Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 74

Archive 70

←

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Engine infoboxes

Main page: Template talk:Infobox aircraft § Discussion related to Infobox aircraft engine and parameters:

Combustion engines are used in many applications - Aerospace, automotive, marine and industrial. Some articles on them have infobox templates; {{infobox aircraft engine}} (aviation), {{Infobox engine}} (automotive) and {{Infobox rocket engine}} (spaceflight). Wikipedia's wider community has a consensus to merge infobox templates where possible. Various aircraft infobox templates are being merged, and the question has arisen, should the aero engine infobox be merged in with them, or would it be better to merge and extend the existing engine infoboxes? There is an ongoing discussion here , which you are invited to join. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 05:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Streamlining Formatting

The class overview template has standard "Preceded by" and "Succeeded by" ("Class before" and "Class after") to show the development of particular classes. However, in some cases multiple classes were built concurrently for different reasons, enough that a third line for concurrent classes should be added.

The clearest modern example are the US Littoral Combat Ships. Both classes were ordered and are being built concurrently, with the Freedom-class receiving odd hull numbers and the Independence-class evens. Another would be the British Type 26 and Type 31 frigates: the orders were for three Type 26s in 2017, five Type 31s in 2018, and then five more Type 26s in 2022 (Royal Navy orders only), with both classes being built concurrently by different yards. The Benson class destroyer was not succeeded by the Gleaves class, they were ordered and built concurrently with different shipyards building different classes (primarily Bethlehem yards building the Bensons, particularly the repeat ships). US Destroyer Escorts of WWII were not ordered/produced in the Evarts->Buckley->Cannon->Edsall->Rudderow->John C. Butler order implied by the Preceded/Succeeded Bys (in turn implied by the hull number of the lead ships), they were ordered/built as follows:

1. First 50 Evarts-class ordered under a British contract in November 1941

2. Another 70 Evarts-class along with 600, Buckleys, Cannons, and Edsalls ordered in January and August 1942 and built concurrently (classes mainly distinguished by different propulsion plants)

3. Rudderow and John C. Butler re-ordered from 3" designs in late 1942/early 1943 and built concurrently (followed by a short-lived order for 205 ships)

These are just particularly obvious examples for ships of the same type built at the same time by the same nation. There are more examples, particularly if you start considering ships with the same official classification but different capabilities. Germany built a few different types of U-boats concurrently, but the bulk of their production were the Type VII medium-range and the Type IX long-range submarines (with some specialized boats). This is a grey area, and I have deliberately chosen an example that in my opinion should be included as concurrent classes, but other examples would likely not be suitable (continuing the theme, the specialized Type XB and Type XIV).

These are sometimes noted by the Preceded/Succeeded Bys, or even Subclasses even when the latter is not appropriate. For example, the Type 23 frigate lists the Types 26, 31, and 32 as ships that will succeed this frigate, but the Type 26 and Type 31 pages don't mention the others in the Class Overview template. The three pages make it clear that the Constellation class was preceded by the Freedom and Independence classes, but neither LCS page notes the other concurrently in the Class Overview template. Others, particularly the WWII destroyer escorts, don't mention this at all and as it currently exists gives an incorrect view of progression between the classes. For Subclasses, the Type XXI notes "Type XXIII (parallel coastal submarine project)": these were two parallel branches of the Elektroboot concept, but the Type XXIII was not a variant of the Type XXI in the way that Subclasses is usually used (such as the Dunlap variants of the Mahan-class destroyer).

Currently the best attempt to recognize the differences would be the Type VII U-boat page. The Type VII page has the Type IX listed as a succeeding class, but as "Type IX (long-range complement)" in an attempt to be a bit more accurate (this is not mirrored on the Type IX page). It's clunky and works if there were a handful of cases, but it's not as useful for a larger scale, and other U-Boat pages don't use this nearly as well (like the Type XXI and Type IX pages).

Given the number of examples I believe we should add a third group to formalize the concurrent classes, along with rules about when this should and should not be used to clear up the grey area.

Slightly modified from original posted in Infobox ship begin based on advice from Trappist the monk

Beachedwhale1945 (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

In most of your examples, you're looking at the templates and the progression a bit too narrowly. In other words, the field does not imply a clean delineation between construction, and a class does not need to complete construction before an improved design begins building for the latter to be considered a successor to the former. Most modern warships overlap construction periods with their predecessors. That doesn't mean they don't fit together in a generally coherent chronological ordering, or that design lineages cannot be traced between them. The St Vincent-class battleships were built almost entirely concurrently with the Bellerophon-class battleships, but this does not mean the former did not succeed the latter.

The Gleaves were successors to the Bensons (in so far as they constitute a separate class and not a sub-class) because they incorporated design changes over the earlier vessels. That more Bensons were ordered after work began the first Gleaves speaks more to the pressing need for warships than anything else. The same is true for the DEs you cite; there were rolling, iterative changes between classes, but the pace of orders meant that most of them were built at roughly the same time. The design staff took the Evarts design, lengthened the hull, and produced the Buckleys. They then took that design, swapped the turbo-electric drive for diesel-electric propulsion, which produced the Cannons, and so forth, through the J.C. Butlers. An oversimplification, sure, but you see the point.

In any event, the template documentation does not limit those fields in the way you seem to be interpreting them. Yes, there are a few messy cases like the Independence/Freedom classes, but those are exceptions and in those situations, just don't use the fields. Not every infobox needs every field completed. Parsecboy (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

First, the documentation page notes:

"If you find yourself using the same custom field for a large number of articles, consider proposing adding the field to the infobox template on the template talk page."

Given the number of examples I know of, only some of which I cited, this certainly qualifies as a large number of articles, hence my request that we formalize such a line.

The examples I cited are all based on the order dates, not the construction dates. I'm not asking to include such lines for construction that overlaps when there's a clear design progression (St. Vincent clearly came after Bellerophon). I am asking this line be included for proper contemporaneous projects, which are in my opinion numerous enough to justify standardizing such an addition. I will focus on the WWII US examples as this is my bread and butter and I have sources on hand.

For Benson/Gleaves, the first six Bensons and two Gleaves were ordered on 30 September 1937 using competing machinery designs. In fact, quoting Friedman's U.S. Destroyers, page 95:

"Initially, all ships were to have incorporated the new type of machinery first introduced in the Mahans. However, after contract award Bethlehem asked to modify its contract, returning to a two-turbine arrangement."

Thus, if we're going strictly on which was designed first, Gleaves came first, Benson second.

An additional 16 Gleaves followed using the standard machinery arrangement (ordered 15 August-1 October 1938 and 15 June-1 July 1939), but then the war in Europe began and the US saw an immediate need for more destroyers. From 12 June-1 July 1940 the US ordered two more Bensons and 10 Gleaves, and then on 9 September another two Bensons and 13 Gleaves: this began the "repeat" series that according to some sources are all listed as Bristol class (see Department of Defense historical study map below, which only includes the 72 repeats). Ultimately 24 repeat Bensons and 48 repeat Gleaves were ordered, and quoting Friedman's U.S. Destroyers, page 97:

"Navy willingness to accept what Admiral Bowen called a "bastard" machinery arrangement in the Bensons was a matter of the exigencies of mobilization: after DD 428, the Bensons were the products of Bethlehem yards ... The other destroyer builders completed Gleaves-class ships".

Thus the two classes were ordered contemporaneously and one did not succeed the other. See Friedman's US Destroyers, with order dates coming from Shipscribe's compendium of all US Navy program order dates.

As for destroyer escorts, the primary problem facing the destroyer escort production was a lack of suitable propulsion plants, as the US diesel engine and reduction gear manufacturing bases could not keep up with demand. Thus while the US quickly standardized on the lengthened hull for ease of manufacturing (except at Navy Yards already building the Evarts), we had to adopt different machinery plants for all classes, which is why the two- and three-letter codes for machinery are the main way these are distinguished in period records and by historians like Friedman and Franklin. The Buckley/TE, Cannon/DET, and Edsall/FMR classes were all ordered at the exact same time from different shipyards. For example, the 1,799 Vessel Program ordered 25 Evarts/GMTs, 117 Buckleys/TEs, 66 DETs, and 42 Edsalls/FMRs from 10-25 January, with ships of three classes ordered on 10 and 18 January.

The requirements of war production meant the first three long-hull classes were ordered at the same time and are concurrent designs. See Friedman's Destroyer Escort chapter and Franklin's The Buckley Class Destroyer Escorts, though this basic data is repeated in most sources (again order dates from Shipscribe).

In December 1942 the US re-ordered 340 of the existing ships to 5" designs, which coincided with a simple two-stage reduction gear design and expansion of the gear cutting industry. Thus the TE/Buckley orders were upgraded to TEV/Rudderows while the GMT/DET/FMR orders were upgraded to WGT/John C. Butler, getting a nice speed boost in the process. Again these are two concurrent designs.

I could write such lengthy analyses other examples I cited and a few more I did not, but I'm using the books I have on hand so that I can cite secondary sources for this discussion.

That's the entire point of my request. As it stands, there are several cases where the Class Before/After line is used to create a false impression of the progression of several designs or leaves out major concurrent projects. Given the sheer number of such cases, in my opinion a third line is necessary to clean these up and eliminate such errors, improving these pages overall and leading to improved accuracy for all such articles.

Beachedwhale1945 (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I had the Bensons and Gleaves reversed, but you have missed the fundamental point: the Gleaves design was prepared, and changes were made to it to produce the Bensons. They are, by definition, derivative designs, and therefore the Bensons succeeded the Gleaves class. It doesn't matter when they were ordered, or built. Parsecboy (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

"It doesn't matter when they were ordered, or built."

Except it does if you're trying to paint a more accurate picture of the progression of US destroyers during the prewar and early war period. You're arguing over a few weeks difference in the design dates rather than the years of concurrent construction. The concurrent construction should take precedent in the template, the nuance in the body of the article.

But you are also focusing on refuting a couple of my examples rather than looking at the broad trend. Concurrent design and production is evident throughout modern warship history, particularly in the smaller combatants that are built in larger numbers. We should recognize this and include it in the template to enhance it, making it more clear for the average reader that there are parallel branches to follow.

Many nations built different submarines at the same time for different roles, such as the aforementioned Type VII medium-range and Type IX long-range submarines. The Soviet Projects 611 "Zulu" large/613 "Whiskey" medium/615 "Quebec" small submarines are good examples built in the early 1950s, but there's also the Japanese Type A command cruiser/Type B aircraft-equipped cruisers/Type C non-floatplane cruiser submarines (to say nothing of the other types of Japanese submarines also built concurrently). While a bit outside my knowledge base, this appears to be particularly common before 1920 when navies often saw competing submarine designs, such as the legendary Holland/Electric Boat and Simon Lake duel in the US.

It was rather common to see two different tiers of destroyers, with larger and more powerful ships built alongside smaller less capable ships. This was particularly evident with the Japanese (which at different times had first/second/third class destroyers), such as the Minekaze/Momi classes that gave way to the improved Kamikaze/Wakatake classes (both lines continue before this point, though that's outside my knowledge area). This was echoed in WWII with the Yūgumo-class continuing the Type A line and Akizuki-class starting a new Type B series, both ordered starting with the Circle 4 Program, although no official Second Class destroyers were built during the war (though the Matsu-class inherited the botanical naming convention despite being over the 1,000 ton cutoff). In addition to Benson/Gleaves, the US built the 1,500 ton and 1,850 ton "leaders" concurrently, which is why the Somers-class hull numbers overlap with the Gridley-class (and later classes due to later orders).

I've cited a few frigates/corvette examples, but there are others. Perhaps the most clear would be the Japanese Type C and Type D kaibōkan, which blend the WWII US destroyer escort and modern LCS threads. Japan could not build enough of a single propulsion plant and designed the Type Cs to use diesel engines and the Type Ds to use a steam turbine, with diesel ships getting odd numbers and steam evens.

I could go on, but I believe I've cited more than enough examples to cross the "large number of articles" threshold where a dedicated field should be considered. This proposal should not be ignored because technically one design in every pair was finalized a few weeks earlier than the other even though both designs were ordered together and intended to complement each other.

Beachedwhale1945 (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I have to say Beachedwhale, the only thing you have convinced me of is to get rid of the preceded by/succeeded by line altogether. If you need to write this much info just to have the line in the template be changed, then the line needs to be removed and all this info should be in the article. I'm not even sure this much detail should be in an encyclopedia article at all. This stuff screams "specialist" info - the general public does not care if six of one class were built three days before five of the other. Only on the progression of the designs so the general public might understand how we got from the tin can destroyers of World War I to the behemoths of today. Llammakey (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Completely agree with User:Llammakey, this is definitely sledge-hammer and nut territory. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

you want to be sloppy, because the general public does not care or know better? Nowakki (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Nope. Did not say anything of the sort. I'm saying that none of this should be in a single line in a template box and should be written out in prose. And if it is written out in prose, it should be in a specialist book so people who really care how many ships were ordered on or before a certain date can find that info there. We are an encyclopedia and written for the general public. If you are not here to build an encyclopedia Nowakki, might I suggest you find a fan site to go write at. Otherwise keep the accusations like "sloppy" to yourself. Llammakey (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

the infobox has to summarize the summary. if a concurrently-with-classes key is a more accurate approximation than preceeded-by then that is what should be used.

Gleaves and Bensons are more concurrent classes than they are subsequent classes. somewhere out of sight of the average joe but findable for the interested reader can be a few sentences that explain why this approximate class relationship was chosen in the infobox. Nowakki (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Then I have done a very poor job explaining myself. For that I apologize.

I wrote paragraphs to say the a few days difference DOES NOT matter for the template. The objection Parsecboy raised was that because the some class always precedes another, even if by only short period of time, then there there are functionally never concurrent classes.

The only other things I wrote were to show how common concurrent classes are, another of his rebuttals.

In my opinion, adding a line for concurrent classes accomplishes two things:

1. Makes the progression easier for the general public to follow

2. Eliminate inaccuracies currently implied by the before/after binary

I was certainly too verbose at times, in part because his rebuttals cited erroneous histories for areas I study in great detail. I should not have gone off on such tangents and stuck to the topic at hand, and for that I too apologize.

Beachedwhale1945 (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Sims should have 2 successor classes and Benson should have zero successor classes. Nowakki (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are two or three issues: (1) can the info box satisfactorily describe the sequencing of classes in concurrent manufacture? I suggest "no". (2) Is the concurrent class issue suitable for inclusion in (a) Wikipedia (b) individual articles on each class. I suggest (a) "Yes", because it is surely a bit of basic knowledge that classes overlapped (or whatever stopped them being in a simple sequence) (b) "No", because it would be better dealt with in an umbrella type of article that gave the design/ordering/construction sequence of concurrent classes, rather than have this repeated (with the unavoidable inconsistencies) in each class article. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

"can the info box satisfactorily describe the sequencing of classes in concurrent manufacture? I suggest "no"."

And why not? Could we not have a line like so for the Benson class?

Preceeded by Sims class

Concurrent with Gleaves class

Succeeded by Fletcher class

This describes the issue in a very succinct form, and the body of the article can elaborate as needed (and already does in many cases). This simply makes it easier for the reader to see that information at a quick glance, the primary purpose of these templates.

Beachedwhale1945 (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of Infobox ship merger

Prarambh20 proposed a merger of Infobox ship sub template.

Need attention from wikiproject ships.

Check Template talk:Infobox ship for details. Comrade John (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Ocean Liner Survivors

Hello, I'm still new to Wikipedia, but I'm passionate about several topics, and I try to help by contributing to information. Ocean liners are one of those topics. Please also consider coming to the Ocean liner talk page to discuss the situation.

I have also started this discussion on the ocean liner talk page, please see here:Talk:Ocean liner

I believe the Survivors section on the Ocean liner page needs to be addressed. The following editing notice is provided under it:

"Note: This section does not include shipwrecks or partial bits, only those that are fully intact are listed here."

However, this notice is contradictory. For instance, the definition of "wreck" includes "something or someone that has suffered ruin or dilapidation" (https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/wreck). Therefore, according to this definition, the SS United States should not be included on this list, as it is not a survivor at all due the poor state it currently lies in. It's in no seaworthy condition, spoiled of most, if not all of its interiors and machinery, and rusting and decaying since decades, in an absolutely ruined and dilapidated state (https://www.fox29.com/news/ss-united-states-could-the-massive-ship-have-a-future-after-25-years-or-sitting-idle).

Similarly, as per this notice, the MV Astoria should also not be included, as even though most of its hull is still original, the rest has been completely structurally rebuilt as a cruise ship, and therefore does not count as a "fully intact" liner, but rather only a "partial bit", making it inelegible for this list (https://maritime-executive.com/article/historic-cruise-ship-astoria-sold-for-scrap-after-75-year-career).

My proposal is to modify this notice to broaden it as to correctly include both the United States and the Astoria, but also to add other memorable mentions of ocean liners to the Survivors list, such as the SS Conte Biancamano, which was partially dismantled and rebuilt as a huge section at the Leonardo Da Vinci museum in Milan, and is currently preserved (https://www.ilprimatonazionale.it/cultura/conte-biancamano-prima-citta-galleggiante-231242/). While not a fully intact liner, neither is the Astoria, or other liners such as the almost completely rebuilt keel-up SS Great Britain (https://www.ssgreatbritain.org/our-story/). The goal of this list is to raise awarness, clearly and exentsively, on the current state of preservation of ocean liners as a technology, by including full or almost full remainders of ocean liners as structures and constructions. I do however agree that the notice should still address the "no small bits" part, as the aim does not include minor artifacts such equipment, decorations, etc. that are not unique nor relevant to the naval technology of ocean liners.

I did attempt to implement and explain these changes to the list and to the notice some months ago, however the user that had previously edited this section and notice reverted all of the changes, marking them as poor and unprofessional, more fan blog-like. The user hasn't responded to any of the queries I asked him.

I would like to know the opinions of other Wikipedia users, as to understand whether these changes and corrections should be considered to be added to the ocean liners page or not. If you do, I might re-add them, but feel free to do it yourself. I will patiently await responses for the discussion Firebobby (talk) 08:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move of possible interest to project participants

See Talk:USS Cyclops (AC-4)#Requested move 26 May 2023. Hog Farm _Talk 21:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Long Beach Maru

a 53,000dwt ore carrier used starting 1963 to carry iron ore from Kaiser Steel in California, sailing from Long Beach to Japan. Launched in 1963 by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (needless to say wikipedia as such is unaware of the whole mitsubishi super heavy ore carrier thing).

looking at archive.org there is nothing useful. google books finds plenty of hits and in some cases in journals and magazines that have a cutoff in the late 1950s / early 1960s on archive.org, presumably they will be added in a few years.

i was wondering what a better-equipped library card holder would be able to find out about the ship. for example in what years it was making iron ore runs. from what i have learned elsewhere these would be on the order of 12 round-trips per year, so even if it is just newspaper clippings that is in the realm of possibility to look up.

There is still a spot open in my heart for "the first wikipedia editor to be surprisingly helpful about anything". Nowakki (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

One thing we can be sure of, it won't be you. Where is your draft article on "the whole mitsubishi super heavy ore carrier thing"? You seem to be very good about complaining what others aren't doing, what have you done, apart from moan? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

so far i am only giving an accurate description of the problem. it might turn more into a "moaning" retroactively, depending on the answers i get.

it's a whole wikiproject. and a very big boat. something's likely to come back here, don't you think? Nowakki (talk) 12:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Lloyd's Register entry. Mjroots (talk) 11:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

thank you. in the meantime i noticed that cdnc.ucr.edu has a similar date cutoff for many useful california newspapers.

it seems like $8 per month on newspapers.com would suffice to get to know everything there is to know about what goes into and comes out of california after 1950. Nowakki (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I think you can get access to newspapers.com on The Wikipedia Library amongst other things - in addition, it may be worth looking at Singapore newspaper archives - [1].Nigel Ish (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

See also: WP:SHIPS/R#Newspaper sources. Mjroots (talk) 09:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Notability tagging of HMS R1

Please note that this article has been tagged for notability, with the tag claiming a lack of notability (i.e. significant coverage) for the individual submarine rather than the class it formed part of (the British R-class submarine). Sources covering the individual submarine and its career may be helpful if the article is to be retained, although the submarine's active career appears fairly short (i.e. completed in October 1918 and scrapped in 1923, and R1 isn't exactly a search-engine friendly name.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

If there isn't proper in-depth coverage of the ship in itself, then it should be redirected to the relevant list article. This should be done for any ship article lacking proper coverage (and I have the feeling a massive amount of ship articles fall beneath this minimal notability requirement). Silverseren^C 20:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I've added a note at Talk:HMS R1 about this discussion, and I see that you have started a parallel consideration at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Notability tagging of HMS R1. Davidships (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Schooner Lily -> "HMS Bounty" -> USS Metha Nelson?

Please come to Talk:USS Metha Nelson to discuss differing tales of this / these ship(s). The articles about Lily(German) and Metha Nelson name different shipyards and building dates but jointly have her become HMS Bounty for the 1935 film, and USS Metha Nelson in WWII. Is there a uniform truth? Alossola (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=SPNP19340815.2.214&srpos=193&e=------193-en--20--181-byDA-txt-txIN-Mutiny----1934---

https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=SPNP19340814.2.142&srpos=6&e=------193-en--20--1--txt-txIN-Mutiny----1934---

i'd be careful though. even though the information of those reporters who just came back from drinking a few glasses of champagne at the harbor are very reliable, they don't actually precisely specify which ship they mean when they say "venerable Lily".

although there remains reasonable doubt, the answer seems to be that 2 ships were reconditioned for the film. one at the Craig yard, one at Wilmington Boatworks. Nowakki (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

you can also easily find more evidence that the "Metha Nelson" was used in a couple of films in the early 1930s.

https://archive.org/details/monroe-morning-world-1932-09-04/page/n19/mode/2up?q=%22metha+nelson%22

including in Treasure Island (1934 film). you could try and compare those ships to the pandora in the 1935 film.

it would not make sense to build an accurate replica out of a replica when you also need an inaccurate replica for the movie to act as the pandora. Nowakki (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @Nowakki! I'd never have found these sources!

There are two ships in the story (and the movie), Bounty and Pandora. The first two links make the names and roles quite clear. In 1934, "New Bounty (= Lily) was (re)launched". Festivities were on Metha Nelson = Pandora. The former had "starred" in movies from 1931 on - not the re-launch.

The last link, Monroe Morning World, 1932, gives an insight into the history of Metha Nelson by naming some of the movie credits as a classic full-rigged ship. The only logic conclusion is that Pandora received her old name afterwards. Till today, there's no clue for me what happened with Lily.

I'll have to sort out the sources to find out more. Alossola (talk) 14:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

having a date range for a big harbor event in a 20th century known US location is easy. anybody can predict what words a newspaper article is likely to contain.

if you want you can puzzle together the whole history of the Lily from California, Oregon and Washington digital newspaper archives. The mere departure or arrival of a ship in a town should in general at least result in one line in a listing. An accident would be front page news in half a dozen papers. if it bled, it led. Nowakki (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Dunno how to do that, and I have a lot of informations. Metha Nelson was clearly a full-rigged ship in the film trade from 1931 or earlier, rebuilt from the three-masted schooner she was before. The fabled launch of Bounty in 1934 can only be Lily, and she is named clearly, more than once. The treasure hunt of 1938 is clearly placed on Metha Nelson. The only "obstacle" is that the Navy talks about Bounty in her military registration. I deem that an error.

We worked on USS Metha Nelson, and I have Lily in my space, ready to launch tomorrow, 6:00 UTC. Wanna take a look? Alossola (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

this is what i mean. there must be something interesting there. maybe a shark attack.

https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=q&hs=1&r=1&results=1&txf=txIN&txq=%22schooner+lily%22&e=-------en--20--1--txt-txIN-------- Nowakki (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

also for the sake of gathering intelligence it would always be nice to know which shipping companies the boat sailed for, and where it spend all the boring time, sort of like a statistical overview or just a big table listing boring journeys. you never know who might be interested in 20th century pacific coast trade. Nowakki (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Great sources, thanks! No big news though, except that there might be another(?) Lily which was lost in 1891, or she was rebuilt from a wreck(??) Alossola (talk) 07:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I published Lily (ship), USS Metha Nelson and Nanuk (ship) - interesting relevations concerning Bounty, and, beware of wrong information! Alossola (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Boeing 929#Requested move 2 June 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Boeing 929#Requested move 2 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 11:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Glossary of nautical terms: references

I have tagged Glossary of nautical terms (A–L) and Glossary of nautical terms (M–Z) with "More citations needed". There are many terms in this glossary without any sort of reference. (I note that where a term is linked to an article, then we can go to the article for referencing – presuming that the definitions are the same in each.)

It will be a long job to fix, so if anyone wants to have a go at adding some references now and again, that would be great. At the end of the process, we might find some terms and definitions that really should not be in the glossary. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

List of United States Navy Ships - Listing Every Commissioned Vessel With a Hull Designation as a Name

Hello everyone,

On the various List of United States Navy Ships articles (each article focusing on a specific letter) many commissioned patrol vessels (eg. PCEs, PCs, PBs LRs, etc) are unlisted completely. This raises the question of the thousands of such craft are deserving of a listing as they were both ships and commissioned at some point. Obviously, this would clutter the list. However, several of such USS hull-designation-as-name are already listed and by every metric should be.

The third option, currently used for the LSTs and LCTs, is to provide a link to an independent list. If this is the case, do vessels given a non-numeral name (eg. USS Escalanteo River, USS Montgomery County) deserve to have their own independent listing, even though it would be featured on said external list? From those two, Montgomery County is listed, while Escalanteo River is not.

I was going to go about this independently but wanted the blessing of the community first. GGOTCC (talk) 04:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Another point is how may US Coast Guard and US Revenue Cutter Service vessels are listed as well, which may need to be removed. GGOTCC (talk) 01:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

SS Waikato

I'm thinking of making an article about a ship called the SS Waikato, but I've found very few references about the ship to go on. The ship became famous in 1899 when it was involved in a drifting incident when it broke down off the cape of Good Hope and drifted for over 100 days before being found. There's a historic newspaper report about it here [2] Apart from that the only other information I've been able to find about the ship is that it was built in 1892, and belonged to the New Zealand Shipping Company, basically what I've found here. I was wondering if anyone here had access to any references which would be able to fill in an article more? G-13114 (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

There are many articles on this ship to be found on the British Newspaper Archive. The Lyttelton Times of Saturday 22 July 1899 gives the following info: Built 1892 by W. Doxford and Sons of Sunderland, 4,767 tons gross register, 3071 net. The article states that they believe the captain to be T S Neston and some other officers are listed. Other dimensions given are 400 ft long, 48ft beam, 21 and a half ft depth of hold. I guess there must be a Lloyd's Register of Shipping entry somewhere, for which I am now looking. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Lloyd's register entries: main entry in 1899[3]
list of refrigerated cargo vessels [4]
She does not appear in the list of New Zealand Shipping company vessels in the 1896-97 copy of Lloyd's register (though does appear in their list of vessels in the next two years), so presumably was bought second-hand and had her name changed. Experts on Lloyd's register would know better than I how to track that down (I think I am right that the register shows name changes.) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Waikato does appear to have been built for the New Zealand Shipping Company. The report of the 20th December 1892 annual meeting of the colonial directors is given in the British Australasian (newspaper) of 8 Feb 1893. This discusses, among other things, the two new steamers: Ruahine and Waikato, with the latter currently on her way from the UK. Both ships could carry 70,000 carcases of frozen mutton and 6 or 7 thousand bales of wool. According to the report of the AGM, Waikato left London on 3 November 1892. Looking at Lloyd's List, this date appears to be a misprint as she left the Albert Dock in London early in December and was passing Deal on 5th December 1892[5] ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

That was very efficient. Thank you, there's lots to go with there. G-13114 (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Some more basics here, including summary of post-NZSC ownership, and fate.

Also uploaded photo from New Zealand National Library to Wikimedia Commons here.Davidships (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

More info here. Mjroots (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the help everyone, I've made an article now HERE. G-13114 (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for USS Mindoro (CVE-120)

USS Mindoro (CVE-120) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Ship articles

Hello, WikiProject,

A very new editor, User:CrownM, is moving around a lot of articles on ships to different titles. Many of these ships have had more than one name and I don't know whether it is correct to title an article by the first name the ship was given or the current or last name. I hope that a knowledgeable editor could look over their contributions and make sure everything is where it's supposed to be. It seems like unusual behavior for a four day old account to start doing mass articles page moves so if they look familiar to you, let me know. Thanks for any help you can provide. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Liz@CrownM In my experience, the rule has been to use WP:COMMONNAME, i.e. the name that people will most likely know the ship by. Many ships have later lives (or earlier lives) under different names. There's no "one size fits all" answer for ship names. CrownM, I'm somewhat curious as to what your criteria is for moving the ship articles? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, from what I'm aware, if no one name is prominent enough to meet COMMONNAME, then we usually go with the most recent name, right? I feel like I remember an RfC somewhat recently on that. Silverseren^C 23:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

COMMONNAME is indeed the principle, and the article should be at a name under which the ship has become well-known; where there are multiple well-known names it can be editorial decision (at talk page, if necessary), but not the last name if that is not well-known, and especiually if the ship never traded as such. In my view there's been too much rush to change article titles just because a ship's name has been changed - hence my note at Talk:Mykonos Magic#Ship sold. Davidships (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Please point to some examples of these moves (is there a way to find a member's edits if they have neither created a User Page nor edited their Talk page?). Davidships (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/CrownM

Also, at every user and user talk page, under the tools menu (at left with vector legacy (2010) skin – don't know where it is in vector 2022 skin) is an item labeled 'User contributions'.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've now looked through a number of the CrownM's page moves. They are a hotch-potch. Some have indeed been moved to a recently-changed name even though the they have not yet traded under that name (eg MS Manara, MS SuperStar II or Celestyal Journey, or may never do so (eg Mykonos Magic, even ignoring the talk page); and in some cases with no sourcing at all (eg HSC Aspasia T). An unnecessary dab has been added to Starward (ship). Others though have been moved from one acceptable common name to another - it happens that many cruise ships have several well-known names during their lives; and some are sensible (eg MV Zenith, Spirit of London (ship) and MS Cunard Princess which are now back at the name under which they spent the majority of their active cruising). Very little editing has been done to bring the articles' texts, particularly Lead sentences, into conformity with the new titles. Davidships (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

He has done it again with Pearl II depite there actually being a (desultory) discussion on the talk page which hasn't come to a conclusion. Again, he added an unecessary dab and made no attempt to adjust the lead so that it made sense. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I've given CrownM some advice and suggested that he use WP:RM to propose moves. Can see this ending up at ANI if the advice is ignored. Mjroots (talk) 07:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, no attention being paid. See MS Express Aphrodite, MV Agios Georgios (1972), Avitak, and now see Talk:HSC Speedrunner Jet II. Davidships (talk) 11:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I've also pointed out on his talk page the need to change the defaultsort following a page move. No response, no correction on his previous ones and he continues to not do so Lyndaship (talk) 12:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

May be time for a block to get their attention. WP:Communication is required, and I haven’t seen them make any attempt to respond to messages on their talk page, here, or anywhere else. Parsecboy (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I've left a final warning. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

OceanGate Titan

OceanGate Titan is in the news today, having gone missing in the North Atlantic. There is no article for the ship, and I suppose there could be one soon, but meanwhile I thought it could use a redirect to OceanGate, Inc.#Titan (4000 meters). But then I got to thinking, is "OceanGate" part of the name (OceanGate Titan) or is it a disambiguator (Titan (OceanGate)) or a prefix (OceanGate Titan) or something else? GA-RT-22 (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not particularly sure about the best title, but for purposes of creating redirects, it doesn't really matter, as we should have them all as they're all plausible. I created them, pointing for now to Titan (submersible) as the title for an article should one be created. The standalone notability of the vessel, independent of its sinking, should be clear if we are to do so. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

There's also Titan (DSV) / Titan DSV / DSV Titan / Titan (deep submergence vehicle) possibilities -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing those out. Given the low cost, I went ahead and made them. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Just to note that spread through the immeasurable and twice-capped discussions at Talk:2023 Titan submersible incident#Requested move 20 June 2023 are a few suggestions that that article should be part of a single article about the craft and its loss, at "Titan (submersible)" or similar, along with material from Oceangate, though a split at the latter has not as yet been proposed. Davidships (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually, there is a proposal to split off the chunk of the OceanGate article into one on Titan specifically (see here). Parsecboy (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Apologies - I don't know how I missed it. Davidships (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Galley – length of article

I am in some discussion with the major contributor to Galley about the length of the article. To me, the article seems over-long and suffers because of it. There is discussion at Talk:Galley#Length of article. This is where you will find my suggestion of splitting the article along the natural division: (a) galleys of the classical and pre-history periods (b) medieval and post-medieval galleys.

Please would editors take a look and express an opinion. Thanks, ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

M/V, M/S etc

In my mind I thought that "slashed" prefixes were proscribed, or at least disfavoured, and that there was advice on this in WP:NCSHIP, but I did not found it. I am in the process of dabbing two ships of the same name that have pages at [[MS <shipname>]] and [[M/S <<shipname>>]] respectively.

It seems from this 2018 discussion that Trappist the monk had inadvertantly removed Do not use punctuation within the ship prefix in the 2012 consolidation of ship and ship-class NCs. I mentioned before, in passing, that it was not to be found, but that did not lead to any further comment.

I understand that there were technical issues concerning punctuation in ship prefixes, but also bearing in mind WP:CONSISTENT, I propose that Do not use punctuation within the ship prefix be restored. Davidships (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I said then that I thought that the proscription should be restored. My opinion has not changed. And, here is a corrected link to the Jean de La Valette discussion mentioned by Editor Davidships.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I, for one, support restoring proscription for punctuation within the ship prefix. Tupsumato (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

If we do restore the proscription, we should redirect {{M/S}}, {{M/V}}, {{M/Y}}, {{R/V}}, {{S/S}}, {{S/V}}, and {{S/Y}} to {{MS}}, {{MV}}, {{MY}}, etc. Mention of the punctuated forms should then be removed from {{WPSHIPS shortcut templates}}. The punctuated template calls in article space can be slowly repointed to the canonical name by editors who apply general fixes when they use AWB.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Since the removal was accidental, I have been bold and restored it, at WP:PREFIXSHIP. If that seems premature, go ahead and revert. GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The punctuated templates should be still be mentioned on {{WPSHIPS shortcut templates}} as a note that they are deprecated and exist as redirects. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I have redirected or moved the /doc templates for the above "slash" templates to the new move targets, and I have updated the documentation of the redirect targets. I may have missed one of the /doc templates, and my updates to the documentation may be incomplete; further improvements are welcome. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

AS-28

I've suggested that Russian deep submergence rescue vehicle AS-28 be split to Rescue of AS-28, as the majority of the article is about its rescue, so should exist as an accident article instead of a sub article. For the discussion, please see Talk:Russian deep submergence rescue vehicle AS-28 -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 23:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

AfD alert: Proposed icebreakers of Canada

I have proposed Proposed icebreakers of Canada for deletion; please participate in discussion here. Tupsumato (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Miramar

Sadly Rodger Haworth died back in August last year. My free sub via Wikipedia recently expired and no reply has been received from Miramar as to if it will be renewed as in previous years. Can somebody who still has access check to see if the site is still being updated. If it goes we are going to have a lot of dead cites Lyndaship (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Miramar is not being updated (either with new entries, or error correction). There was some proposal a while back that it might be taken under the wing of of an Australian maritime enthusiasts association (I cannot remember which one), but since then Roger's family confirmed that it will be kept available going forward, both in online and CD form (though I have seen reports of delays in supplying the latter and poor communication). I was able to renew my annual membership in January with no difficulty. Davidships (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General Maritime Corporation

FYI. Your comments, pro or con, are invited at this AfD. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Input requested for talk:actuaria

I would very much appreciate input from editors with a minimum of experience in writing about historical ship types, especially ancient Mediterranean ones. Peter ^Isotalo 17:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Russian sailing warship help

Does anybody have access to Russian Warships in the Age of Sail 1696-1860: Design, Construction, Careers and Fates (2010) by John Tredrea and Eduard Sozaev? I have started on Russian ship Dvienadsat Apostolov (1841) but the Google Books preview of this book cuts out halfway through her career. Also any other sources would be welcome - the French WP article only has a couple of Russian website links. Alansplodge (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I've got it; if you'll post a link to the draft article, I can fill in whatever's missing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks. I haven't got much further than the infobox at the moment, but I'll post a draft at the weekend. Alansplodge (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66; I found the missing text but still need help with page numbers at Draft:Russian ship Dvienadsat Apostolov (1841), also a citation for the salvage attempt in 1861.Please feel free to add or edit as you (or anybody else) see fit. Please also check my figures for the dimensions. Many thanks, Alansplodge (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks for your input Sturmvogel 66. Almost ready to go now, but still need a reference for the unsuccessful salvage in 1861 mentioned in the French and Russian articles but without any citation. Alansplodge (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

MY Titanic

The MY Titanic article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 03:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to help out at Ships of ancient Rome

We now have a skeleton draft at Draft:Ships of the Roman Empire, and your help expanding it would be appreciated. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 06:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

This has been released as Ships of ancient Rome. Several sections need work, and the lead is only a single sentence and needs expansion. Your help is appreciated! Mathglot (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Category scope

I've become aware that there is the Category:Sailing ships of Scotland. It's scope would seem to need to be refined. I hereby propose that it only covers vessels in service before 1 May 1707, when the Kingdom of Scotland was joined with the Kingdom of England to form the Kingdom of Great Britain. Vessels in service from that date to 31 December 1800 should be listed in Category:Sailing ships of Great Britain (which will need creating), and those in service from 1 January 1801 should be listed in Category:Sailing ships of the United Kingdom. Mjroots (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Sound proposal. Llammakey (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Two poor quality articles

Tea race (competitions) was created today (29 July).
Race Cutty Sark and Thermopylae was created yesterday (28 July).
Both suffer badly by being written by a non-native English speaker.

The subjects overlap extensively with the articles Clipper, Cutty Sark and Thermopylae (clipper). Tea race (competitions) copies content from Great Tea Race of 1866 (without attribution), which also covers the subject of these informal races quite extensively.

The article content of both varies from very poorly expressed to highly questionable.

I am no expert on how Wikipedia should handle such poorly written articles, especially when the subjects overlap so extensively with existing articles. Simply improving the articles would create unnecessary duplication.

Please would someone recommend a course of action. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Reccomend all three for deletion for duplication with existing articles. See Wikipedia:Deletion process Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you mean two articles for deletion, not three. Just thought I should check to avoid confusion. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, can't count! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with proposed deletions. There is no added value. I have notified the author of this discussion. Kablammo (talk) 12:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, there are two articles. I translated them from here 1 established in 2013, 2 sources there are also authors.

And I translated this article in 2020 from an English project into Russian. I translated many articles about clippers from an English project into Russian. --Товболатов (talk) 14:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The author of this article in 2013 is Vadim248. Do what is best, I don’t mind, in 10-15 years other people will decide that such articles are needed separately. --Товболатов (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Товболатов, you perform a service by translating English articles to Russian. If there are articles on ship subjects in the Russian wikipedia which do not have corresponding articles in en.wikipedia, perhaps you could suggest those topics here, and ask someone with similar interests to work on them with you.

Best wishes. Kablammo (talk) 17:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Tea race (competitions) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tea race (competitions) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tea race (competitions) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Race Cutty Sark and Thermopylae for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Race Cutty Sark and Thermopylae is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race Cutty Sark and Thermopylae until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

commons links

Why the aversion to putting links in articles, for commons? Broichmore (talk) 09:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean? It is unclear what you are complaining about. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the OP is referring to this template:

Media related to Franconia (ship, 1922) at Wikimedia Commons

Alansplodge (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I still don't understand the problem, the article RMS Franconia (1922) has a commonslink template. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Alansplodge is absolutely right. We have surprisingly few of these most easy to make edits. There are few better ‘’references’’ for a ship’s article than a fairly average commons link. commons has many images that refer to notable incidents or locations that do not feature in articles. Many of our more knowledgeable readers use them. Finally, and probably most importantly, ‘’commons materiel’’ can be the difference between a ship being deemed notable or not. Broichmore (talk) 09:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the OP is asking why more ship articles don't have this template. Alansplodge (talk) 11:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

If the OP thinks various articles would benefit from a commons link, there is nothing stopping him adding such links. I still don't understand why he thought it necessary to come and complain on here. Incidentally I don't agree that there are "few better references" or that such a link somehow makes an article notable. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the OP was hoping that other editors would think it a good idea? No harm done. Alansplodge (talk) 11:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

It was the abrasive approach that confused me, the simple question, "would it be a good idea to add commons links to ship articles?" would be a much better way of doing it. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

RN Template

is it possible to get the Royal Navy template to output Royal Navy rather than United Kingdom? This woud also avoid a redirect. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Use {{naval|UK}} to get Royal Navy. Mjroots (talk) 11:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't think of that one! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I see it now does, thanks to whoever sorted that one. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 2023

I've raised the issue of the removal from the list of Olenegorsky Gornyak, which I added earlier today. Please feel free to comment at talk:List of shipwrecks in 2023#Olenegorsky Gornyak. Mjroots (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

May I join please?

THanks in advance! Conservative Steve (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/MV Nantucket

FYI, your input is welcome at:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MV Nantucket

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Galley PR

I've put up galley for a PR here. After it's wrapped up, I'm going to nominate for FAR. Feel free to join in! Peter ^Isotalo 08:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Duplicate articles

Discovered today that USS G. L. Brockenborough and USS Brockenborough are duplicate articles, the result of cutting-and-pasting from DANFS in October 2007; apparently DANFS is/was unaware they have the same vessel listed twice. Based on review of sources such as Silverstone's Warships of the Civil War Navies and Gaines's Encyclopedia of Civil War Shipwrecks, the better title is G. L. Brockenborough, but the article at the shorter title is the more comprehensive one. My train of thought is to round-robin swap the two articles and then redirect the shorter one to the longer, but this would be quite clunky and would muddle the page history. Does anyone else have a better idea on how to resolve this? Hog Farm _Talk 03:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Merge the two into the better article and then rename? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

SS/RMS Oceanic (1870)

This page has been moved from SS Oceanic (1870) to RMS Oceanic (1870) without discussion and without references, just a jingoistic claim about her being British. The editor concerned appears to be confusing her with the later ship of the same name. I intend to revert the move unless anyone can come up with evidence that she was certified as a Royal Mail ship.

Discussion on article talk page please Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I've started a RM. Please make your opinion known so that we can reach a consensus as to the title the article should be housed at. Mjroots (talk) 05:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Dromon Bureau of Shipping

Is the Dromon Bureau of Shipping, a ship classification society, notable? Should we keep this article? You’re invited to weigh in at:

• Articles for deletion/Dromon Bureau of Shipping

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Problem with set index talk page

Does anyone know what the problem is with Talk:SMS S138?Nigel Ish (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

If you're referring to all the red "Lua module error" notices, they were popping up on all kinds of articles (I noted serveral such instances on numerous US Navy ship article talk pages this afternoon). It looks like somebody broke something to do with with WikiProject tp banners, but it seems it may be fixed now. - wolf 22:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I did a Wikipedia:Purge#Purge_request_to_server on it and it might have fixed it or someone did something else at the same time. It shows good for me anyway, maybe not everyone else? --Dual Freq (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks - seems to have fixed it for me.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Does easily accessible data exist for intercontinental marine traffic in 1960?

For one example, whereabouts of a patricular ship on particular dates can be easily gleaned from its deck log book. However, my research is a bit different: given a date and time and a particular location in the Pacific, is it possible to determine which ships were passing by that location at that time? To make it a tad easier, the ships I'm talking about here were most likely ships traveling from US West Coast ports to Japan. -- Wesha (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

One possible source is contemporary newspapers. Ship movements were reported by some newspapers. Take a look at those linked from WP:SHIPS/R#Newspaper sources. Mjroots (talk) 06:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies, I didn't specify the time of interest. I am looking for the data covering first week of March 1960. Sadly, it looks that the sources you linked are covering 1920s at most. -- Wesha (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

123ft Island-class patrol boats

I'm trying to find a citation for the final disposition of the 8 converted 123' Island-class patrol boats. They were taken out of service in Nov 2006 and all 8 can be seen on google earth grouped together at USCG Curtis Bay, MD up to 10/2009. A couple remain in aerial photos as of 10/2014, none remained there as of 2/2017. g captain.com/bollinger-shipyard-settles-case-claiming-it-bungled-coast-guard-hull-lengthenings/ This gCaptain article says 6 were scrapped and 2 were sunk as target by the USN as of 2015. (gcaptain is apparently blacklisted, but I don't need a WP:RS lecture) Does anyone have access to Miramar ship index and maybe has time to take a look and update the table in Island-class patrol boat? idk if Miramar will even have them. I'd like to nail down the final disposition of these, by name, dates and where scrapped, date sunk as target, if possible. They don't all have or need articles: USCGC Matagorda (WPB-1303), USCGC Attu (WPB-1317), USCGC Metompkin (WPB-1325), USCGC Padre (WPB-1328), USCGC Manitou (WPB-1302), USCGC Monhegan (WPB-1305), USCGC Nunivak (WPB-1306), USCGC Vashon (WPB-1308). Thanks in advance. --Dual Freq (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Miramar does include them "as built", but their entries have never been updated (and will not be now that Miramar is "frozen"). Same applies to Tim Colton's Shipbuilding History website. Davidships (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. I didn't have any further luck with other sources. This Dec 2015 one only says 5 disposed of, 3 retained as evidence. I guess the only thing I'm certain of is that the USCG disposed of them somehow. Possibly scrapped or sunk as targets. --Dual Freq (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Ships damaged in the attack at Sevastopol

A discussion is taking place at talk:List of shipwrecks in 2023#Sevastopol attack re the inclusion or ommission of the two ships damaged in the recent attack at Sevastopol. Please feel free to join the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 07:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

MV Missourian (1921))

A discussion is taking place at talk:MV Missourian (1921)#Dominion of Canada. Please feel free to join the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 06:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Merge Request

Should Russian cruiser Varyag (1899) and Japanese cruiser Soya be separate pages? Discussion is here.Annwfwn (talk) Annwfwn (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Caleb Grimshaw

I came across the American ship Caleb Grimshaw. On 20 November 1849 it sunk with the loss of 101 of the 457 people on board. So a large boat and a huge number of deaths. I wondered why there is not a Wikipedia page about such a main disaster? (I see many articles about it University of Liverpool and on the website of Grimshaw Origins and History.) Is this a good place to ask this? Or is there something like a page with requested ship articles? Thanks, 109.37.155.228 (talk) 09:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Done although this is the first ship page I've ever done so I'd appreciate another set of eyes on it. Annwfwn (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Military launches

I have added[6] a little bit about RAF launches to Launch (boat)#Military use in the UK, but I do not have any references to support this. Can anyone with appropriate sources fix that? Also, the whole section on military launches is without any refs. The only redeeming feature is that there are two linked articles that cover both Motor Launch and Royal Air Force Marine Branch.

Thanks, ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Naval Vessel Register vs. Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships

There's a new question/discussion at WT:MILHIST#What's more authoritative—the Naval Vessel Register or the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships?. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Galley up for FAC

I've been working on galley on and off for over ten years and finally decided it was time to go for a barnstar. Assessments and input would be greatly appreciated. Here is the FAC page: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Galley/archive1 Peter ^Isotalo 13:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Extra Eyes Please on RMS Republic (1903)

The page has been targeted by editors attempting to promote some kind of treasure hunting scheme based on speculative claims that the ship was carrying a fortune in bullion. I have already reverted these additions twice but they are continuing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Protected for two weeks. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Requesting input on reliable source question

Recently, I've come across hisutton.com being used as a source in Hai Kun-class submarine. From my looking at it, this appears to be the work of a single person, H. I. Sutton. All articles are written by this individual. Effectively, it seems to be to be a blog, and per WP:BLOGS doesn't count as a reliable source. Looking at its use via External links search [7] yields more than 100 articles using this site as a source. That doesn't make it valid as a source by default, but it is being used a lot. I didn't want to go into all the work of reviewing each case one bye one if people felt this was a reliable source. Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Sutton is a somewhat well-known OSINT naval analyst, at least among the people who do that field, and I'm thinking they meet the guidelines at WP:SPS. Their work has been cited by CNN, the Financial Times, the BBC, and Reuters, and published by the United States Naval Institute. Most importantly, though, I'm seeing quite a few listed citations to their work on Google Scholar. (Not all of those are academic articles, but from a few spotchecks I think there's enough.) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 01:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, I would put Sutton above certain other less-reliable and anonymous "OSINT" Twitter accounts... Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

SIA-class

See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 73 § Project-independent quality assessments

Hello project members! Note that per WP:PIQA, all the class ratings are being harmonised across different WikiProjects so we are looking to remove any non-standard classes like SIA-class from your project banner. These will now automatically be reclassified as List-class, assuming you are happy with this arrangement. The only other difference is some bespoke logic for your B-class checklist (i.e. all pass=B, 3&4&5 pass=C, other=start). The current standard logic is: all pass=B, any fail=C, checklist unfilled=whatever class is input. Would you be happy to use the standard logic? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't sound right. C needs to pass either 1 or 2, plus 3, 4, 5, here. That gets a reader at least a semi-useful article and gives meaning to C class. Otherwise a 1-sentence article with an infobox is a C-class article despite really only being a stub.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay so the options are: (1) opt out of PIQA and keep your custom mask, which would seem a shame because your assessment scale is basically the same as the standard one, apart from this slight difference in logic, (2) try and convince other projects to adopt your logic (we had a similar discussion recently) or (3) switch to the standard logic — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Any further thoughts on this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Too much concern about ratings in my opinion in general on the site. No average reader I know looks at the rating system and goes "Oh, I can trust this!" because it is rated B/C/Start/Stub or even to a certain extent, GA/FA/A level. To the average reader, Wikipedia is a sum of its parts and the average article is not to be trusted. So anything below the FA/A class article is pretty much "not trustworthy" and the rating at that level matters little. I personally have stopped rating for the most part, just tagging articles with the project banner so if deletion discussions/merge discussions happen, the wikiproject will be notified. Llammakey (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

HMS Exeter concerns

I've raised concerns at Talk:HMS Exeter (68) about recent additions to the article - including whether recent additions are undue, and whether the use of large quotes in references are appropriate. Comments are welcome.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

B-checklist in project template

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council § Determining the future of B-class checklists. This project is being notified since it is one of the 82 WikiProjects that opted-in to support B-checklists (B1-B6) in your project banner. DFlhb (talk) 11:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/USS Wisconsin (BB-64)/archive2

Any chance that somebody would be able to take a look and see if the issues have been satisfactorily resolved? I've found myself with much less time than I anticipated when I opened the FAR. It's an old Operation Majestic Titan article so it would be nice to get this into clean shape. Hog Farm _Talk 01:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

SIA pages - G14 deletion

Again we have an editor who wishes to delete many SIA pages. The basis is an amendment to the WP:G14 criteria from June 2019 following this discussion Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 74#Deletion of redundant (disambiguation) redirects. I am not sure if the proposer intended SIA pages to be treated like this but by the wording added to G14 it could be interpreted that the deleter is correct. Looking at HMS Vega you can see the damage done if the SIA is deleted. I'm going to leave it to others more knowledgeable about policies and procedures to seek to change the wording of G14 if they agree that this should be clarified Lyndaship (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm a little unclear about what is happening. This edit does not seem to be warranted by G14. It is not redirect that ends in "(disambiguation)" and the page is a set index, not a disambiguation page. While set indexes have some similar functions to a disambiguation page, they are specifically exempted to allow inclusion of things such as redlinks and references. NmWTfs85lXusaybq what is your reasoning? older ≠ wiser 15:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how WP:G14 is limited to redirects that end in "(disambiguation)" when it applied to disambiguation-like function. However, it's clear that SIA could be simply kept with more than one blue links added, which don't have to abide by MOS:DAB. That's why the exemption for SIA is unnecessary. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I've asked for clarification at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Was there an unintended change in scope of G14? about an edit that perhaps had unintended consequences. Why would adding a random blue link (as you did here) help? While there is no reason to not have such a link on an SIA (assuming there are no project-specific guidelines about what terms to link) -- but if you want to treat these as essentially equivalent to disambiguation pages, such a random blue link would fail WP:DABMENTION and would do nothing to justify including such an entry on a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 18:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Out of scope of WP:G14, SIA should be exempted from MOS:DAB, including WP:DABMENTION and MOS:DABONE. Anyway, I'm waiting for the clarification there. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

SIAs are explicitly exempted (and lists of ships by name) from MOS:DAB. Using G14 in the way that you were is not supported by policy or practice. Parsecboy (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Draft:SS Rosalie Moller

Can anyone help find some sources for Draft:SS Rosalie Moller as it has been moved into draft space, but I'm sure there must be numerous good quality sources on it. Thanks! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@MSGJ: - as a ship active in the period 1930-45, Plimsoll ship data and Convoyweb would be good sources. Both are linked from WP:SHIPS/R. Mjroots (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)