Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 66

Archive 60

←

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

→

Archive 70

SS Dongola - collision or grounding (or both, or neither)?

According to the article for this ship, Dongola collided with the Belgian steamer Espagne in the Bristol Channel sourced from [1]. However, according to page 103 of Monograph No. 29: Home Waters Part IV: From February to July 1915 (PDF). Naval Staff Monographs (Historical). Vol. XIII. Naval Staff, Training and Staff Duties Division. 1925. Dongola ran aground along with the escorting destroyers HMS Lawford (1913) and HMS Lydiard (1914) on the coast of South Wales the same day. Are there any other sources (preferably meeting RS), that can conform which of these accounts is correct?Nigel Ish (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The source used in the Espagne article states "1915 - On 5th March the Steamship “ Dongola”, of Glasgow, went ashore in Porthkerry Bay. Two patrol ships took off the passengers and the ship was subsequently refloated, the Barry lifeboat being in attendance in case of need. " Presumably the patrol ships were HMS Lawford and HMS Lydiard. Mjroots (talk) 09:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Infobox assistance request

Hi all, I just created SS Birma but I am struggling a little with the complexity of the ships infobox due to the various names and owners of this ship that was involved in the Titanic sinking. Would a member of the project be able to assist me with this please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

How's this? You'll probably want to add year ranges for clarity. Parsecboy (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I've added names and ports of registry (countries only) to the infobox. You can use the same method to add the owners and operators. Not sure that the Denmark and United States cats are correct, but have left them for now. Mjroots (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all. @Mjroots: EAC is the modern day Santa Fe Group which is Danish. You may have a point about the American cat though. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

She never operated under the Danish flag, so that cat should go too. Mjroots (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Redirects sorted. Mjroots (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

MSC Lirica

There was a fire on board MSC Lirica recently. The fire was not as serious as it first appeared. The article was added to the relevant category and the shipwrecks navbox was added. Both these have been reverted. I've started a discussion at talk:MSC Lirica#Fire. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 06:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

There is a general issue here concerning the Navbox, actually entitled "Shipwrecks and maritime incidents in 2021". The content quite correctly has two subheadings - "shipwrecks" and "other incidents". However the Navbox title itself is wikilinked to List of shipwrecks in 2021 as if they are the same thing, which is misleading since at present this incident does not merit inclusion there. If that link is removed from the Navbox title (it could be made at the "shipwrecks" subheading instead), I would withdraw my objection.

This is linked to the question of the inclusion criteria for "Lists of shipwrecks in xxxx". This was last (I think) raised here by Lyndaship at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 59#Lists of Shipwrecks. Despite the almost unanimous view that inclusion in these lists should be limited to circumstances where the ship became a total loss, nothing changed, and other less serious incidents are still being added. Davidships (talk) 11:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I still feel that only events where the ship became a total loss should be included, its not a shipwreck otherwise. Ships ground, have fires and collide with things relatively frequently and are usually a minor inconvenience and not significant to the ships history Lyndaship (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Davidships: - re your comment at talk:MSC Lirica re removing the link to the list of shipwrecks from the shipwreck template. I understand you reasons for wanting the "headline" unlinked. What about we move the link to the section marked "Shipwrecks" instead?. Obviously this will affect a lot of navboxes, so a RFC would probably be the best way to discuss this proposal. Mjroots (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

If you mean to the subcategory "shipwrecks", as I suggested above, that is OK with me. Others may have their own views. Davidships (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. I've also been giving the Maritime incidents categories some thought. A shipwreck is a maritime incident, but not all maritime incidents are shipwrecks. It might be worth creating subcats for shipwrecks. A shipwreck being defined as an event which leads to the loss of a vessel. Therefore a ship running aground and being declared an economic loss would be a shipwreck, but a ship that sank and was refloated, repaired and returned to service would be a maritime incident. Mjroots (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

This is what I envisage a shipwreck navbox will look like if the wiklink were to be moved as I suggested above. Mjroots (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I had in mind for the template (neater if the two headings are justified to the left) Davidships (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

RFC

Per the above discssion and that at talk:MSC Lirica, I've started a RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shipwrecks#RFC re changing the location of the link to the relevant list of shipwrecks in all "(year) shipwrecks" templates. Please feel free to comment at the RFC. Mjroots (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Ever Given

If anyone wanted to create an article on the Ever Given, the ship stuck in the Suez Canal, you could probably get it on the Main Page through WP:ITN/C in just a few hours. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The article needs a "description" section. Mjroots (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Weighing anchor

There are three locations with short paragraphs which claim to define the expression "weighing anchor": Anchor#Weighing Anchor, Weigh anchor and Gallows, all of them unreferenced, and all different. The first seems the most likely to be correct (with the exception of the tangential definition of "under way" about which I have partial doubts). There is nothing in the second to justify a stand-alone article, and it could become a redirect to the first. In the third, the "gallows" device may be genuine (though I have found only other nautical uses referenced), but the definition of weighing anchor is pretty (if I may say it) off-beam. "Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea" seems pretty clear, but does anyone have other good references handy? Davidships (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Don't know what you think of this, but I find it almost universally correct and says for this entry:
"Weigh anchor, to
To break out the anchor from the sea bed and lift it clear of the bottom."
Then the Admiralty Manual of Seamanship 1937 edition, wartime reprint, page 323 says
"The anchor is said to be aweigh as soon as it is broken out of the ground."
Very similar in Mayne, Richard. The Language of Sailing (p. 15). Taylor and Francis.:
"aweigh, a-weigh (of an anchor) broken out of the ground when being weighed." and also "weigh (of the anchor) to break it out from the bottom and lift it clear."
Still looking to see if I have anything else. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

On the "tangential definition" of "under way", Jane's Dictionary of Naval Terms (Palmer, 1975) says
"Under way. Defined in the Rule of the Road as being neither at anchor, made fast to shore or aground". This is confirmed at [2](rule 3(i)) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Worth adding that the International Regulations definition of "underway" is different from the Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea, even though the latter mentions the regs. It appears to have been written by someone who has either great difficulty in expressing themselves clearly, or who has no understanding of the subject. This is not the first failing of the Oxford Companion, and I suspect that there are many more. (The OED is even worse on nautical terminology.)ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for those, which are clear enough. The "under way/underway" point is more subtle as, apart from in that construction, the nautical use of the word "way" normally indicates movement through the water ("she had some way on her", "steerage way"), indeed there is a fine example combining both meanings in Rule 35(b) "A power-driven vessel underway but stopped and making no way through the water...." Interestingly OCSS has an entry for "gallows" with four plausible uses, but not the one at gallows, which may be genuine. Davidships (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Your faith in the PBO Glossary may be challenged a little by their "under way" Davidships (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Noted on PBO Glossary - but, as Glossary of nautical terms shows, no glossary is ever perfect. To expand on "underway" and "way on (etc.)", Jane's Dictionary of Naval Terms has the entry for "Way": "2. Motion through the water usually in the form of "making way" or "having way on"; or, to avoid ambiguity (e.g. Rule of the Road) as "making (or not making) way through the water."" I suggest that there is some fine detail to the usage there, which may be ignored by some until they take an exam for a professional qualification in the subject. Probably need to use more text-books as refs on this sort of thing.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I suspect the difference is legalistic. "Having way on" and "making way" equated with movement is likely a general term. Legalistically it apparently means anything other than a state of "fast" by means of lines ashore, anchoring, or (horrors) being aground. The legalistic form is almost certainly for precise assignment of liability in collisions and such between a ship that cannot move and one technically "able" to move, even if just adrift. One would have to get into the guts and history of the rule to know for sure. There are signals a vessel is supposed to show if unable to maneuver as required by normal, underway rules. There is an interesting explanation of the origins at Anchors aweigh at phrases.org.uk. A quote from The Sailor’s Word-Book (1867) indicates it means a vertical anchor line, thus the anchor about to break free of bottom.

'A-weigh' is synonymous with the old and now defunct terms 'a-peak' and 'a-trip'. 'A-peak' was the Anglicized version of the French 'a pic', that is, vertical. It is easy to see why the French chose the word vertical to describe an anchor which was being hauled onboard ship. 'A-trip' just meant 'about to be underway', that is, 'on a trip'. This wasn't only reserved for anchors; 'a-trip' was a general sailing term that was used for anything that was about to begin.

The 1867 quote:

"The anchor is a-trip, or a-weigh, where the purchase has just made it break ground, or raised it clear. Sails are a-trip when they are hoisted from the cap [a thick block of wood], sheeted home, and ready for trimming"

The term weigh may be the Dutch equivalent of the French a pic — the line being vertical and bearing weight rather than slack or under tension holding the ship in place. These are threads for pulling. Palmeira (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

"Legalistic" under-way: I would say more a case of passing the exam for a watch-keeping certificate. If you don't know this, I reckon you wouldn't pass. After all, how else do you get a student to understand that if your anchor is dragging, you have involuntarily become under-way.

Etymology of "weigh" (for an anchor): Richard Mayne's The Language of Sailing (p. 337). (publ. Taylor and Francis) points out that weigh originally meant both to lift and to measure the weight of something. Old English is "wegan" and the earliest clear nautical sense is in the fourteenth century in Early English Alliterative Poems, 13 (EETS, 1864–9), C. 103. A suggestion that the word is Dutch in origin fits the belief of many that most of our nautical words came from there. Whilst some did, (sloop, yacht, etc.), for others there can be no certain pronouncement due to the similarities of the early versions of both languages. In this case, an early usage in English trumps the suppositions of poor quality etymology. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The Dutch word "wegen" means to weigh. It is also the plural of "weg", a way or path, so "ga weg" means "go away". Mjroots (talk) 11:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Fugro Venturer

Interesting looking ship in Harwich right now: Fugro Venturer. Whilst there is an article on Fugro and two of their other ships (MV Fugro Equator and MV Fugro Commander - both classed as stubs, one obviously so), there doesn't seem to be one for this vessel. Not really my precise subject for editing, so I thought I would flag here in case anyone wants to deal with this. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Ship class articles and ship name prefixes

So this comment made me wonder about how ship class articles are named. The page Ever Golden-class container ship was sometime ago renamed to Golden-class container ship. The reason that was given for this move was that according to the guidelines ship class articles should not use prefixes in the title. The guidelines do not specifically mention this exact case, but to me it seems that it is meant for prefixes which go before the ships name. So for example MV Ever Golden would become just Ever Golden and should not be shortened to just Golden. Basically what I'm wondering is if and when a part of a ships name can be considered a prefix which should not be included in the title of an article.

Other examples of classes named after the first ship are where part of the name is omitted

• MOL Triumph-class container ship -> Triumph-class container ship
• MSC London-class container ship -> London-class container ship
• Hyundai Together-class container ship -> Together-class container ship

KiaaTiX (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Ship class articles should be named based on whatever is used in WP:RS, be it name of the lead ship, some common denominator, project name or design identifier. In the past, enthusiastic editors often "came up" with class names that had previously never been referred to using anything like that. We've tried to weed out the practice here at WP:SHIPS. Tupsumato (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. These inventions are most often found with cruise ships, including operator-specific class names being retroactively applied to other ships that they have never owned (of course they may still be referred to in ship-class articles, but noted as sister-ships. Davidships (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Type 055 destroyer

In the Type 055 destroyer, there's a curious case of a class being referred to as two different types: China says "destroyer", the US says "cruiser" by one set of criteria (by role), and apparently other organizations say "cruiser" by another set of criteria (like IISS's classification is based on tonnage, which makes the Zumwalts and Arleigh Burke Flight IIIs cruisers as well; see the article [page].)

The article primarily used the "destroyer" classification; "cruiser" is mentioned in the US reporting name and an explanation for that. A cursory look at the article's sources seem to show "destroyer" is used primarily.

Should there be any other places where the "cruiser" designation should be acknowledged? (eg. infobox, categorization, other articles). (I'm seeing that for other classes like Sejong the Great, Zumwalt, and the Arleigh Burke Flight III, these are not not noted as "cruisers" in their infoboxes and categories despite one party of another labelling them as "cruisers".) - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 17:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

The inclusion of this varied description seems just right after this reversion.

More generally, as we are not making classifications, only reflecting what RS say, we should as a normal rule follow what the national sources say for the substance and titling of the article, and include similar brief explanation for other authoritative classifications. Davidships (talk) 08:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

If it does need to be discussed, it needs to be done sensibly in the text, with appropriate references, and not just in the infobox.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Would IISS be an acceptable source for authoritative classifications? [3] - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 14:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

IISS reference their own definition - "what in The Military Balance classifies as ‘cruisers’" (The Military Balance is one of their publications). Definitional discussion might well be relevant for Destroyer and Cruiser, but here I don't think that it needs more than properly referenced text on how the Chinese designate their own ships and how the US/NATO refer to them - the article already does that. Davidships (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Merger thoughts: USS Georgiana III (SP-83)/Rosinco

USS Georgiana III (SP-83) and Rosinco are the same vessel. The Navy article has some gaps, the big one ownership. Other references (to be added) show Edward T. Stotesbury was the uncle of Lieutenant J. H. R. Cromwell, USNRF who gave the vessel to Cromwell. Lt. Cromwell was "owner commander" there. It is one of those "yachtsman" commander things of the Section Patrol. In my option he articles should be merged rather than just linked. It they were just two orphan, disjointed ship articles I'd do so. The fact that Rosinco is oriented toward the wreck and U.S. National Register of Historic Places gives me pause on straight merger. The SP-83 article is not likely to grow much, though some of the yacht days may develop so a larger article with it merged into the Historic Places oriented one seems appropriate to me. Any views? Objections? Palmeira (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Merge: Because of the NRHP aspect of the subject, I recommend merging Georgiana III into Rosinco. sbb (talk) 22:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Merge, although you really should go through the whole merging process with notifications on the talk pages of both ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Merged. I do not think there was any question the very sketchy, even bit erroneous, DANFS copy should be a section within the much more complete article ending with the NRHP wrecksite. I was "bold" on that matter. Palmeira (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Nautical miles as an exception to MOS:UNIT?

Do we have an exception to MOS:UNIT for the use of nautical miles in articles about ships? Twice now I've encountered ship articles in which editors (different ones for the two articles) have insisted that nautical miles are listed first for nautical measurements, even if all other measurements in that article have SI first.

• MS Hans Hedtoft
• Ever Given

GA-RT-22 (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

If not, we should have an exception. It is an unfortunate element of the maritime world that even to this day distance is measured in nautical miles and speed in knots (nautical miles per hour), and Wikipedia should reflect this. However, conversion should always be given as {{convert|22|kn}} or {{convert|22|nmi}} i.e. no abbreviation and conversion to both metric and customary units. Tupsumato (talk) 04:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

If not Wikipedia is out of synch with even the legal world of maritime (and air) navigation matters. The nautical mile is used even in international matters with regard to maritime measurements. It is a standard unit for common terminology (a safety matter) and someone using another term in ship maneuvering or other matters with legal consequences may be at risk. I know of cases in which nationalities on the metric system use both but reverted to the nautical mile with regard to navigation even if using metric for range and distance and depth not regarding navigation. There the use of "meters" for things other than navigation was equivalent to use of "yards" in the U.S. Navy. It is the commonly known measurement with — to landsmen — an odd aspect. There is a precise nautical mile and the "navigation" nautical mile with the latter being explained in Nautical mile. There is a correlation with the chart itself in the less precise use. This may fade a bit as more sophisticated ship navigation becomes more electronic display and digital. The Wiki article explains why it will appear in nautical articles as the default "mile" and generally measurement. It has legal standing and note that it is used in air navigation. Nautical measurements are interlocking making change controversial and difficult. For example, the speed measurement used in maritime and air matters is the knot and a knot is an integrated term defined as the velocity covering one nautical mile in an hour. Anytime you see "knots per hour" you are dealing with someone without a clue. The "per hour" is integral to the term. As a last bit, note that in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Part V, Article Article 57 defines the EEZ as: The exclusive economic zone shall not extend beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. Some mariner getting too close to shore and boarded for fishing or other activity in an EEZ claiming they were thinking statute miles as to how they were about 174 nautical miles offshore will not get off on that. The interlocking with charts, other terms and tradition have stymied acceptance of the other system on an international scale. Palmeira (talk) 04:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Nautical miles is compliant with Mos Units which says "In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic" My emphasis. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I think I may have been mis-reading MOS to mean that an article would have a primary system of units that's either SI or US. Nautical miles might be another example to add to this list: "... (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for rotational speed, hands for heights of horses, etc.)." I do think this should be documented, because it was unclear to me that nautical miles fall in this category. GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

When miles are being discussed in ship-related (or aviation-related) articles, it is implicit that they are nautical miles. They only need to be converted to km. There is absolutely no need to convert to statute miles. The latter also applies to knots. Mjroots (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I seek clarification on this last point by User:Mjroots. Whilst it might be obvious to those that inhabit this WikiProject page that a distance is nautical miles in this context, it is not necessarily so for an encyclopaedia user. The purpose of any conversion is to make that point clear. So whilst the article should use nautical miles as the primary unit, not providing a conversion puts the burden on the reader to discover what the writer is talking about. Surely that situation would suggest a failing by the writer or the manual of style they are using. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I interpret that as saying we should write 280 nautical miles (520 km) not 280 nautical miles (520 km; 320 mi). For reader clarity spelling out at first instance should be acceptable, later instances would be "280 nmi (520 km)" and there is also the option to link at first usage eg 280 nmi (520 km). GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems I have not received the memo for dropping statute miles from nmi/kn conversion... Tupsumato (talk) 08:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you but can we not go down this rabbit hole here? It's been discussed before and I don't think there is a consensus. My question is whether nautical mile should be the primary unit for distance when SI is primary for all other measurements. It sounds like the answer is "yes" or at least "it's acceptable." GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The actual answer is "yes, but only for maritime and aviation articles". If that needs to be clarified in the MOS, the let's clarify it. Mjroots (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Is there not a clue in the above that this must have been discussed elsewhere (presumably with a decision). {{convert|280|nmi}} gives the fuller "280 nautical miles (520 km; 320 mi)", but the shorter "280 nautical miles (520 km)" requires the less concise {{convert|280|nmi|km}}. The simpler template is surely indicative of that being the expected commoner usage. Or am I presuming too much from whoever devised the template? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I will once again ask you to please discuss this elsewhere. I'd like to reach consensus on my question. If you want to discuss whether to include conversion to statute miles, please open another discussion. GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The consensus on your question among any with an understanding of maritime and aviation standard terms — not to speak of international experts in those matters — is that the nautical mile and knot are the standard units for distance and speed regardless of use of any other units for other measurements. Marine scientists will use meters and velocity terms of that system while defaulting to the maritime units for navigation. International legal definitions are in nautical miles. "Why Nautical Mile and Knot Are The Units Used at Sea?" is elementary but it ends with a simple fact: "Currently, the nautical mile is used as the unit of measurement by all countries for air and sea navigation." Wikipedia doing anything else would open it to highly justified ridicule. May as well try to make it standard in articles related to France that the foot and pound are standard units. Nope! Palmeira (talk) 04:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the fact that Wikipedia has been using nautical miles and knots as the default units on literally tens of thousands of articles for more or less the entire history of Wikipedia is all the evidence of a consensus on this issue you need. I don't think a single person has questioned this, or at least I've never seen it in the 15 years I've been writing here. Parsecboy (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Even the French use knots (Nœud, abbreviated nd) for their ships rather than km/h. I believe that nautical miles/knots should be converted into both statue miles and km and the convert templates default to a triple conversion, so there's no need to specify output as km alone. Furthermore I don't believe that most readers know what a nautical mile or a knot is so we should add |lk=in to the convert templates on first use to they can look up the meanings of the terms without being irritated by the redundant link for either km or mi.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

All nations use the nautical mile and knot for marine and air navigation. Further, I am fairly sure there are legal ramifications in international law for any operator using other units. All navigators, for safety, must use the same terms of reference. Someone choosing not to do so would almost certainly be found liable for any accident where the standard maritime and aviation units were not being used and distance/speed played the slightest role in the accident. As I mentioned above, you would not get a pass for fishing or mining 174 miles offshore with a claim you are using 200 statute miles instead of nautical miles as the unit of distance. I've been in a couple of areas where making that mistake regarding a 12 nm limit gets nasty weapons trained upon one's vessel — because they rather obviously got itchy fingers at 15 nm. Palmeira (talk) 04:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I've added a clarification to MOS:UNIT. Russia and the CIS use metric measurements in aviation, hence the word "normally" being used. Mjroots (talk) 07:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

And it was reverted by EEng (talk · contribs) . Mjroots (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

But on the basis of the reasoning already presented in this discussion, namely, that it's already covered by the "other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic" bit. I can certainly understand the desire to keep the MoS as trim as possible, without bloating from every single example that might come up. Parsecboy (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

That was so cogently expressed that I fear our colleagues may accuse you of being my sockpuppet -- or vice versa, of course. (My edit summary, for the record: [4].) Now, who's ready for another knock-down-drag-out over "she for ships"? EEng 01:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Rather close the door on 'ships not crews', firmly and officially. - wolf 05:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Is that some kind of poetry? EEng 01:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Nope, despite the lyrical flaire, I was actually being serious. Cheers - wolf 04:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Followup re conversions

If I'm reading correctly, someone near the top of this thread was saying that nm/knots should "always" be followed by conversion to both metric and customary units. I draw attention to MOS:CONVERSIONS:

In some topic areas (for example maritime subjects where nautical miles are the primary units, or American football where yards are primary) it can be excessive to provide a conversion for every quantity. In such cases consider noting that the article will use a particular unit – possibly giving the conversion factor to other, familiar units in a parenthetical note or a footnote – and link the first occurrence of each unit but not give a conversion every time it occurs...

I hasten to point out that the above text is the result of a substantial rewrite I just did [5] but for present purposes that doesn't matter. EEng 02:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

different names of Kitsugawa Maru

Hello, I am hoping for a second opinion on the name of a ship. I just created Kitsugawa Maru, a shipwreck on Guam that is relatively popular with divers. Every diving source refers to it as Kitsugawa Maru, including a National Park Service page. I sometimes saw it referred to as Kizugawa Maru, but assumed it was a mispelling. However after a bit of research, every World War II naval history page I've seen refers to it as Kizugawa Maru, including in a 1987 Navy photo.

I simply cannot figure out if there's two ships with very similar histories that have been conflated, a ship named Kizugawa Maru whose name morphed into Kitsugawa Maru over time, or maybe the Japanese characters for the name can be read either -TSU or -ZU so they're both right? As far as I can tell from my searches, this ship has no history before being torpedoed. Anybody have any thoughts? Thanks, Featous (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Nothing showing up in Lloyd's Registers for 1930-45 under either spelling. Mjroots (talk) 07:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Miramar has only one Kitsugawa Maru completed in 1941 and sunk by Seahorse 8 April 1944. The earliest Kizugawa Maru listed was completed in January 1944 and survived until 1979 Lyndaship (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

If the ship was named after the city in Japan, then Kizugawa would be the usual modern western spelling, although as you say, there are several systems that have been used to transliterate Japanese characters into western (or Roman) letters; see Romanization of Japanese. I have posted a note at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language to see if anyone can shed more light. Alansplodge (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

You are all geniuses. It didn't even occur to me to try to look it up in reverse via the name of the Japanese town (木津川). I have just enough Japanese to figure what parts of words to copy and paste. Searching for the name of the town plus maru (木津川丸) results in both a ship history specifying the sinking at Guam when put into Google Translate (Guam is called Omiya-jima in Imperial Japanese records) and a dive blog with a photo of her before the war. And Wiktionary says that 津, the character is question, can be read as -su, -tsu, or -zu. Unusually in my experience, the name of the town Kizugawa uses づ for the -zu sound, rather than the more common ず. The two little dash marks above つ change it from "-tsu" to "-dzu/-zu".

Unless more evidence pops up, I'm willing to call it. This ship is the 木津川丸 (きづがわまる, Kizugawamaru). I'm willing to bet that someone at some point who translated the name didn't notice or understand the two dashes in づ and read it as -tsu, rather than correctly as -zu. I will make appropriate page moves, etc, and probably add a footnote regarding naming. Thanks again to everyone. I was really flummoxed. Best, Featous (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Featous: "Maru" is normally a separate word in ship names, so Kizugawa Maru would be correct.

With a view to improving the article, it needs a ship infobox and some structure - a description and history section. Lyndaship, can you expand from Miramar please? I'll sort out a navbox and cats. Mjroots (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Done Lyndaship (talk) 10:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Featous, don't forget Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)" [my emphasis]. Alansplodge (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate that. The U.S. Navy and WWII history sources call it Kizugawa, as far as I can tell. And the diving-related sources, including the one maritime archaeology source I cited, call it Kitsugawa. So it becomes a bit of a wash if I try to think about the ship globally. She's probably only the 4th or 5th most dived shipwreck in Apra Harbor because of the depth, and so doesn't make the high profile "top ten Guam dives"-type articles. Given all that, I moved the article to Kizugawa Maru. I think that's right on balance, but I certainly don't feel strongly enough to contest any future move. Thanks again to everyone here for their help and suggestions! - Featous (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The correct reading of Japanese proper nouns is not fully predictable from how they are written; it is possible that two towns with names that are written the same are pronounced differently. This web page gives the readings きつがわ (Kitsugawa), きづがわ (Kizugawa) and きつかわ (Kitsukawa) for 木津川, which is not only the name of several rivers, but also a fairly common surname. Then, it is theoretically also possible that this is the romanization of an entirely different name. For example, the Japanese Wikipedia gives きつかわ (Kitsukawa) as one of the readings of 吉川, although none of the entries on this dab page is assigned this specific reading. But the Japanese Wikipedia gives the name of the ship as 木津川丸, so this possibility can be excluded. Unless we know what specific entity the ship was named after (possibly not a city but a river, such as the Kizu River), it is impossible to determine the correct romanization with complete certainty, although "Kizugawa Maru" appears by far the most plausible.  --Lambiam 23:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The Combined Fleet website has a page about the ship. Mjroots (talk) 05:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Well done Featous, article is in much better shape now. Mjroots (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

List of ship launches in 1941

I went to add Kizugawa Maru to the List of ship launches in 1941 only to find that the list is in mdy format. It was previously in dmy format, as are almost all other lists of ship launches. There doesn't seem to have been any discussion of the change. I'm minded to revert the change if there are no serious objections. Mjroots (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

List is also non-standard in having an "Operators" column. Info there (minus flags) can be accommodated in the "Notes" column. Mjroots (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I see this is the same editor who also changed the format of other lists without discussion which were reverted back when it was discovered. Think this one should be reverted too Lyndaship (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

That's 3½ hours of my life I won't get back. List now of a similar format to other ship launch lists, MOSFLAG compliant and Kizugawa Maru added. Mjroots (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Napoleonic-era French gunboat in Birmingham

Can anyone shed any light on a query at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Napoleonic-era French gunboat in Birmingham about a French "gunboat" said to have been displayed in Birmingham (England) and apparently "dragged" overland to get there? Alansplodge (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I've asked for assistance from MILHIST members. Mjroots (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:Active ships

Category:Active ships suggests that any ship becoming inactive will be manually removed from the category tree. Isn't it a huge amount of work to keep this up to date and how important is it to have this category tree at all, considering that we also have Category:Ships by year in order to find modern ships? Marcocapelle (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Oooh, maintaining that lot is gonna be hard work, assuming that an editor will actually care enough to keep tabs on all active ships that have an article on Wikipedia. Might be better to lose it, methinks. Mjroots (talk) 07:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I picked at the ships listed in that category a while ago. I think the oldest one I removed was one which had been scrapped in 2012. Given that it won't be maintained, that very few editors would list any active ship in it and that ever ship is either active or not active (which we don't and shouldn't have a category for) I favour losing it too Lyndaship (talk) 07:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm in favour of losing it too. It will be impossible to keep it up to date manually. Tupsumato (talk) 09:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Aside from adding ships when they enter service and removing ships when scrapped, there would also be shifting ships between categories when sold between navies or civilian owners. Removal of the category and subcats is the sensible option. "Lists of active ships of [country]" will still be in various categories GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Lose it. Who's going to commit to maintaining that? Seems pointless anyway to me. Martocticvs (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thank you all for your input. The category tree is now at CfD. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Ship mixed with biography. Anyone interested in cleanup?

USS Aphrodite is one for which I added pre-Navy construction background to back in 2014. Since that time a major addition turned the ship article into largely a biographical article properly belonging in the biography Oliver Hazard Payne. There are two problems even with that text being moved there: 1) it is completely unsourced 2) it contains much "flowery" language and praising words not suitable to an encyclopedia. Much has the tone of a praising biography and may be overly extensive direct quote. In my view the questionable material is so intertwined that it is going to need someone with both ship and biography interest to unravel. The other problem is that the DANFS entry contains quite a bit more about naval service than the applicable section in the existing article. I did check to see if any of that "biography" text originated there and it does not. As expected it is a "Naval ship's biography" — not one about Oliver Hazard Payne who is mentioned once. That untangling is not something I am particularly interested in doing and I have no interest in the biography. My inclination would be mass delete, but there may be some good biography that needs saving. Anyone with an interest in both? In doing the division? I have added cleanup tags. If there is no interest I will perhaps take it on at some time but with the qualification that the unsourced biography goes in bloc to a Talk section for preservation if sourced and the remainder is straight ship. Palmeira (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The extensive biographical text added on 13 May 2018 is the same as appears here. This was not the only one which was inappropriately bloated by the same new editor on 13 May 2018. USS Housatonic (SP-1697) has extensive text that also appears here. Both of those were originally written well before the WP articles were posted, but had later revisions, and unfortunately web.archive.org does not have pre-13/5/2018 versions of these to compare). The third was USS President Lincoln (1907), which was quickly identified a copyvio - and then the editor disappeared, at least under that name. Davidships (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC) (sorry, not volunteering as I'm well behind in things already committed)

Yep, he only made a half dozen edits, then booked. Probably best to undo them wholesale, rather then try to pick them apart. (jmho) - wolf 19:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah so! Good checking and finding. I'd tried searches on text bits without success. I'd thought perhaps some obscure biographical publication. Seeing it is a genealogy piece, probably self researched and "published," my concern for keeping some whole of that biographical information largely vanishes. Perhaps all true, but of no more use here than my extensive files of findings and personal memories of "my" ships. As I have edited and have a long interest in those ex yacht Section Patrol types I think I can handle a purge, redo of this one sometime soon. Palmeira (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the editor's user page, he's the author of the Coast Artillery Corps site on Rootsweb. His site is the only source I've found for more than the bare facts of existence of the WWI coast artillery regiments, also concisely summarizing the US Army WWI railway artillery programs. Of course, this bio material on persons associated with ships is outside that. He rarely gives any sourcing information, and when he does it's usually a personal recollection/diary/etc. So I'd say his material can be removed. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 01:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Done. The yacht was more interesting than many of its sort, going beyond a decline and fading press reports of fabulous folk and social events. Even as a yacht it has some interesting design requirements, reportedly more "seagoing" than "entertainment" with social areas, for its time that will be added. After a bit of time back with the builder/owner the yacht became a Greek vessel and eventually a little cargo/passenger vessel with Hellenic Coast Lines. During the German/Italian invasion of Greece the vessel was bombed by German aircraft and sunk after attempting to beach at Trizonia island in the Gulf of Corinth. The vessel's "life" in Greek waters might be far more interesting than "yachting" in U.S. waters but I expect that history is all Greek to us. Palmeira (talk) 02:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Lloyd's List

This seems by far the most active of wikiprojects about this topic so if anybody has access to the above publication (Lloyd's List) their contributions would be appreciated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#Lloyd's List. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Lloyd's Lists from 1741-1826 are available online here. Mjroots (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots: It's an article from four days ago so I don't think I'll find that there, hence why I was asking if anybody has access to this specialist ressource :) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

RandomCanadian, try Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. Alansplodge (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

D'oh! I see you've already tried. Apologies. Alansplodge (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Any German speakers here?

If you can speak German to a reasonable level, please head over to our German sister Wikiproject where I have raised an issue at de:Portal Diskussion:Schifffahrt#Cospatrick. Mjroots (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Done. The issue is more complex than what it seems on a first look. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

As those nice editors at de-Wiki have said that the conversation can be carried out in English, I'll outline the situation here. The article on Cospatrick stated that she was lost in November 1874. Indeed, that is what can be deduced from a newspaper article which stated that the ship departed from Gravesend for Auckland on 11 September 1874 and was lost the following November. However, the newspaper report was in an 1873 newspaper ("Burning of the Cospatrick". The Standard. No. 15264. London. 1 July 1873. p. 7.). It is obvious that the paper cannot have been reporting events 15-17 months into the future. The only logical explanation is that 1874 is a typo for 1872. There are a number of websites that have repeated the newspaper report, without attributing the source. Thus the discrepancy in dates has remained hidden until I discovered it yesterday. I've corrected the en-Wiki article, but the German one needs to be corrected. My German relies heavily on Google Translate, so I'm not able to do this myself. Please head over to de-Wiki if you want to join the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 04:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Suggest you look at the date on the newspaper that you reference, especially fuller report at p.5 (cannot see one on p.7) Davidships (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Davidships: yes, it was an odd error produced by the search engine. It was showing that the newspaper was dated 1 July 1873, but actually linked to a paper dated 1 January 1875. Another thing that aroused my suspicions was that Cospatrick wasn't showing in any other newspapers in or around July 1873, only that one hit. I'll return the article to its previous state and restore its entry to the correct place in the correct list of shipwrecks. Mjroots (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I might be stating the obvious, but a report also appears in an Australian newspaper dated 31 Dec 1874. Alansplodge (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Probably more of the obvious, but there are many newspaper articles on this tragedy to be found in the British Newspaper Archive. These include 425 articles in December 1874 and 1,756 articles in January 1875 (as the fuller accounts of the 3 survivors became available). The official enquiry was in February 1875, and is covered in detail by many newspapers. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

If anyone wants to expand the article, there are newspaper archives from Australia, New Zealand and the United States all freely accessible online (links at WP:SHIPS/R. UK newspapers tend to need a free subscription. Mjroots (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll just add that in UK, library card holders generally get free access to online resources such as Gale's 19th century British newspaper archive (which includes The Times from 1785), OED, Oxford National Biography... GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

That's how I get access. Mjroots (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Unwritten article on submariners

I just noticed that submariner is still a disambiguation page without any actual article on submarine sailors. It might be an interesting page to write if anyone here is interested. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Although submarine#crew is fairly robust, though, so maybe all that needs to happen is for there to be better redirects/pointers to there. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Hymn to S.S. Bremen

S.S. Bremen

To what might this hymn (words and art by G. Howell-Baker (1871-1919), music by E. Edgar Evans) refer? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

SS Bremen (1896) sailed through the site of the Titanic sinking five days after the event. According to our article, the Bremen didn't stop, but it was clearly traumatic for the passengers who lined the decks to see the numerous corpses in the water, including "one woman in a nightdress with a baby clasped closely to her breast". [6] Alansplodge (talk) 11:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

{ping|Alansplodge}} Thank you. I have added a footnote to that effect (caveatted "possibly related") to Howell-Baker's article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Merchant ship flags

A discussion is taking place at WT:HV#Merchant ship flags of the British Empire re flags flown by merchant ships of the British Empire. Please feel free to join in. Mjroots (talk) 06:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Rename proposal USS Redpoll (AMS-57) to RV Sir Horace Lamb

Rename proposal at Talk:USS Redpoll (AMS-57). The vessel had longer service lastly as the Navy owned vessel assigned to the Bermuda SOFAR station for acoustic research. DANFS and Wikipedia derivatives are the main hits for the mine vessel while Sir Horace Lamb shows up in relation to acoustic research and occassionally other scientific reports after 1959 through its retirement in 1976. In my view the more referenced, longer, more recent history as Sir Horace Lamb warrants a page name change. Palmeira (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Decommissioned ship names

Found among random ship articles (I'm referring mainly to USN ships, I can't speak to other navies), decommissioned ships will sometimes be referred to as "ex-Foo". This is also found in sources, including USN sources. After hunting around through various MOS pages, I couldn't find any mention of this practice for Wikipedia purposes, and only a single mention of it on the page United States Ship. Should this naming practice be clarified, codified and standardized? Thoughts? - wolf 02:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it's correct to refer to de-/un-commissioned ships by name, sans prefix. Mjroots (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

By and large that seems to be the case. Most decommissioned ships are simply referred to by their name, but there are instances where the "ex-" prefix is used, such as on USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63), and the navy.mil source on that page uses it as well. There's another example on USS Paul F. Foster (DD-964), which followed it to Self defense test ship. There's other examples as well, but no guidance on how/when & where is should be used, exceptions to said guidance, as well as times where it should not be used. Thanks for the reply. Still looking for more feedback. Cheers - wolf 06:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Officially the USS is dropped even during long yard periods. The only official continuation of the honorific I know of is in some cases of extremely notable ships, mostly memorials, in "popular" or informal usage. Officially it is not used during any period out of commission — even for long modifications or upgrades during which no commanding officer and crew are assigned for example. Ship Naming in the United States Navy with my emphasis:

• A Note on Navy Ship Name Prefixes

The prefix “USS,” meaning “United States Ship,” is used in official documents to identify a commissioned ship of the Navy. It applies to a ship while she is in commission. Before commissioning, or after decommissioning, she is referred to by name, with no prefix. Civilian-manned ships of the Military Sealift Command (MSC) are not commissioned ships; their status is “in service,” rather than “in commission.” They are, nonetheless, Navy ships in active national service, and the prefix “USNS” (United States Naval Ship) was adopted to identify them. Other Navy vessels classified as “in service” are simply identified by their name (if any) and hull number, with no prefix.

In 1907 President Theodore Roosevelt issued an Executive order that established the present usage:

In order that there shall be uniformity in the matter of designating naval vessels, it is hereby directed that the official designation of vessels of war, and other vessels of the Navy of the United States, shall be the name of such vessel, preceded by the words, United States Ship, or the letters U.S.S., and by no other words or letters.

─ Executive Order 549, 8 January 1907.

Today's Navy regulations define the classification and status of naval ships and craft:

1. The Chief of Naval Operations shall be responsible for ... the assignment of classification for administrative purposes to water-borne craft and the designation of status for each ship and service craft. ....

2. Commissioned vessels and craft shall be called “United States Ship” or “U.S.S.”

3. Civilian manned ships, of the Military Sealift Command or other commands, designated “active status, in service” shall be called “United States Naval Ship” or “U.S.N.S.”

4. Ships and service craft designated “active status, in service,” except those described by paragraph 3 of this article, shall be referred to by name, when assigned, classification, and hull number (e.g., "HIGH POINT PCH-1" or "YOGN-8").

─ United States Navy Regulations, 1990, Article 0406.

Related Resource

A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the Vessels of the Navy, 2013 [PDF, 0.4 MB]

The misuse of the prefix here on Wikipedia is rampant and, to be blunt, opens the expertise of the coverage of U.S. Navy vessels to question. Attaching "USS" to yard craft for example is ludicrously incorrect, on the level of calling everyone working in the U.S. Capitol Senator or Representative. It demonstrates editors doing so have not done basic homework. For example, the commission conveys certain legal status on a ship regarding armament and rights to challenge other vessels on the open seas in law. Nope, USNS XYZ is limited to some small arms in lockers and doesn't get to challenge civilian or foreign vessels as would a commissioned ship. And yes, it is a "pet peeve" because it perpetuates a mistaken view among those clueless to naval matters. Palmeira (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Palmeira: thank you for the very detailed response, but I don't want to get to far of the trail here. I was specifically enquiring about the prefix "ex-" (as in ex-Kitty Hawk). It is used sporadically on various articles here, as well as in both primary and secondary sources, supporting those articles. But there is apparently no guidance on WP regarding it's use. That is what I was looking to have a discussion about. Thanks again. - wolf 14:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, but any such discussion needs to address the whole issue of improper usage. The "ex-USS" is indeed used in official sources to address explicitly the fact the ship was once but is no more commissioned. Discussion detached from the strict proper usage is probably somewhat meaningless for anyone unaware of the official policy, particularly those believing every U.S.N. floating object is entitled to the prefix or once granted is always in effect. The Navy is very much a stickler for moments in commission and not in commission as seen in OPNAVINST 171O.7A (Applying even during the acceptance/commissioning ceremony noting it is not a United States Ship until midway, though invitations may use "USS" without periods!). A bit like use of ex-Mrs. XYZ in legal documents after divorce or ex or former Senator for a non sitting Senator the Navy will use ex- to define the former status while honoring that now non applicable status. I think I've seen it most used with wrecks and memorial ships discussed in official documents. That is entirely appropriate, akin to an obit for former or ex Senator XYZ — a recognition of former status without conferring it in the present. While I really disapprove of much misuse here I am comfortable with us of the honorific for ships once in commission as long as any "in service" subsequent service is defined. The "ex-USS" has a more specific place I think in some articles where a ship has gone into other service and mention of its former status is needed. In my view that should be covered in guidance banning blatant misuse of applying to every auxiliary or scow the U.S. Navy owned or operated. Palmeira (talk) 15:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again for all the additional info. I know there was once an issue with USS being improperly added to some articles, and a few years back I actually did a clean up, renaming USS Foo pages, for ships that weren't actually commissioned. All the USN ships articles should be correct now, with the exception of new ship articles, created while the ships is still being built, but not yet commissioned (PCU ships). But that's at the beginning. I'm looking to address the end; iow ships that have been decommissioned, when should the prefix "ex" be used, and should we create some guidance here. That's what I'm hoping to discuss. Thanks again - wolf 15:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand you want to limit the discussion to a specific policy here regarding the "ex-USS" use. I contend that cannot be outside the context of the actual, proper usage of USS. For example an editor still thinking every U.S.N. vessel is "USS" is unlikely to understand why and when the "ex-" is proper. In my experience it would not be used in a single discussion of a ship that was in and out of commission or went from commission to "in service" as either a USNS or just yard or district status. Such a ship would be introduced as USS/U.S.S. XYZ for the commissioned period and then decommissioning noted and thereafter only addressed as XYZ with perhaps a hull ID. Ex-USS XYZ is not necessary. Where the entire subject is about a ship once in commission, but not within the context of the article, one will see "ex-USS XYZ as in the "museum ship, ex-USS XYZ" or the "wreck, ex-USS XYZ". It would also apply to something written about a now foreign, even commercial, ship once a commissioned U.S.N. vessel, as in "BRP ABC, ex-USS XYZ where the XYZ history is not covered in itself. That has particular application to a few articles here.

As for rampant misuse of USS here being over? Just go to the smaller vessels, particularly old patrol and various yard and district type vessels. USS Canonicus (YT-187) is but an introduction to such pages. Unless a type that was re purposed anything with "Y" as first letter of a suffix was rarely commissioned. A few survived into a period when a vastly downsized Navy named and commissioned some of the remnants, but not most. Palmeira (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, thanks again. I should point out that that I'm not seeing a combination of prefixes (such as "ex-USS-Foo") in either WP articles or in sources. Usually only after decommissioning, when the ship is no longer referred to as "USS", do you see the addition of "ex-" (as in, the former USS Foo is now referred to as ex-Foo). - wolf 18:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

No, I do not recall seeing something as explicit (and odd) as "USS Foo is now referred to as ex-(USS) Foo" (I've inserted USS there as it makes no sense otherwise. There are plenty such cases where the ship's name changed. And it is I expect something you know well, prefixes and suffixes are not part of a ship's name so ole Foo is always Foo regardless of status or designation!) as such in naval professional writing would be teaching grandmother to suck eggs. Those are where I'm most familiar with the use and naval readers generally know precisely what it means. Even there I'd say "ex-" is more commonly seen after decommissioning and the name itself ceases to officially exist. An example is DANFS for Oklahoma (Battleship No. 37) where stripped "she was sold on 5 December 1946 to Moore Dry Dock Co., Oakland, Calif., but while en route from Pearl Harbor to San Francisco, ex-Oklahoma parted her tow lines and sank on 17 May 1947, 540 miles from her destination." The ship was officially an unnamed hulk, no longer even Oklahoma. Note in the previous paragraph and above USS is not an issue because "on 29 December 1941, Oklahoma was placed under the Base Force and placed “in ordinary” [a non-commissioned status]" because commissioned status is mentioned at the start and Navy writers actually don't appear to use USS nearly as much as people outside Navy. As for usage for decommissioned ships still referred to by name alone see "DLA to scrap five warships". The Oklahoma case is what I think the usual here. An article discusses a ship and its commissioning with something such as "commissioned as USS XYZ" and then ignores USS until decommissioned. Only if that hull serving the Navy in another non-commissioned status and retaining the name should an introductory "ex-USS XYZ if the decommissioned status could be misunderstood. For example, if XYZ becomes some sort of yard hulk or similar fate retaining the name then the explicit "no longer USS" format should be used. The other case here I think would be where the article is about a ship sold or loaned to a foreign or commercial entity and reference is made to the U.S.N. status and name without that being included in a bit of history. The same applies to articles about a wreck site or artificial reef or museum/memorial ship where the mention is incidental and should be clear that a currently commissioned ship is not the case. Palmeira (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The infoboxes have a problem with this as seen in Talk:USS Redpoll (AMS-57). The fact that a U.S.N. ship may serve in a commissioned and decommissioned status with multiple events and dates is difficult to deal with at best. The use of "in service" there, also seen in the commercial template and in naval templates lying outside the commissioned, recommissioned, decommissioned sequence, indicates that is for operational status without regard to the U.S.N. specific usage of "in service" to designate operational non-commissioned status. Davidships (talk) is right. Ordinary readers, and no few ship editors, are likely to be confused by how the infobox handles a narrative with multiple commissioning and decommissioning with Navy's "to mean operating while using it as intended for U.S.N.S. ships. This brings home how it can confuse. Palmeira (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

This discussion, if rather dense, illustrates very well the challenges for editors when writing for a general audience in an area where vocabulary can be so specialised, or seemingly familiar every-day language is used in unusual and arcane ways; military organisations - and navies in particular - set great store by maintaining the terms that were developed in the Revolutionary or Napoleonic eras, if not long before. But this is not WP for Admirals, so we have to explain where necessary. Of course each naval ship article cannot contain a glossary, but the adoption of ordinary descriptive language, judicial use of footnotes, and wikilinks could help a lot. For example and taking the question in hand, the ins and outs of commissioning, decommissoning etc could be spelled out better in Ship commissioning, which already has a subsection on US practice.

I don't buy in to the idea that a ship becomes nameless when no longer commissioned, in normal usage the last common name sticks. We don't talk about "the wreckage of the vessel formerly known as Prince. "Ex-" is just a colloquial synonym for "former" and very rarely has any formal status - editors will use those in their ordinary sense as they think fit to indicate something that has changed. I cannot see why it is something that needs to be controlled, codified or, indeed, deprecated.

On infoboxes, they should be kept simple with as little jargon as possible - the beginning and end dates for a ship's commissioned service (or just years) will be enough in most cases, I think - the blow-by-blow detail belongs only in the article (and not in the Lead either). Davidships (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

In general I agree with the qualification, perhaps quaint, that if Wikipedia pretends to be "encyclopedic" it must deal with facts and not just be a blog or popular article factory. It is encyclopedic, sticking to fact, detail and "education" or it is just another casual popular press or blog thingy. That can be avoided, as you say, with good footnotes and links to accurate articles on "niche" things.

An issue with USS Redpoll (AMS-57) illuminated an issue with the general, commercial and popular usage and the technical U.S.N. use of "in service" that was next to impossible within a single infobox. It was obvious that the general "in service" period included a number of the Navy commissioned/in service periods. The simplest solution I could see was what I did; add an infobox for Sir Horace Lamb (Navy owned but not even Navy named) with footnotes in the YMS-294 /Redpoll box explaining "commissioned" dates were for the first commissioned period of several seen in the text. As for "a ship becomes nameless when no longer commissioned"? No, and again, prefixes and suffixes are not part of a ship's "name. Many a U.S.N. ship retains a name through commissions and "in service" periods and even awaiting scrapping. They do lose the U.S.S. whenever out of commission. A hull will lose the name only when renamed or the name is officially abandoned (not just sricken as some such ships have come back), not infrequently as a new hull takes the name. As to formal status? The fundamental formality is title to the hull and that only changes with formal transfer of title for sale or scrapping or never, as with wrecks. Protecting Sunken Warships as Objects Entitled to Sovereign Immunity notes the legal status of wrecks and page 106 has some to say on the status terms. Palmeira (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

There is an example of a US Navy ship, that is now nameless; HST-2 (formerly USNS Puerto Rico). The ship, acquired from a private ferry service, was first named Alakai. She is still owned by the Navy (MSC), but the name was freed up to to be assigned to USNS Puerto Rico (T-EPF-11), and the ship has since been leased to a private ferry service. It's an aberration, but I thought I'd mention it just the same. - wolf 15:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

That is an interesting case for several reasons. Directly related is the little bit "U.S. Secretary of the Navy removed the name Puerto Rico from the vessel" — an official, documented act. By Navy standards the vessel did not become "nameless" at all. It became HST-2, something mentioned in the next paragraph with "retain the name HST-2, but the service and vessel would be branded as The CAT". The NHHC naming discussion addresses that. Same as with the little ship that became Redpoll that was originally YMS-294 with that treated in all respects as the name. In checking those out I came across some references needed for that article. The Economic Consequences of Investing in Shipbuilding: Case Studies in the United States and Sweden is interesting. "Austal USA shipbuilding Case Study" starting on page 29 shows the company is now entirely dedicated to naval work and is building the quite similar ten Joint High Speed Vessels (JHSVs).

A fairly target rich area for both in/out/name change for naval vessels is the period between WW I into the immediate post WW II period with auxiliary and "lesser" combatants (Off hand I do not know of any major combatants in the modern era operating with Navy under another name). That is also a period of frequent status and name changes for vessels in commercial service as shipping lines with hulls allocated from the USSB bloomed, wilted, died and were consumed by new lines. If I recall it is some of those "President" liners that changed so confusingly that I once made a simple spreadsheet to keep track of the hulls and reused names. While many commercial ships stay in service from delivery to boneyard some do not and this period was rich in long layups. The naval vessels had their own commissioned/in service — as the Navy uses the term — and commercial like out of service with layups. Then came the WW II desperate scrounging for any hull that might survive again and there are some downright amazing, even a bit horrifying (some were floating wrecks by then), resurrections and survivals. With regard to my views on the whole commissioned/in service for naval vessels and the confusion with commercial "in service" usage I consider it a bit as if ship people are writing articles about animals and plants only loosely respecting scientific usage of genus and species. One sees lots of loose usage in popular works, newspapers and such, but nothing pretending to be "encyclopedic" should use such things loosely. Palmeira (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Umm, one of the really nice things about ship infoboexen is that they can be easily customized. For how to do that see: Template:Infobox ship begin § Custom fields. So, if you want to intermix variety of decommission/recommission/in service/out of service dates, you might write something like this between the initial |Ship commissioned= and the final |Ship commissioned= parameters in the infobox:

}}
|-
|Decommissioned: || dd Month YYYY
|-
|In service: || dd Month YYYY (as {{ship||Neversink|MTS-123}})
|-
|Out of service: || dd Month YYYY
|-
|Recommissioned: || dd Month YYYY (as {{USS|Sinks-a-lot|SSN-123}})
{{Infobox ship career
| Hide header=yes

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• Tried. A "logical" way resulted in error messages about multiple template calls. Then the "cluttering" effect. I think coverage of those things are better in text with footnote in box. First commissioning is important, though in a few cases a much longer subsequent commissioning might override. Neither did I much like separate history boxes for YMS-294 and Redpoll though in some cases that might be an option. Palmeira (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

  A "logical" way resulted in error messages about multiple template calls. What does that mean? It doesn't appear that you saved your work so it is not possible to learn what you mean from the article history.

  —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Answering and any further discussion at Talk:USS Redpoll (AMS-57) to avoid more diversion here. Palmeira (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

That is worth a try with some. I'll see how it works with the operational Navy era in Redpoll with just a few status changes. There will still need to be a note on the significant difference between naval use of "in service" and commercial use of the same term as they really are different. The problem I see is that some ships, particularly commissioned types that go auxiliary, may have so many status changes that the infobox gets really cluttered. Palmeira (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Infoboxes are primarily intended to provide a limited range of key facts that are quickly accessible for those who do not need to search for those detail in the article. I don't think that a plethora of relatively minor detail of a lifetime of ins-and-outs of different commissioned status needs to be included - in most cases the start and end of will be sufficient and, at most, a "see article..." note could be added. To be honest, I am not even sure that some of these temporary changes of status are even significant enough for the article itself - presumably they happen whenever a ship has a routine drydocking, for example.

Apart from this, I think that on the original question concerning names, we should be following the general WP principles of editing for a non-specialist audience - using plain formal language, avoiding jargon where possible and, where not, ensuring it is explained in one way or another for accuracy and clarity. While a ship is in a navy, its name, prefixes etc will of course follow that navy's norms - but if it has passed out of its purview, then its name will be up to others, whether formal or just "common name". (Just for the record, regarding wrecks, formal title to wrecks does sometimes change hands - eg from insurers to salvors/treasure hunters or at auction - and very occasionally new owners change the name.) Thank you all for following up on my Redpoll query - I have learned some Navy things along the way. Davidships (talk) 08:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Certainly those decommissionings for long overhauls should be ignored, beyond perhaps mention of the overhaul if it resulted in a significant change. My preference has been to ignore the in/out, in/out such as Redpoll had except for mention in text with something such as "the ship was in and out of commission and placed in service several times over the period of YYYY to YYYY" with perhaps a footnote about naval "in service" usage to differentiate from the somewhat different commercial use. I also prefer "former" to all the "ex-" that on occassionally finds. I will try as an experiment the format suggested above. I may not "save" that if it looks cluttered. Palmeira (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree on the principle that if we write "ex-USS Bigship" or "ex-Bigship", "formerly USS Bigship", or "up until 202x, known as USS Bigship" - we write for the reader to give meaning not to follow USN practices. So I could hypothetically write in an article about a waterway that it was temporarily closed on such a date to tow USS Notasbigship to be sunk as a reef even though it hadn't been USS-anything officially for years. The reader will probably understand that it was a naval vessel that is no longer in use and won't think 'why would they sink a vessel still in commission....?' and no point mentioning that it was for a year or so called Hulk No. 1 because that has no relevance to the reader unless it became well-known under that name in the interval between leaving commission and its fate. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

In your waterway example I'd simply write something along the lines of "The waterway was temporarily closed when the decommissioned Navy Notasbigship (linked or footnoted) grounded under tow to the scrapyard" — and definitely not use USS/U.S.S. in any way in that text. The only time I have used "hulk" is as a general term such as "the hulk of the burned out former Bigship" within the Bigship article where decommissioning, strike and sale has been discussed. We can be factual without perpetuating the idiocy of attaching "USS" to everything the Navy has floated. Palmeira (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree for the waterway example, unless sources actually describe with the navy's official name, in which case I would add a cited ref to a parenthesis "(officially named Hulk No. 1)" or similar. That detail would of course in any case be in the USS Notasbigship article. Davidships (talk) 10:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Hospital ship displacement

I've been doing some work on RFA Maine (1902) (formerly SS Panama), and have found two different figures for displacement: the uncited figure quoted in the infobox which I found at "SS PANAMA/HMHS MAINE". ww.roll-of-honour.com. War Memorials Trust. Retrieved 8 May 2021. gives a displacement of 10,100 GRT, while "Screw Steamer PANAMA". www.clydeships.co.uk. Caledonian Maritime Research Trust. Retrieved 8 May 2021. has 5,981 GRT. The ship's length is the same in both sources, but other details differ slightly. Although the ship underwent several conversions during her career, it doesn't seem credible that it almost doubled in displacement. Neither source seems more credible than the other; can anyone confirm either figure please? Alansplodge (talk) 11:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I think there's confusion about different definitions of tonnage here. Her GRT was 5,981 and appears in multiple RS, the 10,100 is displacement and not GRT. Shouldn't the article be titled RFA Maine (1920)? Lyndaship (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Title change to 1920 would appear to violate the usual year of launch for that disambiguation. Get away from that into years of some major conversion and some ships could become undistinguishable. It would be a bit like distinguishing people on dates of major status changes rather than birth date. Palmeira (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Nope, she was acquired by the Navy (albeit RFA) in 1920 so as it says in the guideline "In instances where a ship was captured or otherwise acquired by a navy and the article is placed at that title, use the date of capture or entry to the navy, rather than the date of launch, so the name and prefix are in agreement with the date disambiguation." Currently we have a 1905 Maine which readers will assume post dates this one Lyndaship (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I had not tumbled to that in my opinion very bad policy. It is as if we begin dating people from marriages or graduations. Those are status changes, perhaps many over a "lifetime," whereas one is born once and a ship is first launched once. Recipe for confusion, particularly in cases I know where ships were acquired twice as in WW I/WW II for some commercial hulls. Probably not worth another circular, endless discussion here — I'm fed up with those things — but something to consider in searching. What would have been the state if back in those days of Mrs. (husband's name) women had lost their birth dates as a fixed point of origin as well. Palmeira (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

There is widespread confusion about tonnage and displacement and all are in reality conditional on measurement authority and technique. Same with dimensions. There are differing techniques for measuring even when measuring the same parameter. Go back to the 19th century, before some standardization was driven by insurance and authorities the measurements can vary hugely. Registers drove more standardization, but one occassionally sees different registry figures for the same ship at the same time. Nobody "weighed" a ship. All was calculated. One reason displacement sometimes differs is that the water weight displaced was calculated from hull form below a waterline at stated conditions, usually just the ship (light) and fully loaded for operation — cargo or military. Tonnage is even more confusing to many. Gross Register Tons is one of the measurements of space, not weight. Again, it is based on the design and plans and certain spaces are counted or not counted depending on the rules. Fees and taxes often depended on that capacity so we see such things as designs to minimize payment such as the interesting Turret deck ship which minimized measured but non productive spaces to minimize canal fees. That entire design was almost all driven by minimizing non revenue but measured spaces involved in "tonnage" calculations. On GRT almost any alteration that changed the space of a measured factor changes GRT. Conversion from cargo to hospital ship could well have changed a number of those defined spaces and measurements and thus the characteristics involved. Finally, outside the detailed technical data for hulls commercial ships tended not to use "displacement" while naval vessels did. For that reason one tends to see "Displacement" in DANFS and the rough equivalent of Deadweight tonnage in commercial ships. Palmeira (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

PS: The naval use of displacement has to be qualified. "Loaded" has the rough equivalence to DWT as that is with the ship ready for operation, stores, ammunition, etc. which roughly equates to "with cargo" wheres the ship's hull without that is "light" or "Light displacement" in commercial terms. Note too the very specific and naval "Washington displacement" right below that definition at the link. All sorts of stuff aboard, even crew, for the measurement but without "fuel or reserve boiler feed water" so food and drinking water was in and essentials for steaming was excluded. One does wonder at the diplomatic negotiations arriving at that specific exclusion. Palmeira (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

As I recall, the exclusion of fuel from the WNT definition was at the US’s insistence, since their war plans revolved around having to cruise across the Pacific to fight the Japanese, and they didn’t want to have inferior ships when they got there. Parsecboy (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Bet those were lots of fun. Though I'd guess the Japanese perhaps had a common interest there and did not strongly oppose. I'll have to go back and review those negotiations for such things. Palmeira (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I've just updated the Panama tonnages with registry information. Note the interesting change in GRT, NRT between the 1914 Registrar General of Shipping and Seamen information and 1919 Lloyd's information. We can be almost certain those mentioned conversions changed those figures — if they were even calculated for naval service. For most long lived ships the tonnages need to be date stamped because any significant modification usually modifies those. Palmeira (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Ceremonial ship launching?

Many modern ships are built in sections and welded together. This new method of construction has, I think, changed the whole scheme of launching, christening, etc. I've looked around quite a bit, and have found very little information about these "new ways". It seems like Wikipedia should cover these matters, but as far as I can tell, it doesn't. Who knows enough to take a crack at it? Lou Sander (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Modern shipbuilding techniques are covered here and ceremonial ship launching has more to do with the event, which is a recorded milestone in the ship's history, rather than the actual launching method (stern-first, sideways, float-out, submersible barge etc.). However, the latter could be described in more detail in the article. Tupsumato (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The article and its title are in conflict and thus the "problem" raised. The article deviates from the title "Ceremonial ship launching" by getting far into techniques for putting the ship in the water. Then it links in "See also" into naming conventions. Those generally apply far before the ceremony as the name is selected, even authorized with regard to military, government ships. In reality the ceremony and naming conventions are entirely separate from those techniques. If the article is to be about the ceremony of naming and "blessing" or officially recognizing a hull as a ship then those should be the focus. Both the ceremony and the physical "getting afloat" techniques warrant an article but the mixing here degrades both. I would say a sensible division is needed with cross reference. One concentrating on the ceremonies and another on the construction and physical transfer to floating status. I would pose that the reader's interests and editor's interests may also be widely different. Some readers and editors will have great interest in the social conventions and ceremonies and little in the construction and mechanics. The reverse will likely also be true. Palmeira (talk) 10:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

That is the whole point. Ceremonial ship launching is described as "...a naval tradition in many cultures, dating back thousands of years. It has been observed as a public celebration and a solemn blessing." If modern techniques have changed the ancient tradition, that should be documented by Wikipedia. My problem is that I don't know what has changed. Lou Sander (talk) 02:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• I see you raised the issue back on 11 April 2014 on the Talk page with much the conclusion I have stated here today. Indeed, what is this about? The ceremony or the mechanics of getting a hull afloat? I agree with that observation. I'd disagree it should be compounded by expanding the mechanical aspects. I also observe the ceremonial part is quite weak in the article. Palmeira (talk) 11:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that could be covered with a single sentence listing different ways of physically launching a ship. Tupsumato (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The mechanics of building and getting the ship afloat are only incidental to any associated "ceremony" — which does differ somewhat by culture. The article is about the ceremony, not construction or getting a hull into the water. In fact, that link, shows it might take place after the ship was complete and in the water:

• Perhaps the most picturesque ceremony was in Tudor days, when the Navy was beginning to acquire popularity. In those days the ship took the water without any ceremony, but as soon as she had been secured alongside the quay, or fitting-out berth, the contemporary taste for pageantry was given full scope. The King’s representative, generally the Lieutenant of the County, attended by his drummers and trumpeters, would board the ship as soon as she was tied up.

Only incidental mention of construction or putting into the water technique is necessary in the ceremony article. Palmeira (talk) 10:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Miramar lookup please

Can someone with a Miramar subscription please check the nationality of Enterprise (Miramar ref 1062789) as I'm getting conflicting info from different sources. Mjroots (talk) 06:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

British at launch, changed to Belgian 1873 Lyndaship (talk) 06:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

>ka-pow!< - wolf 08:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks, Thewolfchild. That explains the confusion, a British newspaper slow to catch up. Mjroots (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Ha! All the thanks goes to Lyndaship. That little 'effects-post' was just me being impressed with how fast she came back with an answer. Cheers - wolf 08:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Oops! . Mjroots (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)