at User talk:Cplakidas#Argentine warships purchased by Greece? Thanks. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]}`

Can the discussion be copied here please? I do not know whether that is a correct procedure, but it is important for this project and should be continued here. Davidships (talk) 12:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Am I missing overall guidelines for the WW2 small ship lists?

I recently came across this page, and felt it could use substantial work. In particular, I'd like it to have a clearer definition of what qualifies and what doesn't. However, it also seems like every WW2 ship is only supposed to fit in a single category, which means any reorganization here would have to propagate thru all the lists. Worse, the lists themselves seem to have arbitrary boundaries, with the worst example probably being the difference between minor warships and warships less than a thousand tons. Other lists involved are Destroyers, Frigates, Corvettes.

My initial response was that lists should be reorganized based on the categories in the interwar naval treaties, since those formed the standard in the years leading up to the war and most navies fought the war with the collection of ships the treaties had given them. However, that would have even broader consequences, like getting rid of the battlecruiser page. (I don't see that as a real loss – given how short it is – but others might.)

It was about this point where I realized I should probably talk with at least someone in the community before implementing any of this. Is this a correct location for that? Sebsmith0 (talk) 04:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

As often happens on Wikipedia, you've walked into a bit of a mess. I've noticed that the escort vessel class page was done primarily by one author, who's been quite active recently and posts here and at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history . Most of the other lists you've cited have been primarily done by one other author. As a first step, I'd recommend you contact these authors if possible with your ideas for these articles. One major issue with your proposed reorganization is that, except for British sloops, the frigate/destroyer escort/corvette types did not exist at the time of the interwar treaties. Standards for WP:SHIPS are at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines . Standards on Wikipedia are either unilaterally developed by an author for the articles they've worked on, or are arrived at by consensus of a Wikiproject. There are many cases in which a standard exists but no one has made the effort to implement it beyond a few articles. Since most of these lists were done by one author, a de facto standard exists. For escort vessels, it is difficult to determine equivalency between US and British terminology. An example is the British "sloop", which I see appears on "List of frigates of World War II" but was actually somewhat larger. I also notice that the author of "List of frigates of World War II" has determined that US destroyer escorts belong on that list, presumably since several of these were Lend-Leased to the Royal Navy, which classed them as frigates. I personally am not in favor of comprehensive list articles, as I think they are too long to be manageable; lists of classes are much easier to deal with. However, at someone else's request I did do the lists of Gato-, Balao-, and Tench-class submarines. RobDuch (talk) 22:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Looking over the history of the pages in question, it appears I want input from at least @Torpilorul, Colonies Chris, Manxruler, Angry American, EpsilonEditor, Lyndaship, Robert Brukner, Hugo999, and Hmains:. To clarify my earlier proposal, going to a treaty definition would reduce the number of categories. (I'm personally fine with this, since many of the categories seem designed for classifying British Ships, which causes difficulties for vessels of every other navy.) Specifically, DEs would go on the Destroyer page, since they qualify, and most of the rest of the ships in question would end up on the minor warships page. The remaining categories would then be turned into redirects to the page which got most of their contents. I would, of course, be fine with other proposals which made it clearer how to sort ships between these pages. Sebsmith0 (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

My involvement with these lists have just been when I dab ships in them. Personally I'm not a great lover of these list type articles and I'm not interested in how they are composed, any which way will do for me (because I don't use them). While I find your desire to sort these out laudable I suspect your time could be far better used. Sorry to be so negative. Lyndaship (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

From my research, it can be quite hard for small ships to be held into a single category. Take my beloved NMS Amiral Murgescu for instance. Built as a minelayer, she ultimately also served as an AA/ASW convoy escort. Romania also had a class of 8 armored 50-ton launches, which went from torpedo boats, to ASW boats, to border guard boats. I reckon a ship's category isn't mainly determined by what she's built/intended to be as much as it's what she served in combat as. Torpilorul (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

My plan with the table was to try to streamline the page, but it sounds like you have a much more complete plan, so let's go with yours. EpsilonEditor (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

J335 or J435

There's a disparity in the EN: Wiki (HMS Maenad (J335)). In the photo attached within the article, it clearly shows a vessel marked J435 on the Hull. This article from the Finnish Wiki says the same I.E. HMS Maenad is (J435): https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Maenad_(J435). Comments? Broichmore (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Pennant numbers were not fixed, which is why I don't believe that they should be used as disambiguators. Lenton shows that Maenad was renumbered from 335 to 435 for some reason, so I'd personally disambiguate it with its year of launch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree with you on disambiguation pages, further in fact the policy on naming articles needs to be changed too. Broichmore (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Opening of Suez Canal 1869

In the Suez Canal article the para on the first ships to traverse the canal after its official opening seems full of errors and doubtful stories. I would be grateful for your comments on my note on the talk page, especially on reliable sources for the story concerning Capt Nares and HMS Newport. Davidships (talk) 03:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

dab pages / list pages / sweeping changes from dab to list class.

Sweeping reassessments are being done on the ship index pages; from dab to list. Where was the conversation about changing probably 1000 articles? These are supposed to be assessed as set index articles. @Llammakey:

Well considering you are the one who's not up to date on policy, these are no longer considered disamabiguation pages. Set index pages are now considered list pages. You are now the one creating the unholy mess because every time you tag it as a dab page, we have to go through the rigamarole of defending the page from the deletionists. If you wish to criticize, please keep up to date with policy. As for "list of" - please see the WP:NC-SHIP and the discussion here and WP:SETINDEX states they are list articles, not disambiguation articles. @JHunterJ: Llammakey (talk) 11:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Meanwhile, we have ship index pages being moved and or created and named List of ships named X and assessed as lists. Where was the conversation about this naming convention? @Acad Ronin:

Right now these pages are an unholy mess. Brad (talk) 07:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Brad101 and Llammakey, I would agree that things are getting messy. I have been going along with what I thought was a shift, and am not entirely happy either. In my "best of all possible worlds" almost all ship articles (HMS Victory aside) would have a a title of the form "Foo (year ship)" or "Foo (year place ship)". (Currently I am working on three Lord Cathcarts, two launched in 1807 and one in 1808.) I have had articles moved from "Foo (year ship)" to "Foo" on the grounds no disambiguation is needed as there were no other vessels named "Foo", nor was their any article on anything else named "Foo". My position, apparently a lonely one, is that the date and the ship designation help readers by situating the article in time, and either assuring them they have the right Foo, or the wrong Foo for what they are looking for, even if no other articles about Foo exist. I have also had editors object to the "Foo (year ship)" structure as not sounding good/natural when read aloud. Second, there is the shipindex/dab/list issue. Those of us who create ship index articles were going along fine until editors came along and said that there was a WPPOLICY about dabs that each line could have only one link, and no citations, and no period, and no information beyond launch year and loss, etc., etc., etc.. When I discovered the "List" option a few months ago (somewhere here I believe and saw some one starting to use it), I was delighted. WPPolicy guardians seem to leave lists alone. Third, I would prefer to have the ship index pages use the title "Foo (ship)", though admittedly that does run into problems. First, there are many vessels where the editor who created the article decided that their "Foo" was the only one that ever did or would exist and so pre-empted the title. Generally, I have not run into too much opposition when I move the article from the "Foo (ship)" form to the "Foo (year ship)" form, and claim the "Foo (ship)" title for the index page. (I only do that when I can name some other Foos, even if there are not even red-linked articles.) Once it is clear that there are more than one Foo, even if currently only one has an article, people are pretty OK with letting "Foo (ship)" be the general and "Foo (year ship)" being the specific. Second, there is also the problem that a particular "Foo" is the most widely known "Foo". Thus we get articles with titles such as "List of ships named HMS Terror", or "List of ships named HMS Victory". I don't like naming things "List of ships named Foo", it doesn't work well with searches, but it does parallel calling the article a List, and deflecting dab policy guardians. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 10:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

This was discussed late last year here, where the "List of ships named Foo" format was adopted. It is reflected in the naming conventions here (at the bottom of the section). Parsecboy (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User:Parsecboy - I knew I had seen that somewhere. That still leaves open the unfortunate policy that one should call a ship "Foo" unless there is a non-ship "Foo", and "Foo (ship)" unless there is more than one ship named "Foo" with an article on WP. It is quite possible that non-ship Foos exist, or that there is more than one ship named Foo, even if someone searching on WP, knowing that their 5Xgreat uncle served on a Foo, or lived in Foo, doesn't realize that the WP default is to use the general until WP catches up with the reality. Acad Ronin (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile to have a "SIA" class, as the military history project does. But right, list articles, which include set index articles, which include ship indexes, aren't (non-article) disambiguation pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed User:JHunterJ. The key priority right now must be to keep the Dab police from messing with lists, indexes, etc. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

There are no "dab police", and framing it confrontationally like that doesn't help the project. There are consensuses for how to format disambiguation pages and for how to format (and name) set indexes. There are editors who contribute to the encyclopedia by improving the format of disambiguation pages and editors who contribute to the encyclopedia by improving the format and naming of set index articles. We are all free to "mess with" all of the WP articles and pages since "By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." . -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

There is now Category:SIA-Class Ships articles. Use any of these in {{WikiProject Ships}}: |class=si, |class=sia, or |class=index.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

A couple of months ago I posted this topic about making changes to the project banner so that we could use the set index rating instead of dab or list. Only two editors responded. I'm going to post the topic here again. Brad (talk) 06:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Project banner needs assessment tuning

There are some options I think we should begin using for assessing articles:

• SIA-class (Set Index Article) This would replace using disambig-class on {{ship index}} articles. It should auto-assess based on the presence of the ship index template in the main article space.

SIA is now active Brad (talk) 06:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Redirect-class should auto-assess based on the presence of #redirect in the main article space.
• Draft-class Although I'm not a big fan of draft articles, this class should auto-assess based on it being in the draft namespace. There are other options I may add here after I look into this further. Brad (talk) 04:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I second the suggestions. Having a SIA-class would reduce confusion when editors try to apply disambig rules to ship index pages. It would also remove the current necessity of having to create an entry for the Talk page. Having a Redirect-class would also makes great sense. Acad Ronin (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't we need to make an entry on the talk page anyway? Otherwise the redirect won't identify under WP:SHIPS. Tupsumato (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

When I say auto-assess, the project banner would still need to be placed on the talk page but wouldn't require the |class= be filled in. We already have this capability with templates and categories. This helps when tagging multiple new entries. Brad (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Without any further comments I will work on getting the proposed changes implemented. Brad (talk) 04:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

On hold Brad (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Nothing to say really about the March proposal (insofar as I understand it at all), but am a bit confused by the sequence: 22/3 pressing on in absence of further comments, 17/4 on hold (but no indication why - and I missed seeing that at the time), 17/5 SIA active. Davidships (talk) 10:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

List of ships named X

Are these still set index articles or lists? Seems weird to have the shipindex tag on an article with List in the title. Brad (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

They're both - per WP:SETINDEX, "A set index article (SIA) is a list article..." Parsecboy (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

GA nomination of SS Choctaw

Hello everyone! I recently nominated the SS Choctaw article for Good Article status. There some issues that need addressing, but I have already sorted out most of them. If you would like to help me promote it, please feel free to help.

Thank you! GreatLakesShips (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@GreatLakesShips: what would you like done, I would love to help A 10 fireplane (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@A 10 fireplane: I have sorted out the mayor issues that were outlined. The only thing left that needs doing is the proper licensing of the photos in the article, if you could help me with that, it would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you:GreatLakesShips (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@GreatLakesShips: No problem,so you would like me to help find the Author of the photos, or what? A 10 fireplane (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@A 10 fireplane: I would like you to have a look at weather the photos are licensed correctly. I have retagged them yesterday, but I'm not sure that they are tagged correctly since I am not the best with this type of thing.GreatLakesShips (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@GreatLakesShips: Ok, I'm not the best at that but I do know someone who is and I will send them to your page SS Choctaw so they can make sure for you A 10 fireplane (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@A 10 fireplane: Thank you very much, although I'm going away on holiday tomorrow and I won't be reachable for a week. I'm sorry if this will cause inconvenience.GreatLakesShips (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@GreatLakesShips: No problem, this is no inconvenience its my pleasure, I hope to have it finished by the time you get back. Have a nice holiday A 10 fireplane (talk) 14:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@A 10 fireplane: Thanks.

Where do 80 more planned Matsu-class destroyers come from ?

Since Matsu-class destroyer was created , the infobox and it's ship of the class list were listed:

42 (1943, Ship #5481-5522),
32 (1944, Ship #4801-4832),

In built and planned ship information.

But since 13 September 2008‎ , a user named Mystia Lorelei added this in ship of the class list:

80 (1945, Kai-Tachibana class) 

In infobox and added:

Ship #	Japanese name & translation	Class	Builder	Laid down	Launched	Completed	Fate
	80 destroyers	Kai-Tachibana	Cancelled on 30 June 1945.

It makes me suspicious that , there's no Kai-Tachibana class in IJN history , only Matsu-class and it's subclass Tachibana-class destroyer , so does anyone got a proof that IJN planned 80 more Matsu-class destroyers in 1945 ? --Comrade John (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Jentschura, et al, Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy, p. 153, confirms 80 more Kai-Tachibana were planned for 1944-45, but were never ordered.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Is this the only sources that states 80 more Matsu-class destroyers planned in 1945 ? Also , Kai-Tachibana , is author misunderstood 80 more Tachibana as Kai-Tachibana or there's a Kai-Tachibana subclass in IJN history ? --Comrade John (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Dunno, it's the only one that I could think of off-hand. Jentschura actually calls then Improved Tachibana which is pretty much what Kai-Tachibana means. He doesn't, however, provide any stats, so I couldn't say how they were "improved".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The Ian Allan series book "Japanese Warships of World War II" by Anthony J. Watts (1973 reprint) briefly states that 80 more Matsus were planned in the 1944-45 programme but never ordered, on p. 155. Conway's, p. 196, states"11 further units were cancelled in 1944 before construction began" but otherwise has nothing on the 80. RobDuch (talk) 05:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   11:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

HMS Malelina

See HMS Britannia (1820), the headline image by John H. Wilson (1774-1855)" includes a mystery ship. The Commons description is "HMS Britannia and HMS Malelina Entering Milos Harbour, 2nd January 1834". It's currently on sale and the dealer gives a description of "HMS Britannia And HMS Malelina Entering Milos Harbour, 2nd January 1834 At 9.30am". Very specific! Can anyone identify the Malelina or it's correct name? Broichmore (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Is it HMS Malabar (1818), a 74-gun third rate? Mjroots (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Correspondence in the Times in December 1933 indicates that the Malabar and Britannia were in the mediterranean at the same time. "The English have in the Mediterranean three-deckers, the Britannia, with Admiral Malcolm's flag, the Saint Vincent, and Caledonia, two seventy-fours, the Talavara and Malabar, the two cut down ships the Barham and Alfred, the Madagacar frigate, and several sloops and brigs." MilborneOne (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Both vessels appear to be merchantmen as they are flying the red ensign. Could they be East Indiamen? Mjroots (talk) 05:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Until 1864 the Red Ensign was one of the RN's three ensigns, and it was only in that year that it was re-allocated to merchant shipping. Davidships (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Davidships - in which case, what flag should be shown for a British merchantman before 1864, the Union flag? This could potentially impinge on many shipwreck lists. Mjroots (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

... and hundreds of ship articles! Mjroots (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

From the order in council regulating the ensigns in 1864: "The increased number and size of merchant steam-ships render it a matter of importance to distinguish on all occasions men-of-war from private ships by a distinctive flag; the latter vessels bearing at present the same red ensign as Your Majesty's ships when employed under an Admiral of the Red Squadron." Red it is. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 14:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I suspect it was Malabar - she seems to have travelled with Britannia in 1833/4. They left the Dardanelles together for Naples on 6 August 1833, refitted at Vourla Bay between 23 November and 4 December and arrived at Valetta together on 18 February 1834. It is therefore entirely plausible that they could both have been at Milos on 2 January 1834 (source is here for Malabar and here for Britannia from a site that collates newspaper reports of sailings). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumelow (talk • contribs) 17:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Flags

OK, we're talking about the period 1707-1854 by the look of it. What flags should be used to identify Royal Navy vessels and merchantmen?

1707-1800 Royal Navy:- or or
Merchantmen:- or /

1801-1854 Royal Navy:- or or
Merchantmen:- or /

This is what I'm trying to work out, as it will affect hundreds, even thousands, of articles and lists. Mjroots (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

So far as I can see, for merchant ships it has formally been just the red ensign since 1674, and "The wording of the 1674 proclamation indicates that the flag was customarily being used by English merchantmen before that date." So three versions of the plain red ensign: pre-1707, 1707-1801 and 1801-to-present, and consequently I think that there will be hardly any merchant-ship articles to worry about. I have not forgotten that merchant vessels do fly the blue ensign in certain circumstances, but as that depends on the presence of certain Royal Navy crewmembers or reservists, that would normally be inappropriate for ship articles. There will, though, be a some merchant ship articles where defaced versions of the red or blue ensigns will be appropriate.

For naval ships, it looks like a dog's breakfast (aka can of worms). If it correct that it was the status of the Admiral ("of the white", of the red", "of the blue") that determined the vessel's flag prior to 1864, then vessels may have changed ensign from time to time. It might well be best to just stay with the white ensign as the conventional symbol for a British naval vessel. But I am no expert on that area at all. Perhaps a sigh of relief, Mj? Davidships (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

To again quote the 1864 order in council, referring to the flag officers classed in squadrons, "this regulation necessitating the adoption of ensigns and pendants of a corresponding colour in every ship and vessel employed under their orders, each vessel is therefore supplied with three sets of colours, and the frequent alterations that have to be made when the Fleet is distributed at present, under the Orders of many Flag Officers, is attended with much inconvenience from the uncertainty and expense which the system entails". Quite apart from the fact that the White Ensign is unrepresentative of RN ships pre-1864, the Admiralty specifically referred to the "frequent alterations" of colours when formally petitioning to change the system. A Union Flag might be the wisest option to follow. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 08:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The White Ensign would only be unrepresentative of RN ships before 1864 if it wasn't in use until then. It clearly was in use before 1864. The general readership will associate the White Ensign with the Royal Navy, so there is nothing inherently wrong with using it to identify RN ships. I am completely opposed to using the Union Flag to denote RN ships. Mjroots (talk) 06:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

HMS La Hogue

Theres a request for a move at this page. The proposer wants to include a date dab in the title. Personally I think its a good idea but it goes against policy as its the only La Hogue, however there are two later ships called just Hogue and I suspect this one was also later referred to as just Hogue. Lyndaship (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

It's my belief that all ship names should include the launch year, it's the only way of future proofing names. Furthermore we should not use pennant numbers (because they can change), I would avoid hull numbers too, unless required as a suffix to disambiguate the very rare instances of a vessel launched the same year. Both Commons and Wikipedia should be standardized to follow the same format. As for the La and L' in front of ship names its the convention to drop it. As we do with the; see French ship Aigle as an example. Though HMS La Hogue on the face of it is a hen's tooth exception, it's actually named after the shortened version of a place in France (Saint-Vaast-la-Hougue). I would suggest that the later two ships's named HMS Hogue were named after the first ship as opposed to first's eponymous battle. Broichmore (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

But WP:AT, which is policy, prohibits the use of disambiguation when it's not necessary. As for definite articles, there's nothing in WP:NCSHIP that prohibits the use of definite articles in article titles, just in prose (and there's a difference between writing "the Fantasque" and acknowledging the fact that the ship had "Le Fantasque" painted on the side of the hull). There are plenty of articles that do use them - see for instance Le Fantasque-class destroyer, L'Adroit-class destroyer, etc. Parsecboy (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree with your main point that it would be better if all ships had the launch year as dab. Disagree totally with dropping La, L' or Le if it forms part of the ships name. Aigle is not a good example as its never had a Le in front of the name, compare L'Adroit-class destroyer where some ships of the class have a Le and some don't. As the final Hogue was a Battle class destroyer I favour that it was named after the battle Lyndaship (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Try looking up L'Aigle; which it is commonly called. Policy doesn't catch everything; there is a good case for disambiguation here. Look at Commons: there are 11 ships named Atlas, 18 Berlin, 22 Columbia. 18 named Enterprise, only 10 dated, the rest pennant/hull numbers, 1 nothing at all... Thanks to Star Trek there will be more, a 100 years from now? Broichmore (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Where would you like us to look up L'Aigle? Cos if you look in Conways, Couhat or Masson its always just Aigle Lyndaship (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

All the Aigles have been just that, except the current Tripartite-class minehunter which is L'Aigle (the names of none of the others of that class include a definite article) Davidships (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Briochmore, the thing you're confusing with "Le/La/L'" is that some ships had the definite article as part of their actual name, and others did not. Compare Le Triomphant with Ouragan - one is part of the actual name of the ship, the other is not, even though individuals may in passing refer to L'Ouragan. If you go back through the archives of this wikiproject, the consensus you'll find is that that is the distinction we use when deciding whether to use the definite article in an article's title or not (because, as Lynda hints at, that's what reliable sources will generally use).

As for policy, no, it's not a catch all, but you generally need to have a compelling reason to ignore policy, and "because I think consistency is nice" is not a compelling reason. Parsecboy (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Right, we don't "future-proof" titles, because it's impossible (we could put William Shakespeare at William Shakespeare (playwright), but another playwright might come along. And true for every level of detail you might add to a qualifier. Future Wikipedia will have its own editors to keep things running. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

And for those wondering why, the reason we don't future proof titles is because it frequently results in an empty base name for obscure topics - I don't know how many times I've come across an article titled "HMS Foo (year)" and there's nothing at "HMS Foo". Readers typing in "HMS Foo" in the search bar will have a harder time finding the article they're looking for. Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

BTW, even though this RM didn't result in a move, the arrangement of moving HMS La Hogue to a qualified name would be in line with WP:AT (specifically WP:PRECISION) if the resulting redirect were made into a a redirect to another title (either the new primary topic for the title or to a disambiguation page). But as pointed out in this RM, even though that would be in line with WP:AT, the WP:SMALLDETAILS of the "La" are sufficient to overcome the technical problems of having two or more articles share a title, and the hatnotes will enable reader navigation if they don't reach their intended topic the first time. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Machias

British designation question: A British armed sloop is consistently referred to as "HM Margaretta" in the subject article's infobox, but lacks a prefix in the body. Is this designation correct, and if so what does it stand for? I looked at the article due to a conflict with Battle off Fairhaven as the "first" naval engagement of the American Revolution (probably hinges on the definition of "naval"). RobDuch (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

With no replies, I'll use own judgement and call it "HMS", as the captain is called a "Midshipman" (god help us all). RobDuch (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Tankers, Oilers and Replenishment Oilers

I'm getting in a pickle with these. The problem initially appeared on INS Shakti where the ship class linkage resulted in tanker coming up as a blue link to a dab page. I found a way around that by using a piped link but when I looked at Tanker (ship) it said correctly that a tanker is a merchant vessel and the term for a military refueling vessel is an oiler. Using the sclass template Oiler gives the same get roundable problem as Tanker however there is no oiler(ship) article and from the dab (or link to) you are invited to go to tanker (which we know is incorrect) or Replenishment oiler. Looking at replenishment oiler it states correctly its a ship which provides fuel and DRY CARGO ie Refuels and Replenishes (where as an oiler could just provide fuel). Ah I thought just create a page for oiler(ship) but then I hit the problem of identifying which ships solely provide fuel to correctly title and categorise them as oilers. Whats caused me to throw my hands up and ask for suggestions here is the new British Tide-class tanker - yes thats right TANKER, checked on the Royal Navy site and its how they are referring to them, and then look at Tide-class replenishment oiler, I believe they were just oilers. I'm minded to go with my initial idea of creating oiler(ship) but without trying to subdivide the existing articles into oilers and replenishment oilers however I hate doing half a job and I envisage looking at the Tide class example this could turn into a can of worms. Grateful for ideas and guidance Lyndaship (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Just to complicate things, I have an idea that there is a transatlantic difference in usage - 'Fleet tanker' or 'replenishment tanker' would be the normal usage in UK, I think. In other words, the premise that 'replenishment' refers to non-oil may not be well founded. I'm away at present to cannot see what Jane's or Colledge uses historically. And then usage may well have changed over time. I suspect that American use of 'oiler' goes back at least as far as the coining of the type designation 'AO', at which time 'AT' was allocated to fleet tugs (later ATA, ATF etc). Davidships (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I noticed this problem a couple of years ago, but decided not to open the "can of worms". USN replenishment oilers (AOR) carried both stores and fuel, but it appears none are currently active. A ship type of similar concept is the "fast combat support ship" (AOE or T-AOE) (the T in this case meaning a Military Sealift Command vessel, and the E referring to ammunition, see also ammunition ship (AE)). The USN adopted the "current" hull classification symbol system on 17 July 1920, and at least USS Kanawha (AO-1) was in service at that time. There is also the "transport oiler" (AOT), such as SS Petersburg (T-AOT-9101). I am not clear on the difference between AO and AOT, but my guess is the AOT may be unable to provide underway replenishment. The issue is definitely confused for the USN and more so from a worldwide perspective. I have no input on other navies' terminology. RobDuch (talk) 03:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• FYI - these articles/ship types were mentioned here a few years ago (see here), also see these commemts and this merge proposal. I fairly certain there are other discussions, debates and move, merge & fork proposals to be found. There has been a deal of confusion over the years regarding these ships, what they do and what they're called. - ^theWOLFchild 06:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm no naval expert, but that won't stop me adding my twopennorth...

I know the term "oiler" mainly from Battle at Sea by British historian John Keegan in relation to Japanese and U.S. ships in the Pacific Theatre. It is impossible to tell why or how carefully he chose the word. The Wikipedia descriptions of USS Cimarron (AO-22) and USS Sabine (AO-25) suggest that their sole function was refuelling. Both articles link to replenishment oiler.

The most usual Royal Navy term does seem to be "tanker". At least, that is how RFA Kharki (1899-1936) has been described (along with "tank-vessel", "tank steamer" and "oil steamer" in contemporary news articles). She seems to have been solely a refuelling vessel (apart from delivering the occasional chronometer). Unlike Tide-class tankers, which are multi-purpose; and Tide-class replenishment oilers, which may have been multi-purpose. Nevertheless, the RN has used "oiler" from time to time; see e.g. Wave-class oiler (not to be confused with Wave-class tanker - what a mess...).

I would prefer a title based around "oiler" for any general article(s) about the military meaning. In everyday British English, a petrol tanker has wheels and an oil tanker is a merchant ship. Narky Blert (talk) 09:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

In this video @28:40, a man with a decidedly English accent attests to at least the informal use in the RN in 1941 of "oiler" to mean "replenishment oiler". Narky Blert (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks - fascinating find. However firstly its not a contemporary use of the term oiler but a later expert using it when the documentary was made (and for an American channel) and secondly he doesn't refer to a replenishment oiler at all just an oiler. The key articles and redirects have now been sorted but I've no appetite for trying to amend the individual articles to define them into oilers, replenishment oilers, tankers, fleet tankers etc. Lyndaship (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I've now recognised him - Ludovic Kennedy. Not a later expert: in 1941, he was an officer on HMS Tartar (F43). Not WP:RS of course, but it does suggest that "oiler" is a long-established term in the RN. Narky Blert (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I have no objection to general articles, such as Replenishment oiler, provided they have appropriate redirects from replenishment tanker to respect British usage - the phrase is used over 250 articles, currently linked only by piping. But articles on individual classes or ships should adopt the appropriate common or accepted usage in the relevant version of English.

My 1980 Jane's uses only "tanker" for RN entries, and usually "oiler" for USN vessels. But I do not have a run of Jane's to see whether it that has changed over time. Also it should not be forgotten that some naval tankers do not have equipment for at-sea replenishment and are only used for shipments of fuel from terminal to terminal, exactly like a merchant tanker.Davidships (talk) 09:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. From your comments it's obvious that US and UK usage varies and that the whole subject can be a vehicle for confusion, I've come across British RFAs which are deemed replenishment ships but can also supply a bit of fuel, there are military tankers which carry water, there is the issue of oilers or tankers which operate as cargo carriers and never refuel ships, there are Aviation fuel tankers. Therefore I propose to create oiler(ship) with a text along the lines of "A military ship which refuels other ships but does not replenish dry stores -see replenishment oiler" and to change tanker(ship) along the lines of " A merchant vessel which conveys fluids. Military vessels which refuel ships are known as an oiler in some navies and tankers in others, if they also supply dry stores they are known as replenishment oilers or replenishment tankers." - not my final wording, just the gist. I'm going to leave the class and ship types alone as I hope these amendments will stop any contradictions Lyndaship (talk) 09:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

That seems a sensible approach, Lyndaship, though I would change the Lead of Tanker (ship) to "A tanker is a ship which conveys....". The more specific articles can considered individually as appropriate. Davidships (talk) 11:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)