Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 55

Archive 50

←

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

→

Archive 60

Captain Hayward

Not the Water Witch 1832 RMG PU6156 cropped detail

Came across the article Captain Hayward about the first ferry crossing of the English Channel, although it appears to be about on event related to the connection with the South Eastern Railway service from London. It clearly is not about the good Captain or even his ship the Water Witch and makes some claims about being the first round trip from London but it certainly doesnt appear to be the first ferry crossing. I added the name of the ship which was missing and was tempted to move the article to William Hayward to give the Captain his real name but thought I would seek opinions here of where what appears to an event article rather than a person or ship should go. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is about an event - the inaugural round trip in June 1843 by the South Eastern Railway from London to Boulogne, using the steamer Water Witch of Dover, owned and captained by Hayward (trial trip by directors, the SER engineer and guests on 24th; inaugural service on 28th with 100 passengers). There is no biographical information on Hayward, nor information on the ship. I don't think that the event is notable enough for a stand-alone article, but would make a reasonable paragraph in South Eastern Railway, with a mention in Folkestone Harbour. It is likely that Water Witch (steamer) could be written, which would of course include reference to this event (I'll give it a try in the coming days). Davidships (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Davidships: - Water Witch is almost certainly a paddle steamer, one of several with that name. Therefore "PS Water Witch (18xx)" would be the title that fits NC-S. Mjroots (talk) 19:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Fairly certain this is the vessel. "PS Water Witch (1832)" according to RMG. Broichmore (talk) 13:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

(Apologies for slow reply - delayed by a close encounter with a large MAN truck - no blood).

@Broichmore: If the stated publication date of 1 Jun 1834 is correct this cannot be Hayward's Water Witch, which was built over a year later. Not sure at the moment which Water Witch this is, though I note that she apparently flies an Admiralty ensign [1].

(later) and after puzzling about which Water Witch this could possibly be, wonder whether it is in fact referring to the steamer. Compare this engraving which is specifically stated to be of the trials of the Royal Yacht Squadron brig of that name, built for the Earl of Belfast by Joseph White, Cowes in 1832.[2] OR of course.

@Mjroots: We'll see later about that, depending on sources, NC-S optionality, dab requirements etc. Davidships (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• commons:Category:Water Witch (ship, 1832) RMG says 1832. Engraving issued 1834. These pictures are of the steamer Water Witch, one shown on this page. Could it have been hired for the trial? Coincidentally a steamer White Witch (1833) of the St George and Waterford Steam Packet Company sank in her first year off Ireland. [Billed as possibly the fastest sailing vessel ever floated].

There is nothing in the source (RMG) that says the title refers to the steamer on the right. Who says "These pictures are of the steamer Water Witch"? Since the image is very similar to those specifically showing the Lord Belfast's brig-yacht Water Witch, which was built in 1832 (keel laid Oct 1831, launched 23 Jun 1832), in centre frame Davidships (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• commons:Category:Water Witch (ship, 1830) RYS According to to RMG it was built in 1830. This book mentions Lord Belfast's Water Witch 1830 73 tons. a race on the Thames 1831 RMG has this picture which says its 331 Tons Other references on the web say 1832, built by Joseph White. This was the brig built by RYS member, Lord Belfast He showed it off in trials to the Admiralty in 1832. Belfast sold it to the Admiralty in 1834 hence the date of the picture. Two different ships? Incidentally regarding her trial: Wikipedia has a (disambiguation) reference to a HMS Snake (1832) a 16-gun brig-sloop launched in 1832 and wrecked in 1847; and also another for HMS Serpent (1832) a 16-gun brig-sloop launched in 1832, used as a target from 1857 and broken up in 1861. RMG says the Water Witch is racing the Snake, but The Times (London, England), Tuesday, Jul 23, 1833; pg. 5; Issue 15224 says she is racing the Serpent.

Too many separate references point at it being the Snake. Does the Serpent actually exist as a separate entity? - Broichmore (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Why there is a Commons category for "(ship, 1830)", when all five images show Lord Belfast's 331t ship built in 1832, defeats me. "1830" is not given in relation to Water Witch, or indeed any other vessel, in the RMG sources linked from the images. So where does it come from?

Your correct. Page 109 and the illustration that goes with it. Confirms it. The 1830 date came from incorrect sources and prior confusions.

I could not find the reference to "Lord Belfast's Water Witch 1830 73 tons" in the "Sporting Magazine" book you linked above. Which page is it on? That book's reference to a Water Witch of 8 tons owned by Mr J Unwin and racing on the River Thames above London is hardly relevant.Davidships (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The link was to page 379. It references the Earl of Belfast and the Commodore of the NY, J. E. Matthews, and says the latter hoists (present tense) his flag on the Water Witch. Its a red herring as it's a 73 ton, 3 masted schooner. This volume of the Sporting Magazine covers Belfast and 5 different Water Witches, of 8, 17 1/2, 33, 73, and 331 tonnages. - Broichmore (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• commons:Category:Ships named Water Witch - Broichmore (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Again, not clear why there is a separate Commons category "ship (1834)" since all but one of the images are of the 1832 vessel (one is stated by RMG to be the brig Osprey, built 1844).Davidships (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Right again. All told we have 13 images of the same brig, all with different dates. The Osprey image had White Witch scrawled on it's back, indicating that it may have a minor role in the scene. I'll move the images into 1834, and start an article. That leaves the question of the paddle steamer flying the Admirals flag. The Admiral must be Sir Pulteney Malcolm his flagship for the trials HMS Donegal (1798)?, so he must have reviewed the proceedings on the steamer? Name? - Broichmore (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Relevant AfD discussion

A discussion on the possible deletion of HMS Incomparable has been opened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HMS Incomparable. All interested editors are invited to comment.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Relevant AfD discussion

There is a discussion on the possible deletion of HMS Pegasus (1944) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HMS Pegasus (1944). All interested editors are invited to comment. Lyndaship (talk) 09:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion about adding a list of captains to a ship article

G'day all, there is a discussion at Talk:List of commanding officers of USS Nevada (BB-36)#Re PROD regarding whether or not to include a list of ship captains to a ship article. Your input is welcome. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

FYI: there is already a current discussion just above at Notable-crew#Related subject that addresses this very issue, among other related ones. Please have a look and contribute. Thanks - wolf 04:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

HMS Soldado

Was this ship really called this? It's not listed in Colledge, J. J.; Warlow, Ben (2006) [1969]. Ships of the Royal Navy: The Complete Record of all Fighting Ships of the Royal Navy (Rev. ed.). London: Chatham Publishing. ISBN 978-1-86176-281-8. and every other source other than a Dictionary of naval Biography refers to it as Saudadoes. Possibly it's a contemporary English misspelling for a difficult foreign word. I've raised it on the creators talk page but he's not replied [3]. Lyndaship (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for any delay, have been involved with other things -and yes I should have edited properly. I'm a little 'rusty'. I have no direct source as you requested -just a series of 'likely' historical co-incidents, as per entries. Long Ben Every (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

It's English sloop Saudadoes (1669). Mjroots (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Have not found any source for official renaming of Saudadoes to Soldado, and as Lyndaship suggests it is likely to be a misspelling - there are occasional examples of Soldadoes also in correspondence. We cetainly do not need two articles on the same ship, but as the name does occur, I suggest that HMS Soldado is converted to a redirect to HMY Saudadoes. The paragraph about a piratical Soldado seems irrelevant to this article since Saudadoes was still in commission in 1693. There was, though, HMS Saudadoes Prize (sometimes wrongly Saudadoe's Prize), the captured French privateer La Victoire, with the RN 1692-1712, which should have it's own article. Davidships (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I was about to post the same as Davidships just did. Agree totally (unsurprisingly) redirect to HMY Saudadoes, separate article for Saudadoes Prize Lyndaship (talk) 09:19, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I've redirected it to HMY Saudadoes and added about the Prize to that article Lyndaship (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Veer-class corvette merge - reversal

Editors may wish to comment on this proposal on the article's talk page Lyndaship (talk) 07:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft help

Hi. I need help with draft:Twilight (1837 steamboat) to expand the article. I am not lazy, In fact I am actually so busy with other things, i haven't made much progress. I need teamwork to get it done faster so it can be a Wikipedia article. Thanks! Huff slush7264 17:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Russian or Soviet?

I've just started looking at the categories Russian ship names and Soviet Navy ship names to form up the ship index listings and one thing which has occurred to me is it desirable to have article titles such as Soviet destroyer Foo as opposed to Russian destroyer Foo? To my mind Soviet ships were also Russian ships and now that the Soviet Union is defunct is there any point in using Soviet to differentiate ships which served in the period when the state used that name? Given that we should be writing for a general audience the nuance is probably lost on them. The indexes can be created either way using redirects and separate pages in each category but it would look cleaner if all pages in both categories were for Russian ship Foo and would save future work if and when the current Russian navy reuses a previous Soviet (and possibly Imperial) name Lyndaship (talk) 09:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Not all Soviet ships became Russian after dissoultion of the USSR. Ukrainian corvette Vinnytsia as an example. Therefore the different article titles are reasoned. --Gwafton (talk) 10:17, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Indeed but should it's previous ownership be better titled as Soviet corvette Dnepr or Russian corvette Dnepr? Lyndaship (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Definitely Soviet, as that is the correct term for the country at that time. We shouldn't dumb down content for those readers who don't know the difference. Parsecboy (talk) 10:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Soviet. Russia was just one part, albeit the largest part of the Soviet Union; see Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. --Gwafton (talk) 10:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

That is of course a very valid point but the same territories (by and large) constituted Imperial Russia and is not the current Russian state the legal successor state to the Soviet Union? Lyndaship (talk) 11:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The implication seems to be that articles on every vessel that is in List of ships of the Soviet Navy would be entitled "Russian xyz", even the hundreds that were never in anything but the Soviet Navy and for which any link to the Russian Navy would seem bizarre. It is not for us to tidy up history. The article names for those that served in both Soviet and Russian navies, or others, should follow the normal guidance in WP: SHIPNAME, with appropriate redirects. Davidships (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Definitely Soviet. The country was known as Soviet Union and the navy was by extension was also known as USSR Navy. Please don't compare Imperial Russia and Soviet Union, the first had no national divisions, while USSR did and they became independent in 1991.Crook1 (talk) 03:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree with the above; if the vessel belonged to the Soviet fleet, then "Soviet" it shall be called. Tupsumato (talk) 06:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for opinions everyone. Quite clearly no support for a change. I accept the consensus Lyndaship (talk) 07:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Deletion notice

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of commanding officers of USS Nevada (BB-36). Thanks - wolf 17:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Second opinion requested at Talk:Brittany Ferries

If anyone wants to chime in here, it'd be appreciated. Thanks. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 00:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Namesake navboxes

Currently, these six ship articles, with presidential namesakes, have navboxes for the ship's namesake at the bottom of the page;
1. USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-67)

#1 was added by Randy Kryn about four years ago.

2. USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76)
3. USS George H.W. Bush (CVN-77)

#2 and #3 were added (2 & 3) by BilCat just today.

4. USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78)
5. USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79)

#4 and #5 were added (4 & 5) by different IP users, both during 2012.

6. USS Jimmy Carter (SSN-23) -

#6 was added by Darth Kalwejt 10 years ago.

I checked the ≈40 other ship articles, as well as the other ≈8 ship-class articles at List of U.S. military vessels named after presidents, which includes all the other Nimitz-class ship articles and found no other articles that included navboxes for the namesake President.

I'm not aware of a guideline or consensus regarding the inclusion of navboxes for presidential namesakes (which does not mean either does not exist), but for the sake of article consistency, should these six navboxes be removed? Or should these navboxes be added to all the other ship articles with presidential namesakes? And ship-class articles as well? And would this extend to other ship articles with political namesakes, for example, the two Nimitz-class carriers; USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) and USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74)? Or just all ship namesakes on all ship articles?.

Thanks - wolf 11:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Don't like them and would prefer for them to be removed. Think the blue link to the individual in the lede and namesake mention in the infobox is sufficient Lyndaship (talk) 11:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%. Thanks for the reply. - wolf 12:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Likewise. They make sense and can be useful in articles about aspects of the biography of the person in question, but not for comemorative objects. Davidships (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Concur. Don't add any value to the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL: "The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include navboxes, and which to include, is often suggested by WikiProjects, but is ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. Per the bidirectionality principle above, this may also affect inclusion of a particular article in a navigation template." (Emphasis mine.)) Per this guideline, if a president's navbox is not included on the namesake ship's page, then the ship link should be removed from the navbox. I don't care either way, but be sure to remove the ship links from each president's navbox if you decide they need to be removed from the ship pages. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• I have removed the templates from the six articles noted above. - wolf 05:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I think you forgot something. - BilCat (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

What's that? - wolf 14:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on Commons

There is a discussion at Commons you may wish to see about "Ships by name". [Category title "Ships by name" proposed change]. - Broichmore (talk) 10:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

This discussion has moved on to an additional place (actually phase 3) See: [a discussion about Ships by name (flat list)]. If your going to add to it, as I hope you do, please, stick to the narrow topic, rather than go onto a rant about all of Commons shortcomings, which I have already done for you. Need some support here! Broichmore (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Seems no-one is interested in Commons as a resource. Broichmore (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

With genuine apologies, but being interested in Commons as a resource is not the same as understanding what on earth the referenced discussion is actually about and why it matters. If whatever is actually decided will allow me to find a ship after a few clicks or confirm that there is nothing relevant, I will be satisfied. Davidships (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

You've actually hit the nail on the head here. Ostensibly the discussion is about cataloguing ships, in reality the issue is a push back on a growing trend across Commons of too many levels of nested folders being created in a particular subject, and also at basic level (example: HMS Foo) of images being divided up into too many unnecessary sub-divisions I. E. seperating files by year. The latter having the effect of hiding files. Making too many clicks to find stuff. This is currently not yet a problem with ships, in particular, but is with larger subjects like Cities or Towns.

Absurd examples exist, subjects with 200 images divided up into 100 folders. Imagine a scenario where all images of "HMS Victory" from the 20th C can only be seen by opening up over 100 folders. It's called "Diffusion" of images in Commons, and happens where enthusiastic contributors allow their OCD tendencies full rein at the expense of making files available for actual use in projects like Wikipedia.

Proper identification of files in Commons is a laborious procedure, with few edits to show for hours of work, whereas mass cataloging (using tools) allows the careless to make massive edit scores; by splitting by date. Commons is plagued with the latter, and of course people with massive scores have clout when it comes to discussions like this. I hope this goes some way in explaining the problem. - Broichmore (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I raised this issue here because when Commons was born the directory trees were created by people interested in "filing" as a subject and/or by people whose interest was in "boats and barges". That greatly influenced subsequent development. That's why ship launch dates are ignored, and build dates are used. The more complex build programme of a ship was not taken into account. That is of course a different subject and a battle for another day. Policy on Commons regarding ships is dominated by "barge" people. - Broichmore (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Russian cruiser Asia (1878)

I have an issue with the name. The actual freighter was launched in 1873, finished early 1874. Russians bought it and rebuilt it in Philadelphia in 1878. Should it be a ship without a date in the title? Should it be 1873? Thanks.Crook1 (talk) 02:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

It appears to be the only Russian cruiser named Asia so in that case a dab by date is unnecessary. If there was another one the dab date of 1878 would be correct as that was the earliest date of it existing under that name Lyndaship (talk) 06:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Two? similar ships in the same time period, built in the USA. Are we certain this is a different ship from this one? See reference here. It says John C. Blethen commanded the Columbus for five years (1874-1879 est.), on sailings from New York to San Francisco four times. He owned or sailed a line of sailing ships, some built at Newburyport, Mass and Kennebunk, Maine, and acquired others by purchase. Also there's this ship which has very similar lines. Could it (or they) have been converted to steam for the Russian Navy. Columbus built 1876?. Might they all have been the same ship. Provenance of both is fairly sketchy. -Broichmore (talk) 11:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

1873 steamship Columbus is what Russians bought and it sailed exclusively on New York-Havana route, never in the Pacific. It had a steam engine of 1,100 ihp from the beginning, Russians later upgraded the vessel with a new engine in 1898. The purchase and the whole process are very well documented. There were several other sailing ships named Columbus at the time perhaps one of them was sailing to San Francisco?Crook1 (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the unnecessary disambiguation. Parsecboy (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

That's clear. I think that my other two ships may well be the same, though, both seem to have a Newburyport, MA, connection. The 1876 date may be wrong for it. - Broichmore (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

That could be brig Columbus of 1,853 tons with a homeport of Boston. Not sure when it was built but definitely before 1873.Crook1 (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Blethen's ship-rigged wooden sailing vessel Columbus of 1,853t was built in 1870 at Kennebunk and owned in the 1870s by Thayer & Lincoln, Boston (and made New York-San Francisco voyages). The ship concerned here is well-described in Russian cruiser Asia (1878) - strange coincidence that she was 1,583 tons. Davidships (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

StateLibQld Just to clarify this is Columbus (ship, 1870 or 1876?)

So the image on Commons? Is it Columbus (ship, 1870 or 1876?), Clearly at some stage it's been taken out of a book, the name of which is lost. - Broichmore (talk) 11:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

The Commons image is what it says it is. Built 1876 (launched 11/1875) by Atkinson & Fillmore, Newburyport, MA as BROWN BROTHERS for Brown Bros, Boston MA - 1420 tons, 208.6 x 40.4 x 24.0 feet (tonnage/dimensions varied a little over time). Sold 1876 to Bridge, Lord & Co, Boston

Sold 1886 to Wilhelm Stisser & Co, Bremen and renamed COLUMBUS. About 1905 sold to Gebrüder Kulenkampf, Bremen. 20 Dec 1912 sailed New York for Bristol with petroleum (presumably cased) and went missing.Davidships (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC about mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht

G'day all, a RfC has been started on the Milhist talk page regarding mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht, a daily broadcast about the activities of the Wehrmacht during WWII. Your input would be welcomed. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Notification on linking to a SI page?

Frequently I find links to the SI page when the creating editor intends to link to the individual ship article but hasn't checked where his blue links lead to. As the SI in effect acts as a dab page I am wondering if it would be an idea if editors are sent a notice along the lines of you have linked to a dab page one when they do this? Lyndaship (talk) 08:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I would really find this useful. RobDuch (talk) 09:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Davidships (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

This could be a task for DPL bot Mjroots (talk) 10:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Who should I contact to ask for this? Lyndaship (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Lyndaship: The expert on User:DPL bot is User:R'n'B. Narky Blert (talk) 12:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

IMHO, these ship indices are dab pages, and should be marked as such. That would solve your problem for you. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

SI pages are in effect dab pages, but there's one important difference. Redlinks are specifically allowed in SI pages, whereas they are strongly discouraged, if not prohibited, in dab pages. Mjroots (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Wrong. They are list pages because there are ships that will not warrant an independent article, but have reliable info that can be added to Wikipedia. They were made SI pages so that info that could be found on blue-linked pages would not need to be cited on the SI page. However, red-linked info needs to be cited. Please stop referring to them as dab pages or dab-like pages. It only confuses the issue even more. Llammakey (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

For those confusing the issue, SMY Hohenzollern is an example of a set index that is more developed than the standard "dab-like" indices you are familiar with. They should really be thought of as a "List of ships named X" (and indeed, many are titled as such, like List of ships named Nautilus, List of ships named HMS Terror, etc.). Parsecboy (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@R'n'B: Thanks for response. The usefulness of ships indices not being a dab page is that it allows red links for entries and we have many ships which are notable and which do not yet have articles. This enables anyone searching for say a HMS Arrow to just put that in the search box and up will come a complete list of every ship it could be together with a bit of info about it even if we do not yet have an article. The problem I am trying to get addressed is that sometimes editors write an article, don't dab and don't check where their blue links lead then if there is more than one ship by that name it goes to the SI page instead of the individual article. I am hoping that a system similar to the "Did you mean to link to a dab page" notification could be devised Lyndaship (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that would indeed be useful. The only difference is that it would sometimes be intended, pointing to info on a red-linked ship.Davidships (talk) 11:21, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I shouldn't have jumped in with an ill-informed opinion on a topic I don't know that much about. Anyway, the short answer to your question is yes, it's possible; but it wouldn't be simple. The existing "you linked to a dab page" notification is built on top of an infrastructure that is designed to track links to disambiguation pages. A lot of that would have to be duplicated to track links to a different class of pages. I'm not sure I'd have the time or inclination to dive into such a project at this point, but if someone else wants to volunteer, I'd be happy to share the existing code. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Right, set index articles are list articles, not dab pages, and don't have to follow the disambiguation page style guidelines. That was the point of making set index articles a thing. But possibly naming them "List of ships named HMS Arrow" (with a redirect there from HMS Arrow) would enable a bot similar to the DPL bot to notify users who link to the redirect without snaring the users who link (presumably intentionally) to the list article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

In the light of the above technical difficulty I think I will classify this as One of those things which would be nice to have but sadly not worth the work involved. I hoped it could be an easy creation. Similarly moving all the pages to List of ships named is more work than the benefit gained and it would also lose the usefulness to readers of just entering HMS Foo or USS Foo into the search box and the list popping straight up Lyndaship (talk) 12:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Russian project numbers in article titles

Do we have an established convention for treating Russian project numbers in article titles? For example, which one of the following is correct: Project 21900 icebreaker or Project 23550-class patrol ship? Furthermore, as the Russians seem to prefer project numbers over class names, which naming convention should we follow in the English Wikipedia? Tupsumato (talk) 08:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't know that we have something specific for Russian vessels. WP:UCN would be the basic policy, so in the absence of a Russia-specific guideline, we ought to default to what's most commonly used in English sources. Parsecboy (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

That leaves us with the question whether to use the word "class" or not (e.g. "Project 23550 -class patrol ship" instead of "Project 23550 patrol ship"). In case of PLAN ship articles not titled after the NATO reporting name, the word "class" seems to be omitted (e.g. Type 051 destroyer). In any case, the number should not be italicized. Tupsumato (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I would agree that "class" ought to be dropped if a project or type number is used (which seems to be standard beyond just PLAN articles - for instance Type 45 destroyer, Type 1934 destroyers, etc.). Parsecboy (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I like that as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree, drop the -class, treat like Type. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I moved Project 23550-class patrol ship to Project 23550 patrol ship as an example. This also fixes the "auto-italics" issue for the article title. Tupsumato (talk) 06:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

We've got a similar problem with Chinese ships. For example Type 091 submarine but also Shang-class submarine (which was recently moved). Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:49, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Given that much of the English world (at least in terms of who's online) is part of NATO, NATO reporting names are probably going to be the most common, but I would expect each to need to be evaluated on an individual basis. A quick google search for "Han class submarine" returns ~30k hits (including Wikipedia and a lot of wiki mirrors), while "Type 091 submarine" returns ~3.5k (mostly us and mirrors). This is of course a very rough test, but an order of magnitude of difference is suggestive.

In google books, "Han class submarine" returns 734 hits while "Type 091 submarine" returns ~1.3k hits. That might seem to contradict the google search, until you look at the actual results. The first returns things like The Chinese Navy: Expanding Capabilities, Evolving Roles, People's Liberation Army Navy: Combat System Technology, 1949-2010, and The Perils of Proximity: China-Japan Security Relations, while the Type 091 results give us things like The Military Balance 2009 (which actually uses "Han (Type 091)" to describe the class, suggesting that Han is the preferred name) and China's Future Nuclear Submarine Force, which formulates things like "Type 091 Han-class SSN"m, and dozens of false positives, mostly on Russian and German submarines. Parsecboy (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I looked at the time and couldn't see any big reason to prefer one over the other. But it should be either 091 and 093 or Han and Shang. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

All post-WWII-era Soviet/Russian submarine classes have project number designations, but none of their articles use them in the titles (it appears that project numbers were not used during or before the war). A few articles use the Russian name as the title, (such as Project 955/ Borei-class submarine, NATO reporting name: "Dolgorukiy" ^??), but the majority of titles use the NATO reporting name, (such as Project 941/ Akula-class, NATO name: "Typhoon-class submarine". These aren't italicized btw). That's just an example of article naming for one type of vessel from one navy. I think that even if we came up with a project-guideline for naming (eg: "NATO names across the board"), that wp:commonname will more often then not trump it (not that I'm fan of commonname, I think it's one of the dumber policies here). - wolf 01:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

USS Californian (1900)

I propose to move the article to SS Californian (1900) to be consistent with, for example, SS American (1900) which also was pressed into service by the US Navy. The ship was barely a month under charter but had a very long civilian career. Crook1 (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

But she was sunk during the war, so that was her final name, whereas American resumed her civilian service after the war, with her S.S. prefix. Its jmho, but that's the title the page should go with. "SS Californian (1900)" already redirects to "USS Californian (1900)", is there really a need to swap? - wolf 01:46, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

If that is the logic then it's not applied very consistently, pick any USS cargo ship and check when they were disposed of and you'll see they all had long civilian careers after WW1. USS Antilla (1904) or USS Mexican (ID-1655) for example.Crook1 (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME would seem to apply. What was the name she was most remembered for? The fact that she was sunk while in naval service may complicate that question a bit. But in general I have taken the view that ships with a long record in commercial/civilian service and a short one in military service, usually should be identified by their civilian name. Far too many ship articles are named with the vessel's military nomenclature when they are much better know by their civilian names. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

My answer was based solely on the two ships you mentioned. Within those narrow set of facts, it certainly seemed "logical" to me at the time. I also said it 'just my humble opinion', so I"m definitely not looking for a debate (or to go crawling through the histories of every single ship the USN ever pulled into service). ttfn - wolf 03:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Added note; you mention all these "USS cargo" ships with long civilian careers, yet they're "USS" named? At least, the two examples you gave are, which would seem to support my opinion, no? Are you proposing they be renamed as well? - wolf 03:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I would say ALL commercial vessels requisitioned by the US Navy should be listed as commercial ships (SS, MS etc) unless the ship played a significant role in military operations by being converted to auxiliary cruiser for example, or became a permanent part of USN. USN was notorious at requisitioning ships even for minor operations, the only difference was that before 1918 they were not assigned any IDs. For example, Royal Navy requisitioned quite a lot of commercial vessels during the Anglo-Boer War and they actually have IDs assigned to them, yet I don't see them listed as Royal Navy ships (which is correct). Just my opinion.Crook1 (talk) 04:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, going by the criteria you've laid out, I'd say the page title should remain as is. She was sunk while serving as a commissioned ship of the USN. Sinking could be considered "significant". She never returned to civilian service, so you could say she remained with the USN "permanently", that is, to the end of her service life. But, again... this is just my opinion, regarding this ship alone, based on the info and parameters you've provided. (again, jmho)

But that aside, in your most recent comment, you've now indicated you have a broader agenda here. I would suggest posting that as a separate question for another discussion. Spell out clearly what it is you're seeking, provide as much information as you can in that first post. Then gauge the response you get and based on that, consider crafting an RfC. Just a suggestion. - wolf 05:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

We really do need a rule for cases like this when no name can really be overwhelmingly considered the common name. I frequently see similar examples on ferries which some editors move to the current or last ships name when they have had many previous years service under another name, MS Sherbatskiy for example. In answer to this specific question though the ship is not well known under either name but the most significant event in her career was getting sunk so I would support keeping USS Californian. Lyndaship (talk) 07:55, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Isn't the convention to go with the best-known prefix/name? I would have thought in the case of a formerly civilian ship sunk while in naval service, the final name would be appropriate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

No, we don't need a rule for when WP:COMMONNAME doesn't provide an obvious answer. We just deal with it on an article-by-article basis, with discussion on the article talk page if necessary. There is no automatic pre-eminence for naval or civilian service, or latest/last name. Just let the active editors do their stuff. The alternatives should always be covered by redirects (this particular one is, though very many are not). Our time would be better spent writing up the civil life of these USN entries (which was often ignored by initial navy-oriented editors). In passing, this article even had a hatnote "Not to be confused with SS Californian" followed by the info on her being built as.... SS Californian - and shouldn't it be USS Californian as there was only one? Davidships (talk) 11:55, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree about no pre-eminence for military, it's quite clearly biased towards the navy otherwise there will be no discussion. Having no rules basically means the name is locked forever once it's set because there will always be someone who would oppose to change. Should we agree that vessels briefly pressed into naval service to basically be cargo carriers should not be listed as military ships unless they were sunk while in government service? I also would like to point out this ship which according to what you just said should be listed as Norwegian because it was torpedoes under that flag. In general, having rules is better than having none, because everything becomes extremely random and arbitrary. Crook1 (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The convention I mentioned above is WP:SHIPNAME. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I know and it has no rules when ships change between military and civilian service. By the way, the last ship's name contradicts to WP:SHIPNAME. Funny, how nobody here wants to admit it.Crook1 (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

That is true, but it also says "If a ship has had more than one prefix during its lifetime, choose the best-known for the article and create a redirect from the other prefixed names". In general, I would expect a normally civilian ship that was sunk during wartime service to be best known with the naval prefix, but I'm sure it will vary from ship to ship. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:57, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Good points raised by all contributors. As this is a recurring problem it is better to obtain a general consensus here rather than having the same discussion on every article page. I would suggest we work on the lines of if a ship has no name which is likely to be more generally known and therefore fulfills the COMMONNAME criteria, the title used for the article should consider firstly the amount of text for each name in the article. On this basis if Californian was rewritten to include detail about its pre USS service that would be grounds for the article to be retitled SS, it supports SS American to keep its title, USS Antilla and USS Mexican would stay the same titles unless an editor added a lot about their non USS service and then they should be moved, USS Hopewell on balance I think should remain at that title. This would be guidance. Lyndaship (talk) 07:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with that.Crook1 (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

A link to a DAB page

List of Algerian ships mentions a 'Watch Dog intercept', which links to a DAB page with no relevant entry. The applicable detailed article, Koni-class frigate, doesn't supply an obvious solution. Anyone any ideas? Narky Blert (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

"Watch Dog" will be a NATO codename for the intercept/ELINT equipment in question - it is unlikely to have an article.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, it's the NATO name for the Soviet/Russian Bizan-4B system. See here for example). Not likely a notable topic, so I'd de-link it. Parsecboy (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

ID request - 1930s warship

Can anyone hazard a guess here? The warship in the background, Lisbon in 1935. Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 11:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that'd be Emden. The ship did indeed visit Lisbon at some point in the first half of 1935. Parsecboy (talk) 11:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, now this has shown up, from the same set. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that one out - this thread prompted me to go rewrite the article on Emden (which created a lot more space for images), and the second photo is now in the article. Parsecboy (talk) 11:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Ship names in cat pages

Would it be technically possible to properly format (with italics) ship names on cat pages? Is this even an en-WP question or more of a mediawiki thing? See for example Category:Destroyers sunk by aircraft.

Feel free to point me to previous discussion on this topic. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

It is possible that someone could write a script to grab the page title italicization from each page on the category page (ships are not the only items italicized), but this is otherwise a MediaWiki request (which would likely be quite a low priority). I suspect enabling a script for everyone would be unlikely. --Izno (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

This is further complicated in that redirects cause the full title to be italicized in the category Lyndaship (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Link for MS in lead

Add it or do not add it? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Don't add. It can be linked somewhere else. But not in the bolded opening sentence. - wolf 05:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed - per MOS:LINKSTYLE, "Links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead." Parsecboy (talk) 11:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Request

There is an active discussion regarding entries to the pop culture section for the USS Missouri (BB-63) article. It could use some more contributors. Thanks - wolf 09:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Request to watchlist, page protection, etc.

RMS Queen Mary 2 is being edited by an IP, 202.128.68.82, to use an old approximate GT figure rather than the tonnage of Lloyd's Register, the rating agency. I would appreciate more eyes on the page. I have engaged the IP but without response. Thank you. Kablammo (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Scuttling of the High Seas Fleet AT Scapa Flow or IN Scapa Flow

Editors attention is drawn to the following talk page [4]. Related is the renaming of categories Shipwrecks in Scapa Flow to Shipwrecks at Scapa Flow Lyndaship (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed. We discussed this on my talk page and it's clear that I went overboard and made a mistake. My apologies to WP:SHIPS. I reverted the World War shipwrecks in Scapa Flow category name changes. Thanks for pointing it out to me, Lyndaship. Jay D. Easy (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Relevant GAR

For those interested, I've started a GAR on Passengers of the RMS Titanic, based on serious problems with sourcing and image copyrights. The review page can be found here if anyone wants to comment or work on the article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)