Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Ships (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.WikiProject icon
Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
More information:

Schooner Linden.jpg
USS Goldsborough (DDG-20) at anchor off Bahrain on 1 December 1986 (6475450).jpg
Main Project Page Talk
Things you can do
Information and sources

Any admins out there?[edit]

We have a user posting from various IPs, all to naval ship articles, and while some edits are ok, others are problematic, but beyond that, the summaries are all a.a.f. eg;

I'm sure there are other edits from other IP accounts, with the same kind of summaries, and most likely on the same subject. If anyone comes across any, feel free to add to the list. Meanwhile, do any of the helpful admins that usually pop in here from time to time, have any ideas to put forward about this? Any assistance would be appreciated. Cheers - wolf 06:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two "appear to be" Turkish IPs, and the other Kuwaiti, although I agree they look pretty similar, and it could just be a dynamic or VPN. A range block wouldn't be useful, so I think revert on sight any dubious edits, and if they do more than say five dubious edits on one IP address, just report them. You can ping me in such cases, I'll happily take a look. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are there any articles that might benefit from either a PBLOCK or semi-protection? Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The short answer is: probably not yet. Only once or twice have they edited an article more than once, (that I see with these three IPs). But I'm sure I've seen these "I promise this or that"-type nonsense summaries before, so that's another reason I posted here, to make others aware. Cheers - wolf 18:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thewolfchild: if it gets to the point where action is needed, let me know. Mjroots (talk) 04:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Will do. Thanks - wolf 04:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oy... still at it. With this bizarre groveling in the summaries, I suspect this may be a banned user, but with all the ip-hopping, (initially Turkey, now Kuwait) I also suspect there is little that can be done. - wolf 01:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That edit wasn't unconstructive. Your suspicions may be correct re the banned user, but unless we can identify the banned editor, there's nothing we can do apart from keep an eye on this. Mjroots (talk) 06:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Like I said, some of the edits are ok, some not so much, but it's the annoying summaries that caught my attention and make me think this is an evader. I will keep a watch and see if anything more significant develops. Cheers - wolf 17:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Empire ships[edit]

What makes USS West Hobomac (ID-3335) different from Empire ships? Except that it did not have an "Empire X" name? It was also transferred by the Minister of War Transport (MoWT) in 1940 and given a British flag.

If there is no substantial difference, that would make "Empire ship" a misleading category. Nowakki (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Empire ships were only linked by being prefixed "Empire". They were an assortment of different types- cargo ships, tankers, tug, ocean liners etc. They were not a standard design like Fort ships, Liberty ships, Park Ships, Victory ships etc. West Hobomac was not an an Empire ship. Mjroots (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
West Hobomac was also not one of those WW2 standard designs. There lies my problem. A guy giving names to ships has created an arbitrary category. The group of "a random sample of some of the ships" that sailed for Britain. Nowakki (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've added some categories to the article. I believe these are now all correct and no additions or deletions need to be made. Mjroots (talk) 10:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
there should be a list of empire ships that are not named "Empire X". Nowakki (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have some examples? - wolf 17:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help needed[edit]

Which is the identity of the ship that the Kriegsmarine requisitioned as "Schiff 4", later V 1801 Wandrahm and V 6114 Eismeer? Was it SS Wandrahm (1920), SS Wandrahm (1927) or something else? The German Wikipedia has a list of ships with the designation "Schiff", which has a couple of references. Mjroots (talk) 07:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although it seems that the "Schiff.." vessels were of a variety of types, including a few trawlers, deWP describes her as a "freighter", and Miramar lists the 1927 Stettin-built cargo ship as "WANDRAHM - 39 SCHIFF 4 - 40 V.1801 - 40 EISMEER - 46 ONEGA" (for last name under Soviet ownership, also see LR 1969). No other freighter candidate found in the right period and assume that your 1920 ship was the 239grt trawler completed in 1921. Unfortunately I do not have the relevant volumes of Gröner, and the available snippets do not reveal enough. Davidships (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Davidships, that gives me something to work from. Mjroots (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've found the webpage in Russian which gives some history of the ship. Mjroots (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good find - and looks usable, by specialist columnist in an established newspaper. Davidships (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

joshua hendy turbines[edit]

Joshua Hendy Iron Works licence-built Westinghouse steam turbines in World War 2. A portion of C1-B of Consolidated Steel, and Victory ships of various Kaiser yards used them. Asking if anyone is sitting on a database or document that details what ships were using those engines.

PS: if anyone can weigh in on the problem of which C1-B were produced at the Wilmington and Long Beach yards of Consolidated Steel, where sources just can't agree amongst themselves, that would be fantastic. Nowakki (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As you have the ship names in Colton, have you correlated those with their entries in Merchant Vessels of the United States?
Another place to check for that, and for the engines, is Lloyd's Register (for example, in 1947 LR, Cape Trinity, Cape Tryon and Cape Victory are shown as all from Wilmington; but Cape Tryon had a Joshua Hendy engine, and the other two had Westinghouses). Main site here is, I think, quicker for browsing - but for those lost before 1947, you can check via here selecting "digitised Lloyd's register" instead of "Full catalogue" and adding ship name alongside. Hope that helps. Davidships (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
a conflict between Merchants of the United States and LLoyd's, how would that be best resolved? Nowakki (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wasn't expressing any preference; I think that depends on what you find. Unfortunately we cannot tell what sources the late Tim Colton relied on. Davidships (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Davidships: what about miramar. does it not contain this kind of information? Nowakki (talk) 09:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, so far as the yard is concerned (but no engine-builders). I had a quick look - Miramar has 17 built at Long Beach (Yd 156-159, 238, 277-279, 332-336, 539, 756-758), while Colton has just the first seven of these. Davidships (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
does miramar have keel laying dates and launch dates for all of them? Nowakki (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nowakki, you can get a free ticket to Miramar via the Wikipedia library Lyndaship (talk) 15:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is a submarine?[edit]

Proper definition with reliable source needed. See Talk:Submarine#Inadequate definition Anyone here with access to good technical sources? Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ship launches[edit]

List of ship launches in 1918 is being made worse for arbitrary OCD reasons.

The standard layout of these pages is not good to begin with. Nowakki (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you please articulate what you mean by, "made worse for arbitrary OCD reasons?" I can't see any prior discussion on the article's talk page so it is unclear what the specific issue is. From Hill To Shore (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
after List of ship launches in 1918
i am referring to the order of columns and the purging of row coalescing. Nowakki (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging @Mjroots:, the user who made the edits in question. The first step should have been to talk to them directly. BilCat (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a standard format for lists of ship launches used across the majority of the 330 lists. I'm merely putting non-standard lists into the standard format. A slight variance in date format can be tolerated. With the 1918 list, this includes the removal of bare urls and flagcruft. A major reason that standardisation is good is that it makes editing easier when working from book sources such as Mitchell & Sawyer's The Empire Ships. For the record, I do not have OCD. Mjroots (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
there will be more flags on that page once you are finished. Nowakki (talk) 09:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nowakki: - see WP:FLAGCRUFT. One flag per entry denoting the country of origin is sufficient. Mjroots (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mjroots: stop doing whatever it is you are doing. you have removed the distinction between USSB requisitioned ships, you have removed the tonnage values with just "cargo ship". big failure. Nowakki (talk) 07:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nowakki: - tonnages are not needed in lists of ship launches (or lists of shipwrecks). That sort of information is relevant to ship articles. As for USSB requisitioned ships, entries could state "For [company], but requisitioned by United States Shipping Board." This information was not in the list at the time I reformatted it. Mjroots (talk) 07:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not needed by whom? I have long thought (but have failed to raise specifically) that bare "cargo ship" or "tanker" without an indication of whether it is 500, 5000 or 50000 tons is a major shortcoming of the shipwreck lists; size is of greater significance than, for example, the multi-level geo-political destination at the time of loss. Davidships (talk) 08:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
USSB requisition and contract is a pertinent distinction for 1918. regardless of whether the original owner is included. think of it as 2 departments of the USSB. which department handled the construction is something you would want to keep in the table. the page is useful as
1. a reference for individual ships
2. to derive statistics (that includes statistics a reader derives on the fly or by el cheapo column sorting). Nowakki (talk) 12:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uniformity of lists of ship launches[edit]

Can we establish a consensus that lists of ship launches should all be of a standard format? I would suggest that the format in use over the majority of lists, as shown by the list of ship launches in 1918 is adopted as the standard. I note that there is some variation in the way dates are handled. I'm not overly worried about this, but if we are to standardise dates, then the format adopted in the list of ship launches in 1942 is a good one. Note that lists split by month are only necessary when there is a size issue, and need not be a requirement for every list. Mjroots (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

yes, that is desirable. but the pages should be generated by a script. at this point in time it would be important that data is entered in a way that all the pages can be parsed without the need for an AI or overcomplicated spaghetti code script. The eventual layout can then be decided later. this does not mean that there has to be a tightly controlled backend or that procedures must be put in place to control access. it just means that useful operations can be performed after spending 30 minutes writing a script and then throwing it away.
It would be easy to write a script that can handle the 1942 list as-is and the 1918 list as it was. it's also easy to remove tonnage figures automatically, but it is impossible to add them automatically. Nowakki (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The 1918 list seems grossly over-linked in blue and red. I doubt whether it is necessary to link any of the country names. And why does (almost) every ship that doesn't already have article have to be red-linked, and in bold - a large number of ships on this table can never meet WP:GNG for the simple reason that nothing ever happened to them, except that they were launched and broken up. It would still be helpful, I think, for an indication of size to be included alongside the ship type (where there is no link to a specific ship-class article). Davidships (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Linking of country names - the United Kingdom is different to today's United Kingdom. Germany isn't the same as today's Germany. There are plenty of other examples. As for the ships, until one researches them, whether or not GNG can be met cannot be known. Some plain cargo ships turn out to have really interesting histories. Mjroots (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mjroots: the information you removed got to go back in. Unless you show me that a standard was established that explicitly stated that wikipedia is supposed to be a dumbed down archive of ship launches. Blind adherence to a standard that was not designed with foresight is no argument at all. Nowakki (talk) 11:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nowakki: - I refer you to my comment of 07:52, 25 January 2023 above. If you want to add that information, I have no objection. My main objection was the non-standard format of the list. Mjroots (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mjroots: you removed it, it's your responsibility to put it back. Nowakki (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just going to pipe in here, that per WP:BRD no consensus has been reached for the re-integration of your format Nowakki, just your info. You and Mjroots both agree that your info is acceptable, not the way you structured it. So until you can get some support for your article design, your edits cannot be reverted wholesale. You can go back in and add your info to what was until you arrived, a stable page or like I said, seek support for article design. Llammakey (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
it's his mess, he has to clean it up. i spoke to him when he was in the middle of doing it and he kept on going.
the edits can be reverted. and he can take another crack at it.
1. i was there first. rollback starts at the end
2. what's more important? information or format? Nowakki (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No it's your mess. There was an accepted format for these list articles established long ago. You chose to change it without discussion on the few you edited. Your info was good and has mostly been retained but your format was awful. Please change the other ones you edited to the standard format Lyndaship (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I've marked all vessels that were requisitioned by the USSB, to differentiate from those ordered by the USSB. Mjroots (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the tonnage figures... somehow there should be a way to compare the table to the statistics below the table so that one can know how complete the list is.
as for the 1919 list, that page was generated by a perl script. I can trivially change anything about it. Nowakki (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tonnage figures have not gained consensus yet. I'm leaning oppose, but if they are to be included then I think that they should be under the ship's name, using <br> to force a line break. Mjroots (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
where was a consensus reached for the changer to the owner column? Nowakki (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What change to the owner column? The "Notes" column is where who the ship was built for is mentioned. Mjroots (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lyndaship: looking at the density of entries i was under the impression that they are toy lists that nobody cares much about.
The standard format is bad. If you get behind this, that's on you. "Cargo ship" seems like a good idea to you? wood or steel? coal or oil? sail or steam or diesel? we are in the 21st century and can search millions of books in milliseconds with hundreds of busy beavers working for free. i think we can do better than to dumb down a list made in 1918.
There is a problem, but my actions only uncovered it. Nowakki (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lyndaship: not only is the list much more useless now, but you are also forcing somebody going through crappy pdfs to feel like you do not value their time. if you work with a source, you will want to try to extract as much useful information from it in one go. it's just a matter of efficiency. and it leads to the recognition of conflicting claims sooner, and so they can be resolved sooner. Nowakki (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nowakki: Reading through the discussion here, you want to insert a large amount of data to improve the value of entries. To me, that sounds like a perfect case for using Wikidata. If the current consensus remains that the Wikipedia list articles aren't the right place for this information, then import it into Wikidata instead. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
List of ship launches in 1919 is terrible. This format concentrates on USSB to the exclusion of everything else, and emphasises US geographical details over other nationalities. These lists are meant to be worldwide, and not just cover the US, and the format of all lists should not be dictated by things like wartime shipbuilding programmes which will only occur for a few years. In addition, for civil mass production types, classes/types are mysteriously hidden behind Easter eggs - why hide Design 1014 ship behind jargon like "7,500 dwt steel cargo" while not doing the same for Wickes-class destroyer. If there is consensus for additional information, then it should be shown separately than the class, and there needs to be consistency and consensus about what fields are shown - Tonnage? If so which tonnage? Displacement? Dimensions? There isn't room for the lists to include every piece of data, so we shouldn't be including things without consensus.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nigel Ish: this was the list before Nowakki edited it. Apart from the flagcruft in the operator column, there wasn't much wrong with it. Yes, it was non-standard, but an easy fix at the time. Mjroots (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
well i thought these lists were abandoned. if people care so much about them, why are they in such bad shape. Nowakki (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is conjecture that the versions you first edited were in "bad shape." Just because a page doesn't conform to your ideal doesn't mean that the consensus of editors will agree. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
it is what i conjectured at the time. Nowakki (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
btw, steel/wood and tonnage specification of one form or another is consensus in all the sources i work with. hardly ever will you find somebody write just "cargo", whether it is a list or just the mention of a ship in a piece of prose.
Wickes could be written as 1200 tonner. those are all minor differences. i fail to see how such a minor deviation makes a thing terrible and i fail to see why petty compliance with a certain consistency is obviously a good thing. Nowakki (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nowakki - you do realise that the 1919 list will need to be reformatted similar to the 1918 list, don't you? Mjroots (talk) 08:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i realize that you would probably borg drone your way through it if necessary. there is no urgency. give me a few days to schedule it for myself, i will let you know when it's done. Nowakki (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll continue working from Mitchell & Sawyer. If I need to add to the 1919 list from that source, then I'll reconfigure it. Otherwise am happy for you to do it. Mjroots (talk) 07:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After three days of "borg droning", the 1919 list has been bashed into shape. Mjroots (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inclusion criteria[edit]

I was coming here to ask for a second pair of eyes on List of ship launches in 2023, when I noticed this ongoing discussion. Given that I don't really have any competence in this area, I'll just note that I was struck by what appeared to be a near-complete lack of a selection criteria: This is a chronological list of some ships launched in 2023. seems way too vague. -Ljleppan (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ljleppan: It's a chronological list (i.e. Jan-Dec) of some ships (i.e. it doesn't claim to cover every ship). Seems straightforward enough to me. Mjroots (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mjroots: The part where it says some is the problem. Which some? Per WP:LISTCRITERIA: Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources.. A vague some is pretty much as far as one can be from unambiguous and objective. Note also that Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence. For example, [..] List of Norwegian musicians would not be encyclopedically useful if it indiscriminately included every garage band mentioned in a local Norwegian newspaper. One easy fix would be to change the selection criteria to e.g. ...a chronological list of ships launched in 2023 notable enough for Wikipedia articles. per the example at List of Norwegian musicians. Or maybe you could come up with some criteria based on size/tonnage. Whatever the criteria, it should be unambiguous whether some ship belongs in the list or not. Ljleppan (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In theory, all ships are eligible for inclusion. In practice, this is not possible. Ships not notable enough for stand-alone articles are eligible for inclusion in lists of ship launches. Mjroots (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd imagine that type of list would often clash with the size guidance in WP:CSC's third point:

Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers. The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources. For example, Listed buildings in Rivington. If reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten notable buildings and two non-notable buildings, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable buildings. However, if a complete list would include hundreds or thousands of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list.

E.g. List of ship launches in 1943 (which uses the same vague some has a cool 63K of wikitext. Ljleppan (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ljleppan: My earlier post obviously wasn't clear. I'll spell it out. Taking the 1943 list as an example. "Some" is used because it is impossible to document every ship launched. With the 1943 list, particular difficulty will be experienced with the Soviet Union, Empire of Japan, the Repulic of China to name but three. Add in Africa, the rest of Asia, South America and the rest of the world and you see the problem. This is why we say "some" ships, not to mean that only (wiki)notable ships are included, but that it is not possible to list "all" ships. Mjroots (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not following how that addresses my concerns w/r/t the use of some in this way being explicitly against the WP:LISTCRITERIA guideline (and WP:CSC, even if that is not an exclusive list). Ljleppan (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent info find on two shipwrecks[edit]

While researching to write a description for File:Museum of the North Beach 12.jpg I ran across some information on two wrecked ships: the S.S. Seagate, registered in Monrovia (Liberia). Built 1944, wrecked 1956-09-06 near Aberdeen, Washington, and the S.S. Texmar, probably built 1919, owned by the Bethlehem Steel Corporation and operated at the time of its grounding under a bareboat charter by the Calmar Steamship Company (their own proprietary subsidiary). Grounded on a shoal in Gray's Harbor, Washington December 30, 1960. Currently the latter is mentioned (with no link, and nothing about the grounding) in the Calmar Steamship Company article.

Just passing this along in case anyone wants to do something with any of this. - Jmabel | Talk 04:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Already mentioned at list of shipwrecks in 1956 and list of shipwrecks in 1960 respectively. Mjroots (talk) 13:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did some quick searches: there was an interesting enough legal case about the Texmar wreck that it might well be worth an article. - Jmabel | Talk 05:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: - If you do write an article, plenty of info can be found in shipping registers. Many of which are linked from WP:SHIPS/R. Mjroots (talk) 06:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

George Hibbert (ship, 1804)[edit]

This ship appears to have a problem.

This Article says the model ship on the Hibbert Gate is the "George Hibbert", a barque built in London in 1804; c. 1834, it was used to transport convicts to Australia.

Was this ship actually built in 1803? The Lloyds link for 1804 is rotten.

This piece says the ship is The Hibbert (1785-1813) which was one of the largest vessels in the West India trade at the turn of the 19th century. See Which is correct? Are there two ships? Any help appreciated. I left a duplicate of this question on the talk page. Broichmore (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Acad Ronin:, who might be ble to help. Mjroots (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nothing rotten about 1804 LR, and the two versions, "Underwriters" and "Shipowners", agree on 1803 (nb the Underwriters book gives age). Meanwhile, I think that Acad has indeed nailed it on the talk page. Davidships (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SS William Penn[edit]

The United States Shipping Board converted 23 steam ships to diesel in the 1920s, due to the lower fuel consumption.

The SS William Penn (built by Pusey and Jones in Gloucester) was the prototype ship for that program and there is plenty of documentation on her and her voyages. The ship does not have a wikipedia article. If anyone is interested, or if anyone has a AI that can spit out a passable skeleton of an article, this ship may be worthwhile to look into.

there are several articles on other converted ships, but no mention is made of the program (the conversions are mentioned). so there are ripple benefits. i was going to add an extended section to the William Penn page summarizing the program, but i don't really know how to bootstrap a proper ship article.

PS: the USS Defiance (ID-3327) was converted twice. back to steamer in 1938.

PPS: there are also toy articles of the Busch-Sulzer variety in wikipedia's diesel department that would see benefits from this. Nowakki (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Battle of Penang and Battle of Cocos maps[edit]

Hi all! I want to upload some maps regarding this two occasions. Battle of Penang map from Naval Staff Monographs is already uploaded, but unfortunately there is no map about the Battle of the Cocos in NSM. But there is one in Krieg zur See and this same one with one color more in the book of Prince Franz Joseph von Hohenzollern My Experiences in S. M. S. Emden. PDF Extraction Wizard does not work for me with both of these images. A British map of the Battle of the Cocos can be seen here - I don't know whether it is free for uploading or not. Can someone please help me in uploading these images? Thank you. - Andreas (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Nowakki (talk) 07:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. And what is about the British Battle of Cocos map? It can be found on Is it free for Commons? - Andreas (talk) 10:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was published in 1920, and the "Modern Introduction" in the online link to it says that the work is "out-of-copyright". Kablammo (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks again. Somehow I did not find the map in the book though I was searching for it. Now I have it. - Andreas (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Naming conventions for cruise ship articles.[edit]

Currently there doesn't seem to be a rational convention for naming articles about cruise ships (mainly). Because modern ships can get swapped between owners fairly frequently, with the associated name changes, it often gets to the point where an article titled MV First Name starts off referring to MV Third Name while the infobox refers to MV Second Name. No doubt to the utter confusion of the general reader. Would it not be better for all such article titles to be the first operational name of the vessel with all subsequent names being appropriate redirects? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also applies to ferries to a lesser extent. I believe the existing convention is to use the latest name and when the ship is scrapped to decide what the best known name was. Not perfect and probably against WP:COMMONNAME but if we always used the first operational name as the title of the article I think we would be endlessly reverting moves as the fanboys constantly changed it to the current name of the ship Lyndaship (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fanboys are a continuing problem. The real problem is when the article title is apparenty chosen at random from the middle of the list of names and the text starts with the last name or even some other random name. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I, for one, support the clear and easy-to-understand policy of using an extant ship's current registered name (excluding possible "scrapyard names" and the like) and, once that ship has sailed, having a healthy fight about the best-known name where the article should be parked for all eternity. Tupsumato (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you are going to do that, then the lead section needs updating to reflect that. Too many editors are changing one or the other but not both. So you end up with an article called SPL Princess Anastasia (1986) starting "Moby Orli is a cruiseferry owned by Moby SPA. Until September 2010, she was known as Pride of Bilbao, operated by P&O Ferries on their Portsmouth–Bilbao route." You don't get to the title name till a fair way down the lead. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Obviously. Just because some editors don't do a proper job when a ship changes its name is not an argument for adopting a more complex naming policy. Tupsumato (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ship launch standard format is still not right[edit]

there is no way of sorting the list to see how many ships were built by ACME in a given year or how many UncleSam-class destroyers where built.

you have to do the same procedure 12 times and write the intermediate results down.

the TOC could be rescued, using the {{anchor template either for the first entry in a month or for a subheading row that only contains the month.

such a subheading could also display the count for the month if that is desirable. and when the table is sorted it will not get in the way. Nowakki (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

panama canal crossings[edit]

i am trying to rescue Swayne & Hoyt from the misery of mediocrity and given that they traded between the US West Coast and Gulf Coast heavily, it follows that a list of canal crossings is necessary to have. I can work with the official record, but for some reason they (, google) are not OCR'd properly for all pages that are rotated. not a big thing, OCR is in the hands of the people and if need be that can be handled. i am hoping i can save myself the trouble though.

the other reason i am asking is, i find it hard to find arrival and departure bulletins for ordinary ports (big ports like buenos aires), even for single events where there is no issue with proper quoting. if someone can point me in the right direction there. Nowakki (talk) 07:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is that table of departures and arrivals currently in the article meant to represent? Are you intending to list every single arrival and departure or is this some sort of sample to demonstrate the average speed of passage? From Hill To Shore (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
this to show the process of the establishment of the route in detail.
my intention is to add a complete list on a separate page if that is doable without much work, so that the next person does not have to ask the same question i am now forced to inquire upon. and then i intend to conform with all available information access limitations that wikipedia desires to impose on me. Nowakki (talk) 08:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]