Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 64

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 60

←

Archive 62

→

Light Vessels and Light Stations mess

With some hesitation to start another endless, circular, no decision discussion (Above's perpetual is getting perpetual and is not aging in a cask like fine old wine!) we have total confusion of pages on these topics. It is a situation unique to light vessels as far as I know (with a possible exception of some ferry boats taking on the name of a crossing). It cannot help but confuse readers having little knowledge of such matters and perpetuates more blunders beyond Wikipedia, some of which rely on Wikipedia. Stations are named. Those big letters denote stations, not the vessels. Some pages are titled for stations, for example Brenton Reef Light with the ships occupying the station in sections. Others give the ship the station name, even station names made up by museums as in United States lightship Portsmouth (LV-101) and United States lightship Chesapeake (LV-116) (misleading about "name" specifically). Then we have the vessels, as in Light Vessel No.57. Is it worth taking on an effort to either make articles about stations as in the first case above with the vessels on assignment briefly described? A combination, stations and vessels with the vessel articles dealing with ship specifics (some interesting innovations in some) and the stations listed? As is is a mess. Palmeira (talk) 01:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I like the approach taken at the Brenton Reef Light article, with individual vessels listed. Articles could be created on these lightvessels and others subject to WP:GNG being met. Presumably the term lightvessel is Am.Eng as the term lightship is used in Br.Eng. There is no need to move lightvessel/lightship articles from one to the other unless in contravention of Engvar. Mjroots (talk) 09:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I've added a link to this discussion on the WikiProject Lighthouse talk page as it is relevant to that project. I would suggest being bold and going ahead in doing the changes if you get no real objections here after a week...Jokulhlaup (talk) 10:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree on the "station approach" used in the Brenton Reef Light article. It emphasizes the reason for the light ship/vessel (I always used "lightship" as well) and adequately noting the ships moving through the function. By doing so it also impresses upon readers that the big name on the sides of the ships are the station, not the ship name. As for the ships some are notable enough in service or introduction of new features or events to perhaps warrant a stand alone piece. If so they can be linked from the station articles. As for the rest, where some mention of the vessel itself is warranted but not enough to make more than an "expanded infobox" article? My long standing recommendation here to cover such vessels of the Navy, Army or commercial shipping lines as done with the Empire ships is a real solution. On that long standing recommendation I note we have long lists of stubs and infobox longer than the text for ships that should also be consolidated into an Empire ship type list. The current state of tiny "articles" barely noting the existence of some vessel is a bit ridiculous. USS Arabian, picked at random from the stub list, is an example. The harbor tug is one DANFS paragraph and was not "USS" as clearly seen in DANFS with "a bare boat lease . . . and was placed in service" rather than commissioned. A stand alone for that vessel is not warranted unless there is a civilian history. Now to quickly edit that "USS" out of that article. Palmeira (talk) 12:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The example page Arabian was too much. DANFS was wrong, the name was not "retained" — it was James McCaulley from 1896 to 1918. That tug was involved in collision 30 October 1903 that gets quite a few hits in legal cases. Based on very brief Navy "career" and some legal fame as the commercial tug I moved the page to James McCaulley (tug) after additions and clean up. Palmeira (talk) 00:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

No EngVar that I can see. Both used each side of the pond. In general in the UK, lightship is used in general speech/prose, and lightvessel for formal names of individual vessels (eg Trinity House's official names, as LV123); from a glance at some of the instanced articles it is similar in the US. I would generally favour the more formal style used by the lighthouse authorities when naming particular light vessels or stations, and the more general one in prose. Davidships (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Another example of the absolute mess. NANTUCKET, the station, and two vessels now both historic NANTUCKET ships. Using the current page titles, United States lightship Nantucket (LV-112) indeed had a long presence at the station. It is historic. Then so is United States lightship Nantucket (WLV-612)! The station page, Lightship Nantucket (which probably should be "Lightship station Nantucket" instead) makes it clear. There were a number of vessels at that station prior to LV-112 and then two followed before the station was occupied by a large buoy. I will try to address that mess, but it appears to be widespread in the light station/lightship arena. I suspect some comes from somewhat parochial interests that are doing the job (much appreciated by me) of preserving these vessels and even using made up names for the stations or altered history for the vessels. That PR effort should not extend to articles here. Palmeira (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

HS Kallisto

The Greek mine countermeasures vessel HS Kallisto was cut in two in a collision with a container ship yesterday. Article has been nominated at WP:ITNC. Whilst everything in the body of the article is referenced, much of what is in the infobox isn't. Article needs a description section above the history section, giving details of dimensions, engines, equipment carried etc with references. Mjroots (talk) 06:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Added a couple of refs but have no more time right now - and don't have Conways or Janes for this period to hand. Davidships (talk) 10:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Davidships, is Navypedia a useable source? Mjroots (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

It may well not be RS in the conventional sense, but it is probably reasonably reliable for technical descriptions. And there are about 600 WP articles that use it. It's a private site apparently run by two Russians, one is probably Ivan Gogin, who ran its predecessor. More regular naval editors might have a clearer view than I do. Davidships (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Unofficial ship prefixes

I'd like to invite the opinions of the project in the ongoing discussion at Talk:ESPS#Spanish warships. Tevildo (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

notice of possible merger of "screw sloop"

There exists short stub article screw sloop with a fair number, 198, of inbound links. It should perhaps be merged to Steam frigate or to sloop-of-war (perhaps specifically to Sloop-of-war#Decline, which gives a little context perhaps worth consulting before jumping along its link to Steam frigate). Please consider commenting at informal merger proposal discussion, at Talk:Screw sloop#Merge (revived in 2020). --Doncram (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Help needed deciphering the deck log

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/179487474 page 27. Trying to decipher the abbreviations: 050°T (I understand 50 degrees, but what does T mean?), c/c, c/s

Also, this page only covers March 7th hours 00 to 16, but where are March 7th hours 16 to 24?

Also: on "weather observation sheet pages": option 4 for "position" is D.R. -- what does it stand for? And, why is position taken at 0800, 1200 and 2000 - in a rather non-uniform fashion?

-- Wesha (talk) 06:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

050°T - the "T" stands for "true" - i.e. the bearing has been adjusted for magnetic variation (and compass deviation). Bearing (navigation) seems to explain it reasonably well. Can't help on the missing pages. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Of course I am not asking "where" the missing pages are, but from the looks of it (and from what I know of important documents like that, there are a lot of preventative measures against loss of information, like they pages are threaded together and signed, etc. On some other pages I certainly see the continuation on the reverse of the page if everything doesn't fit on the front -- but not here. So I was wondering if maybe the missing times are printed on some other page, that I am not aware where to look for (like, for example, "at the very end of the book", or a separate "appendix", or something). -- Wesha (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I figured it out: it's the page file that is corrupt on the website, but of you download the complete PDF, the page is there. -- Wesha (talk) 05:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

D.R. = Dead reckoning. In Navigation you can find In marine navigation, Dead reckoning or DR, in which one advances a prior position using the ship's course and speed. The new position is called a DR position. It is generally accepted that only course and speed determine the DR position. Correcting the DR position for leeway, current effects, and steering error result in an estimated position or EP. An inertial navigator develops an extremely accurate EPThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

c/c may mean "course correction", c/s is the speed, but I can't guess the precise interpretation. The observations are in two parts. 0800 and 2000 (morning and evening watch changes) and 1200 (midday). The former are marked as being 2 & 4, that is electronic and dead reckoning. The noon observation appears to be 1 & 4 (celestial and dead reckoning) but the writing isn't totally clear. The noonday fix is the special one. Using a sextant and with reference to the ship's chronometer you can determine the precise longitude, and by reference to the almanac the ship's latitude. From the noonday AP you can check that your EPs are reasonable. It's worth bearing in mind that this was in 1960, so navigation aids were minimal, and the ship was around 500 nm from Japan in mid-ocean. The electronic fix would be by bearing from shore stations, I'm not aware that there was any satellite support at that date and definitely no GPS! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

What I'm wondering is, why 0800, 1200 and 2000 (which makes intervals of 12 - 4 - 8 hours) - wouldn't it have made more sense to take a reading (whether electronic or DR) every 8 hours instead? -- Wesha (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

0400 is in the middle of the night! I suspect that this is a simple, practical, issue of doing things at the start and end of the day. Watches change at 0400, 0800, 1200, 1600, 1800, 2000 and midnight. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is in the middle of the night -- and it's perfect time to pull out your sextant: stars are visible! Anyway, the ship never sleeps -- watches are going around the clock, and with the readings distributed uniformly, I would assume it would be easier and more accurate to do the DR calculations... -- Wesha (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Electronic navigation for a ship of that size and type would have included LORAN-A. I do not think LORAN-C was generally available at the time. If I recall the AN/SPN-31 receivers started getting into the fleet in the early sixties. We certainly had them by the mid 60s. Even LORAN-A could improve DR positions depending on the hyperbolic configuration and range but errors of miles were not uncommon. Even LORAN-C had some interesting error issues as seen in this Loran-C User Handbook. As for DRs? Those could be wildly off. From some experience I can say Navy navigation was rather spotty depending on the navigators. Analysis of some records showed errors of many miles. Even with survey navigation errors could be quite large and absolute, geodetic position using the old Navy Navigation Satellite doppler system helped only by analysis and statistical corrections. No one satellite fix was really reliable and I've been tied up at a berth watching the plot of satellite fixes wander across the harbor in a shotgun patterns with a cluster effect within a few hundred meters of the ship.

A little oddity of the transition to GPS was an increase in accidents for a time. Even with the best navigation sane mariners gave many miles of avoidance to hazards. That cost money and time but was damn cheaper than a grounding or sinking. Even survey ships crept up with lots of eyes in good visibility and on the echogram trace in trying to pin down an isolated reef or rock. Then came this amazing GPS thing. Hey! I can cut hours off by cutting closer to that bank or reef or rock I've been passing with ten miles of space! Oops! GPS was just fine. It was just lots better than the survey that had "fixed" that danger and the hazard was a few miles off from where it was supposed to be. Most people still do not realize that many islands were miles "off" from their actual positions when geodetic teams started tying things together with modern systems and a common datum. An idea of the state of things can be seen in The Importance of SHORAN Surveying. Take logbook positions with at least a small bag of salt. Palmeira (talk) 14:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

LORAN-C came in in 1958, so by 1960 a USN ship might well have it. NAVSAT was the first satellite system and came in during 1964, so couldn't have been used in this log book. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The driver of Loran-C was the FBM (Polaris) program so the priority for both the shore stations and chains and at sea receiving was given to associated platforms. I have not searched for the exact operational date for WESTPAC coverage but it was later than Atlantic coverage which had operational chains by then. I'd expect Kearsarge to have been on a priority for Loran-C, particularly with involvement in Project Mercury. I know a Pacific transit had quite a few vast Loran-C "not so good" areas (geometry problems, particularly between chains) that had to be worked around very expensively when there was a requirement. The ranging capability (solved geometry problems by ranging on masters and slaves but required early "atomic clocks" synchronized with the station clocks) was one, expensive, difficult and quite complex in its early stages (around 1967-68). Palmeira (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I do understand that. Of course the purpose is more historic/illustrative than trying to be exact. Right now based on the accounts from the media the area of interest ends up rather large -- and now we will be able to narrow it down. -- Wesha (talk) 06:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Decodes: I suggest "c/c" is change of course and "c/s" is change of speed. The aircraft being launched: "HSS" is Sikorsky SH-3 Sea King and "S2F" is Grumman S-2 Tracker. One could perhaps deduce that it was one of the aircraft that made the initial sighting of the drifting barge, since the log says "received report of sighting" and range is given as 15 miles when the weather report for the same time is 14 miles visibility. "LCM" - "Landing Craft Mechanized".ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

We already know that HSSs are HSS-1 Seabat from the Kearsarge video. Also, the rescued guys reported that they were indeed spotted by two airplanes, flown by Glen Conrad and David Mericle(sp?). -- Wesha (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Decode for 14th March "TF" is Grumman C-1 Trader (carrying press and news correspondents).ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Any idea what the item "Secured from flight quarters." means? It appears multiple times throughout the logbook, and it looks like it is somehow related to aircraft. -- Wesha (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

"Secured from flight quarters" meant that the flight deck (and other) crews were not needed for duty as they had no aircraft in the air or about to take off. "Secure" in this context means finish the job, tidy up and put away all the equipment and hands can then go off duty or on to other assigned duties. An aircraft carrier has a myriad of crew members with jobs associated with flying off and landing aircraft - most obvious is the Landing signal officer, but there are fire fighting parties, aircraft controllers (for the aircraft still in the air), the crews that operate the arrester gear (the wire that the Tailhook connects with), etc. Modern United States Navy carrier air operations lists the modern method of organisation and the people involved.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you everybody, behold. If there is interest and somebody would like to help me with adding more details to the article in English that we collected in ru-wiki, I would appreciate that. -- Wesha (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

HMS Bat talk page

The talk page for HMS Bat is redirected to a DAB page - can someone fix it?Nigel Ish (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Done. Parsecboy (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I've restored the previous assessment of Start class. Mjroots (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice

FYI; there is an RM at Talk:Naval Facilities Engineering Command that could use a few extra sets of eyes. Cheers - wolf 12:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Ship sponsor

Hi. Who should be given in the infobox of ships as the sponsor? One who bestows the launching ceremony, or the commissioning ceremony? Pahlevun (talk) 07:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

In the Infobox usage guide, the sponsor is described as "the individual (usually a woman and sometimes referred to as a "launching lady") who does the whole ceremonial "smash-the-bottle,-launch-the-ship" thing as part of the launching ceremony". In the Finnish shipbuilding industry, this person is often referred to as the "grandmother" of the ship. Tupsumato (talk) 10:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Elsewhere also as the "godmother", or indeed generically "sponsor" (not sure where they use "launching lady" - it sounds rather stilted). And it can happen at varying times: traditional launching from ways, float-out, delivery, introduction into service, or at some arbitrary point convenient to the chosen person or the owner's PR needs. It is usual for ships to only have one sponsor at a time (glitzy cruiseships may get a new style icon with a new owner). Anyway the key is "ceremony". And perhaps now that there are a few more CEOs in shipping, perhaps some husbands and sons may get a look-in. As for the infobox, I think that it's only really worth including if the person is notable. Davidships (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I would question why the sponsor needs to be in the infobox - ship infoboxes are very long as is, and often overwhelm the article. Note that the appropriate ceremonials aren't always at launching - for example they weren't for the Imperial Russian Navy.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, unless it was someone notable, I don’t even mention it in the prose. The name of the non-notable daughter of some minor local politician isn’t of much use to the average reader. Parsecboy (talk) 09:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd support deleting that info from the infoboxes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree fully. Further, "notable" is very relative. A person may be very notable locally, within an industry, or company but in this ceremony it is usually their female representative as the actor. I would advocate deleting sponsor from infoboxes and including a sponsor in text only if the sponsor is otherwise notable or cited in a major source. I say that with some ruefulness as the whole "little woman" named only as "Mrs. Somebody of Importance" certainly highlights the mindset of the times of not so distant past. They and the occasional kid doing the honors are just "cute" additions in an old ceremony associated with the "birth" of a ship and, if I recall, possibly tracing to when a female or kid was sacrificed in such ceremonies. I would go further and also delete "Ship christened" because that can happen more than once in a hull's existence. Initial launch is not, thought there can be relaunches (sometimes after almost unrecognizable conversions*, and is equivalent to a birthday after a gestation period from keel laying. Palmeira (talk) 12:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it can often depend on the type of vessel. Military units, particularly in the modern day place quite a lot of importance on the links with their Sponsor. I think it is less important or notable for civilian vessels. Woody (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Remove from infobox, only mention in prose if sponsor is notable. Also support taking Ship Christened out of infobox and prefer the phrase "formally named" in prose - in this multi faith world it seems strange to use such a phrase. Lyndaship (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

DISAGREE Nothing wrong with mentioning it. Considering it's just one line there is little reason to think it somehow makes the infobox or text bloated. But I see a bigger problem here - and it's constant attempts to discuss meaningless pointless petty issues like this or usage of 'the'. Frankly, it doesn't bode well for the project, who the hell wants to be continuously told what information to add and which one not to add? Crook1 (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

That's a bit harsh, Crook1, especially on the "who-the-hell" who asked the question (which has only come up here briefly once in recent years, and in a different context, I think). Davidships (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

We should leave the infobox and its contents intact as is. It's optional to fill in the sponsor name, however even a non-notable person's name can give out clues to the history of a vessel, leading to the identification of notable others, be they captains, shipbuilders, tycoons etc. Uncovering unsung heroes or hitherto unknown interesting facts about a vessel depends on links in the main. The infobox is increasingly of use to Wikidata, we haven't even started to tap the benefits that Wikidata may yet uncover. For example a structured database could enable identification of unknown vessels in vintage photographs; reconstruct the histories of undocumented shipping lines and owners etc. If anything we should be expanding the infobox. I have to say if the infobox is overshadowing the article, it's very often due to the article being a stub, and indicative of a larger story to tell for the ship itself. Ships are very often at the epicenter of larger events, context and linkage is everything here.Broichmore (talk) 09:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The infobox is supposed to be a summary of the ship and its characteristics, not a complete account. Sponsors, etc., should be relegated to the main body. Alternatively, I'd be fine with hiding the field so that it's only visible while editing, which might be useful for Wikidata, I don't know.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

(Just saw this) Agree with Ship's Sponsor being removed from navbox and prose per WP:SHIPSNOTCREWS. Same reason that random, non-notable crew do not need to be mentioned (ie: "Lt. So-and-so became first officer of USS Whatever for six months starting back when no-one-gives-a-crap. There was a ceremony. With party hats. And pizza.".) Just my 0.02¢ Cheers - wolf 13:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Help for information on a ship

Can anyone help me find dates for keel laying, launching, completion, characteristics, a history of ownership and ports of registry for Galaxy F (IMO number: 9048471, MMSI number: 371544000) since 1992? I need that information to include in the infobox for this article, in case it is confirmed that the two ships are the same. Pahlevun (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Pahlevun: IMO numbers don't change. This Yahoo search may be of use. Mjroots (talk) 13:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Miramar [1] gives most of these details. You can get a free trial sub or full free access via a Library card Lyndaship (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

SS City of Boston

Does anyone have a reference for the Code Letters carried by SS City of Boston? Reported in The Times of 14 March 1870 that a brig-rigged steamship, commercial code DGGC reported her machinery wanting repairs, date of report "30th(?) February 1870". Would suggest that 20th is the correct date. This fits in with other reports of 25 Feb that both her cylinders had burst. Note that CoB had three masts, but the loss of one may have given the appearance of a brig. Mjroots (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The British Government was a begetter and supporter of the "Commercial Code" and consequently included the individual ships' letters in Mercantile Navy List - City of Boston was one of the small proportion of ships that had no signal letters listed (no obvious reason for that - other Inman ships had them). But this is a red herring; at that time, all allocations to ships began with letters in H-W range (excepting I and O), while A-G were used for other purposes. "DGGC" was in fact a misprint for "DJGC", which signified exactly what The Times printed: "machinery wants repair".

Lloyd's List, same date as The Times, gives the reported sighting by the brig Mary Johnston as on 13 February, in position 40.54N 24.50W (about 200m N of Ponta Delgada, Azores). However, in the same issue of The Times (p5), as well as in the same day's Shipping & Mercantile Gazette is a report of from Philadelphia, recording the safe arrival in New York on 11 March of the steamer Smidt, 49 days out from Bremen, so also long overdue. During the voyage her engine was disabled, obliging her to make the passage south of Bermuda; twelve days were required for repair, and afterwards could only run the engine at half-speed - then experienced hurricanes and storms for 20 days. And to the point, she was a "large brig-rigged steamer" of 1621grt (similar size to City of Boston), built in 1868, per Bureau Veritas register (but would not of course have flown a British ensign). Note also that Inman Line had a plain white band on the funnel - no red stripe.

None of the alleged sightings of City of Boston were generally accepted as genuine (the 25 Feb one mentioned above in particular was declared false by the Admiralty). The chronology from the NY papers gives a good summary of much of this (and the 2 April 1870 analysis in Mitchell's Marine Register seems professionally informed and convincing). An evening of interesting reading! Davidships (talk) 02:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move

There is a requested move of an article within this project, at Talk:Clipper#Requested_move_28_November_2020.

Kablammo (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Help with problem with italics in page title

Yesterday I made the page North West America for the ship of that name. I've made other ship pages whose page names have been appropriately italicized, but it had been a while and I forgot if I just used italic quotes when creating the page name, or something else—probably using italic quotes for the page title. Checking this wikiproject it looked like the "Infobox ship begin" template would take care of styling the page name with italics appropriately without any extra work on my part, so I made the page name without italics assuming the template would take care of it automatically.

But it didn't, unless I'm confused. Reading the template info and other pages about italicizing page names just left me confused. So I'm posting here in hopes that someone can set me straight on a couple questions:

1) How best to fix the North West America page so the title displays in italics.

2) How best to do this in the future, since I will probably make similar pages, someday. I think in the past I've created ship pages with the page name being ''North West America'' or ''Princess Royal'' (1778 sloop) (for Princess Royal (1778 sloop))

Thanks! Pfly (talk) 01:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Update: Page title got fixed, thank you! Still curious though whether there is a preferred way to italicize page title for ships (some technical reason?), or if it is just "whatever works". Thanks again. Pfly (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Article titles that follow the standard patterns of <prefix> <name> (<disambiguator>) and <country> <type> <name> are automatically formatted by {{infobox ship begin}}. Article titles like North West America do not follow that pattern so the infobox must be instructed how to format the title. Documentation for all of this is at Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide § Title styling.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Pfly: If there is no infobox, then you can use Template:DISPLAYTITLE. (If there's an issue with that, I'm sure Ttm or someone will advise). Cheers - wolf 05:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all! I read the info at "Infobox_ship_begin/Usage_guide#Title_styling" but still wasn't totally sure, and as far as I know there's no way to preview a new article's title the way you can preview the body. I thought the automatic formatting from {{infobox ship begin}} would work for North West America—it seemed to for Margaret (1791 ship) and Atahualpa (ship). I think I understand now though: it worked for those because of the disambig parts (I assume). Anyway, thanks again, I think understand better now. Pfly (talk) 05:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Museum ship puzzle

At List of museum ships, does the "from" column indicate where the ship was built, or who it was built for? I only ask because the Japanese battleship Mikasa is listed as being "from" Japan, but it was actually built at Barrow-in-Furness in the UK, and PNS Hangor (S131) which is shown as "from" Pakistan but built in France. I asked this on the talk page back in September, but answer came there none. Alansplodge (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

"From" is a poor choice for a column heading, actually, it may well be neither of your suggestions, as "which it was last in service with" seems to relate to some, eg BAE Abdón Calderón, HNoMS Alta, Amical etc.

Also there is confusion about flags - some are the location of the museum, some flag of the ship - and the British ones are a muddle of both.

And I am sure that the Mauritians will be surprised that they live in a region of Russia, so perhaps "country" is meant to refer to the ship, not to where the museum is? Davidships (talk) 01:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Cant we just make the city column, second in the list, and change its's title to Location? --Broichmore (talk)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard § Titanic conspiracy theories

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard § Titanic conspiracy theories. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

sclass- and sclass2-

There was a tfd that intended to delete {{sclass}} and {{sclass2}}. These were no longer used because we finally got round to hyphenating all ship-class article titles. The {{sclass-}} and {{sclass2-}} templates were intended to be short-term templates that would no longer be needed once ship-class article titles were hyphenated. The time for these two to go away has come.

I have cloned {{sclass-}} and {{sclass2-}} into {{sclass}} and {{sclass2}}. {{sclass-}} and {{sclass2-}} are now redirects to {{sclass}} and {{sclass2}}. I have also tweaked the documentation to remove mention of {{sclass-}} and {{sclass2-}}.

When editing ship articles, change {{sclass-}} and {{sclass2-}} to {{sclass}} and {{sclass2}} as you encounter then. I have added {{sclass-}} and {{sclass2-}} to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects § Other templates so that any editor using that tool with general fixes turned on will automatically rename the templates.

Someday, when all of the {{sclass-}} and {{sclass2-}} templates have been renamed, the redirects should be deleted.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath, I must have thousands of these in my articles. And I must confess I really don't see much point to doing so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

perpetual issue: ncships and the definite article

This edit identified ship names without the definite article as the preferred form. Two days later, this edit refined that part of WP:NCSHIPS. Both of these edits were made in October 2012 and both as the result of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships)/Archive 4 § Use of "The" in front of ships' names. Another modification was made in February 2013 at this edit. I don't know if that change was discussed.

At this edit, the 'preferred' / 'not recommended' annotation was removed. Before removal, the annotation had stood for 7 years, 10 months, and 28 days or 7 years, 7 months, and 6 days (however you want to gauge it). Because that portion of NCSHIPS had been stable for so long, I reverted noting the discussion mentioned above.

My revert was reverted. I'll not play that game. I believe that the revert of my revert should be overturned. After the seven-year-standing text is restored, we should discuss here to see if there is consensus to change the definite article advice.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. Contentious changes to longstanding guidelines should not be made w/o consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I have dropped a courtesy notification on Broichmore's talk page. And FTR the question of the definitive article and ship names is on my top ten list of perpetual wiki debates about which I could not possibly care less. But again, longstanding guidelines on a contentious topic should not be changed unilaterally. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with prefixing the name of a ship in the text narrative with the definite article. In fact it's good grammatical practise, used to vary the monotony of a script.Limiting search to 5 minutes unearthed these articles of a current incident concerning the Rhosus.

There has never been consensus on these pages for a style change concerning this issue, and indeed WP:NCSHIPS was amended to show a restriction on using it by an unwanted, unelected intervention by a biased editor.

Leaving it in place is wrong because it is fundamentally incorrect and flies in the face of ordinary usage by the majority of the population. It doesn't matter how long a thing has been here if it is biased and wrong, it requires changing. Broichmore (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

This project should not be dictating a preference between two equally valid stylistic conventions. Any new editor who is accustomed to using the definite article before a ship's name will write in that style, and this project has no authority to change that. We tolerate stylistic variations in spelling and grammar (not to mention references) in general and there is nothing special about the difference between "The Queen Elizabeth" and "Queen Elizabeth" that requires legislation to insist that only one variant is correct. There will be times where the use of the definite article is actually helpful. Try parsing "After the launching ceremony, Queen Elizabeth slipped gracefully into the water". Then tell mt that the definite article wouldn't improve it. --RexxS (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I think it should neither be a "ban" nor encouragement to use the definite article. Context should govern in my view and Broichmore has a good point above with "used to vary the monotony" of text. Whatever the DANFS style may be it can be monotonous in the extreme with some sort of rule against flowing text. As an example "X, Y and Z formed a convoy with escorts A and B" seems fine and to me becomes a bit stilted if "The X, . . ." while "a torpedo fired by U hit the A amidships" also seems better than "a torpedo fired by U hit A . . . " Palmeira (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I can't see any point in forcing a house style. Let editors decide what sounds best, vessel name-by-name, depending on the sentence and context. Quoting Emerson somewhat out of context, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". (By-the-way, "The HMS Pinafore" is generally poor style, while "the USS Caine" is generally good style.) I would hate to see editors being driven out of substantive editing because they were tired of being pecked at; in the ships area there are thousands of stories still to be told and only a handful of us trying to tell them. Acad Ronin (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Revert the reversion - only because the editor should have gotten consensus before making the change. I could care less one way or another, just as long as we go one way or the other. Personally I believe we should follow the format of the FAC on ships, because the opposite will leave a whole host of editors inserting definite articles into previously stable content. We are an encyclopedia, all the articles should look the same way, otherwise this is just a collection of essays. But either way, with or without definite articles, make a choice. Being all wishy-washy will lead to this discussion resurfacing again every couple of years. Until there is a hard and fast rule, like WP:SHE4SHIPS, we will be right back down this rabbit hole when another ancient mariner or a young gun decides that they do not like the current format. Llammakey (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Just imagine what it would have been like if Kirk started out with "These are the voyages of starship Enterprise ..." Is that the world we want for our children? Dogs and cats, living together! Mass hysteria! –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Llammakey suggests we go "one way or another" which is a one size fits all of the past. One format for certain parts of an article, title and infobox in particular makes sense — I support no "the" in those. In text it is a bad "solution" because it forces stilted style in text and even somoe ridiculous applications. As for Deacon Vorbis example? Nope. Perfect example of a ridiculous, forced style. First, "These are the voyages of starship Enterprise example. The definite article in that applies to "starship": "These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Now take a hard rule that the definite article must apply: "These are the voyages of the starship the Enterprise where "starship" needs the word and Enterprise gets it by "rule" — ridiculous. So would be some cases when the rule denied "the Enterprise" in certain cases. Palmeira (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
It wasn't a serious example; I was just poking some fun at the inanity that is Wikipedia, sometimes. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Now that I can understand! These endless, circular, opinion arguments are often ridiculous. That applies in particular when rule making comes to text style and not just formulaic items such as titles and infoboxes. That said, your example offered an opportunity to show how inane a hard rule could be. Palmeira (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Just to be pedantic, "starship" is a noun adjunct and therefore does not take an article. Consider "These are the voyages of a starship called the Enterprise". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Good point; however, just to be colloquial, few if any viewers (or readers) would find "These are the voyages of Enterprise" or "These are the voyages of the Enterprise" awkward — assuming context has been set as a ship of some sort — thus demonstrating that a rigid rule is probably unwise. Palmeira (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree that both are acceptable, and that should be the hard-and-fast rule. Although I favour "no-the" where it reads OK, I find that adding the article is necessary/preferable from time to time, for the various reasons outlined above. We should not imply a strong preference, but focus on readability.Davidships (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
One time when we don't need to use "the" is when it is part of the ship's name, such as The Second Snark. Mjroots (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Mjroots! I have a special warm place for little working vessels, particularly with teak and brass intact. So with a wee dram of Laphroaig (link for those that do not know this distinctive one with a hint of seaweed) in hand I got to toast the The Second Snark with a grin for the memories of teak, brass and a hardy little vessel warm in the chill and stormy Western Isle waters. Somewhere I have a photo of dark stormy (so rough lashed down things broke lashings) skies, a patch of light and a rainbow with one of the outer Hebrides in the background. So, with grin continued for the memories and a finger pointing at the usages such as the McNeil for an individual should we use the double the for the unique vessel The Second Snark? Palmeira (talk) 04:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Never mind the "the"s, you're painting such a poetic scene that if it weren't morning I'd break out my own Laphroaig and join you (virtually). :-) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Must say I prefer the smoky, peaty flavour of Lagavulin myself. Mjroots (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Mmmm, Lagavulin :-) Hidden behind the Laphroaig in my drinks cabinet is a bottle of Bruichladdich "Peat" for special events like New Year only. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC) Oh what the heck, you lot seem to have made some Bruichladdich jump out of the bottle and into a glass. Can't think how! :-) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Smoke and peat for me, aided by hand warming in a stem glass, but Laphroaig is "something else" that I do like for a bit of the sea. There is another of those island malts with sea taste and touch of iodine, peat with some seaweed as fuel if I recall. The name I cannot recall at the moment. Anyway, an entire Dick Francis novel was based on the very distinctive taste of Laphroaig. Crooks scamming the racecourses with imitations were outed by the "once you taste Laphroaig you never forget" (paraphrase from memory) character of the malt. Keep a bottle just for that. Off ship in a remote port, walking in a cold wind driven rain, a little hotel, warm resident's bar with a coal fire (its own smell) and deep chairs and bottle with "Interesting name. Let me try that." Memories — and a diversion from whether "the" or "not the" and SS/MV/TSS, prefixes and suffixes in perpetual discussion till a fine, old malt ages in its barrel. Palmeira (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I support the revert of Trappist the monk per the reasons given. As for the use of the definite article, I find its use clunky and tiresome to read, so support maintaining non-use as the "preferred" option. I also think it's important to maintain overall consistency, which is another reason for having a preferred option. However, per Davidships, its use nonetheless is almost unavoidable in certain circumstances, so a little flexibility in imposing the preferred usage is also not inappropriate. Gatoclass (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

My views are basically in alignment with Gatoclass; I don't generally like it, but I'm happy with a little flexibility. Parsecboy (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I've reverted the guideline to the status quo version until this discussion is resolved. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

And I've put a {{disputed tag}} on it to make its uncertain status clear. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Strike The disputed guideline clearly lacks consensus. The Starship Enterprise line proves that it's nonsense and so should boldly go away. Per our policy, WP:NOTLAW, prescriptive guidelines are improper because a tiny cabal has no authority to tell the rest of us how to write plain English. Per WP:CREEP, we don't want excessive clutter and regulation because people won't read or follow it. Nelson won the Battle of Trafalgar by avoiding orthodoxy and allowing his captains to use their own good sense and initiative. The offending guidance should be stricken. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Comment - I have no problem with the definite article being used unless it’s used before HMS (or HMAS, HMCS, HMSAS etc) because the His Majesty Ship isn't good English. Note MOS only forbids the use of the definite article before the prefix (presumably for the reason I’ve given above) and when mentioning a ship for the first time (presumably because the MOS also says a prefix should be used on those occasions). At all other times, says the MOS, its usage is "not generally needed" but it is not "technically wrong". Therefore, unless using the prefix or introducing the ship for the first time, one is free to use the definitive article and, under those circumstances, removal of it is unnecessary.--Ykraps (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I was entirely unaware that this was a "perpetual issue" like ship pronouns. While I tend not to use it myself, I'm with Ykraps on this issue. No change is needed as the MOS is not prescriptive other than regarding usage before a prefix.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

In all the above the conclusion appears to be, that with some exceptions, the use is allowable at the discretion of editors. Can that be agreed to? Or is this to be another "perpetual discussion" without conclusion — to carry on the fine drink comments — to age as was a smaller than giant casks of Port I once saw in Vila Nova de Gaia that was laid down before the United States declared independence with an aroma evident in that part of the bodega justifying its sparing use as ancient aroma and taste in the brand's finest products. Palmeira (talk) 12:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

As I said, I strongly favour maintaining non-use as the "preferred" option, because not to have a preferred option will inevitably lead to a great deal of inconsistency between one style and another, and I think that can only be disconcerting and confusing to the readership. I can accept use of the definite article where the context makes its non-use awkward, for example, Davidships' example of Queen Elizabeth above (although of course, in that case one could just substitute QE with a pronoun to avoid the problem). In my opinion, no ship article should ever start with the definite article, nor should articles randomly switch between one style and another for no obvious reason. So basically, I'm in favour of "preferred" as the status quo, with perhaps some slight modification allowing use of the definite article where it improves readability. Gatoclass (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

But in the interests of compromise, I could probably also accept something along the lines of respecting the preference of the original author, where they indicate a preference. Gatoclass (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Both RexxS Palmeira are correct it is not the projects prerogative to dictate style of English grammar conventions.

I was incorrect in my opening statement that WP:NCSHIPS was amended to show a restriction on using it by an unwanted, unelected intervention by a biased editor. However what was written there was clumsy, the meaning was simply to say no to the ‘’definite article’’ on first mention of the Ships name at the start of the text. Clearly that needs to be amended because there is no restriction on its use in the following text. Had I been there when first proposed I would have objected even to banning it at the start of the text. It is the norm in English to start the text with ‘’The’’ unless ‘’Her‘’ or ‘’His’’ is the case. Sturmvogel is correct in all he says except that use before the prefix, why should we different. It is a needless petty rule to apply something different here from the norm, even for style reasons. I would prefer to have it done away with, as any exception to the rules of the language leads to confusion and inconsistency in usage. Use of the definite article enhances readability, that’s just one of the reasons why it is the most common word in the English language.

T::here is no place or need for the definite article in the title or infobox.

I’m still struggling to understand why Trappist the monk reverted the clarification of when it had been manifestly pointed out here and elsewhere that a restriction to the use of the definite article is fundamentally incorrect.

Llammakey’s assertions are astounding. We are an encyclopaedia, all the articles should look the same way (yes, they should employ all the rules of English grammar as appropriate), otherwise this is just a collection of essays (exactly that’s what it ‘’is’’, a collection of essays. Just that.) A hard and fast rule does not apply and is not called for. An encyclopaedia is an exemplar of the language it is written in, and is obligated to make full use of its correct grammar.

The line in the MOS, that its usage is "not generally needed" but it is not "technically wrong". Should be deleted. It’s prejudicial and wrong. it’s usage before HMS (or HMAS, HMCS, HMSAS etc) is and always has been incorrect.

Gatoclass’s assertion that its use is clunky and tiresome to read to completely wrong it is indeed the very opposite. He makes the comment that he ‘’strongly favour(s) maintaining non-use as the "preferred" option, because not to have a preferred option will inevitably lead to a great deal of inconsistency between one style and another, and I think that can only be disconcerting and confusing to the readership’’. This is completely absurd we are the one anomaly in the entirety of Wikipedia. It is this project (ships) that is the anomaly and it’s wrong. We are a source of confusion to new contributors. The only other place it appears is in some articles on Indian rivers; articles not written by people born to the language.

Gatoclass also says ‘’ I could probably also accept something along the lines of respecting the preference of the original author’’. Yes, that’s good point, so we can revert all the places where this incorrect rule has been enforced, in articles where it was originally employed.

Finally we have lost ship editors through this and other similar issues. In the fallout of people have been upset. Articles have not been written because of it. Also there are editors who have had to change their style and write against their beliefs because of erroneous enforcement of this rule.

The perception held by many is this is one of those anomalies in the MOS that has been used by certain editors in a trollish fashion to harass and bully others. Another is the use or non-use of capitals in titles. Well we can’t do something about that because it was written in as a rule, whereas this thing about the definite article, is just a mistaken interpretation of the MOS. Please resist starting a discussion on titling at this stage.

Its one thing to visit an article and edit out code errors and inappropriate use of the apostrophe ‘’S’’, it’s quite another to correct grammar (when it’s correct).

Despite the criticism of some that this is a trivial matter, I would remind you that use of the definite article and indeed grammar generally is one of the tricks we employ to redesign text to avoid challenges of plagiarism.

We have a duty as contributors to defend the English language. Broichmore (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Care to name some of these users who have quit the project over use of the definite article? I'd be very surprised if you could, particularly given that its use is not actually prohibited. Gatoclass (talk) 09:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

For some reason, RexxS has decided to attempt to force a result here, despite the fact that we haven't come to a conclusion, as far as I can tell. Interested editors are invited to keep flogging the horse here. Parsecboy (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I added an example of where the use of a definite article is preferable English (Nelson's flagship was the Victory) to illustrate a different construction, such as the use of a ship name in a predicate, rather than as the subject. If we're going to have examples, we should at least be honest enough to supply a range of examples showing where the definite article might be used to advantage as well as the one that shows where omission would be preferred. Guidance must document best practice in full, not just cherry-picked examples that reflect one limited viewpoint. --RexxS (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

No comment on the merits of this discussion, but the behaviour of two admins on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) today was frankly unbelievable. All reverts after the first were inappropriate and constitute edit warring. Please behave responsibly, thank you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Protected for 1 month. Use the talk page to reach agreement please. If it is resolved earlier, protection can be lifted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Parsecboy says no consensus reached? All voters agree not to use the definite article the before a gender prefix (her/his) or when introducing a ship for the first time; i.e., at the beginning of the lead section. A count at this moment gives 9 votes supporting the motion for otherwise restriction in text. 6 1/2 voters are ambivalent either way, it's Okay to use it. 1 1/2 or 2 at the most are against. How many more editors are required to keep flogging this horse here? MSGJ Broichmore (talk) 11:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Gender prefix?! You're confused; people were referring to ship prefixes like USS, HMS, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66 I mean prefixes Her and His only. You can write, The sailing Ship Foo, The steam ship Foo, the United States ship Foo, you cannot write the Her Majesty's ship... So there are 4 genders, mmm. So I should have written it, as before the gender prefixes her or his. Broichmore (talk) 12:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Briochmore, have you compared what you said here with what RexxS added on the naming conventions? Parsecboy (talk) 11:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment: The definite article is not required anywhere when the ship prefix or model names are used, as with 'USS Enterprise', 'CVN-80', and 'Enterprise-A' (the letter A serves as an ordinal).

The definite article is required when referring to a particular ship's name when not using its prefix: "the Enterprise", "the Titanic".

The definite article is required, though with this example: "the CVN-80 vessel", where the definite article relates to the word vessel.

When, for example, comparing CVN-65 and CVN-80, then one can, for the sake of easier readability, use the 65 or the 80, if the items have been made known before, that both are CVN-xx. But such a construct is more informal, and should not be used everywhere.

"These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise..." refers to this Enterprise being a starship; moreover, the definite article here might:

be tied to the word ship;
that it's a star-ship and not a sea-ship,
and is not tied to the word Enterprise.

On the unlikely occasion that the first an third points might not hold, then the rationale for "the Enterprise" would still apply, if then with an addition of the word starship.

HMS Queen Elizabeth goes without the definite article because of the prefix. If the prefix (HMS) is omitted, then the definite article should not be used in this case, because the word Queen serves in place of the prefix here. But it must be italicised. Therefore: "Queen Elizabeth sailed away".

Some confusion might arise with this:

"Queen Elizabeth sailed away on Queen Elizabeth."

The first being the monarch, the latter the ship. Apparently, it would even be grammatically correct.

But if we were to refer to the ship only by its name, then the definite article would apply with "the Elizabeth", or "the Victoria". In and of itself, it would not be grammatically incorrect, but I would discourage this use, if the name also contains a title, as it would be very, very informal, because the word Queen is omitted.

Otherwise, "the Elizabeth" and "the Victoria" would be reasonable, but only, if the ships' names would be standalone, and would not contain a title.

As soon as a title is included with a name, such as Miss Marple, or Sister Inviolata and Sister Euphemia, then the definite article is omitted.

Where the definite article is permitted and required, is this: "the USS Enterprise starship, "the HMS Queen Elizabeth battleship", "the HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier", and so on. -Mardus /talk 11:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the "requirement" of either version. Parsecboy (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Me too. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Mardus That is a rather heavy over-analysis, in my opinion, and I do not agree with much of it. But be that is it may, it doesn't change either my general preference or acceptance that both options have their place (as already noted way up ↑). Davidships (talk) 13:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Davidships. How to move this forward? Broichmore (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Have avoided the definite article in all the ship articles I've written, but don't overly care if the guideline gets changed. However, would prefer that we avoid inconsistent approaches within any one article, and also the mass addition/deletion of definite articles via AWB or similar. Is it possible to approach this as we do with ENGVAR in cases where geographic origins aren't clear: that is, existing articles with a consistent style be maintained unless there's a specific reason to change? -- Euryalus (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I also agree that there is no need for a rule. The one exception is for ships with a prefix beginning with HM; no definite article should precede that prefix when it is used as a prefix . Kablammo (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Now we are agreed I'll write up some appropriate wording... Broichmore (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Any changes in wording should be presented here first for review, discussion & consensus (jmho) - wolf 16:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Lists claiming to include all ships

The search "includes a chronological list of all ships" currently produces 252 hits, e.g. List of ship commissionings in 1981 which says: "The list of ship commissionings in 1981 includes a chronological list of all ships commissioned in 1981." It's odd to claim "all" for a list that will never be complete and shouldn't be complete due to notability. The formulation has been used at least since 2005. Are there any objections to remove the word "all" from all these lists? PrimeHunter (talk) 10:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, I have changed the odd one when I have been doing some other work on these. I do wonder if we should keep the Lists of Commissionings and Decommissionings at all though? Firstly the entries are rarely sourced (either in the list or on the individual article - if it exists), very incomplete and pretty random. Secondly I think only warships are commissioned, what we have is an awful lot of merchant ships changing owner included. Lyndaship (talk) 11:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Civilian vessels undergo sea trials and commisioning too. I notice these articles are incomplete in a sense, because there's no mention that a sea trial, is shake out process where snag lists are compiled, concurrently often with some at sea finishing work.

Commissioning is making good on those snag lists, and where any necessary modifications deemed essential are completed. There's a more than an inference in the latter article that this is somehow purely a naval thing, a ceremonial process, whereas in reality commissioning includes completion of check sheets often involving actual fabrication (welding even) and inspection programmes involving various bodies, leading to a final acceptance, and certification. This process includes formal stages culminating in handover and key turning. There is also a commercial element of possible stage payments tied to these events.

The presentation of these articles hint these stages are as loose and woolly as what a Guard ship is, where in reality, depending on the vessel these are highly structured, detailed and complicated processes.

Obviously the more bespoke and complicated the vessel the longer these procedures are. Broichmore (talk) 13:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Civilian (commercial) vessels are typically delivered complete and ready for service from the shipyard after all sea trials and commissioning work has been completed by the builder. There's usually no separate "post-delivery commissioning phase" or "skahedown cruise"; instead, there's a delivery date (which can be found from various databases) and perhaps another date for the maiden voyage (which can be found from the news if it was somehow notable). Since the word "commissioning" is typically used to refer to warships entering active duty with a naval force, I rarely if ever use it with civilian vessels at least with a "commissioning date". Tupsumato (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Also note that naval ships (at least Royal Navy) are often commissioned several times - being taken out of commission for refits or periods lain up in reserve etc and re-commissioned when returning to active use - at the very least we need to make sure that we clarify any lists etc to be based on "first commissioned".Nigel Ish (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure what the point or usefulness of these lists really is, but could be persuaded. There was some discussion in 2008 on content and "commissioned" at Category talk:Lists of ship commissionings. Worth noting that if they were complete even on the current basis, there would be more entries than the total number of ships potentially covered by WP - virtually all lists would have to be subdivided by month. I do agree that all entries should be referenced directly (if there is no ship or ship-class article yet) or indirectly (via such article). I have put a note on WT:MILHIST. Davidships (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to modify {{Infobox ship career}} so that it adds the article to a dated category (month and year taken from the value assigned to |Ship commissioned=)?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

What about ships that were not commissioned on a specific date? Tupsumato (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Many of the lists have ships with just a month shown. I suppose just the year would be valid (as in Lists of Shipwrecks). Davidships (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, I was really thinking about commercial vessels. Should they be categorized based on delivery date? Which field would be appropriate for it? "Ship completed"? Tupsumato (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Commercial vessels don't always have a well-defined commissioning date like naval vessels do. Sorting by launch date might be the best option. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment - no list should claim to include "all ships", as that is an impossible task. Suggest "all" is replaced with "some" wherever it occurs. Mjroots (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't use either "all" or "some"; some lists may be comprehensive. Kablammo (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Relatedly I fail to understand and shouldn't be complete due to notability. That's one of the explicit purposes of lists - including items that aren't individually notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I didn't mean it should only contain ships that are individually notable. I meant it shouldn't include all non-notable ships. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Notification of bot request

Hi there! Based on the discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Full rigged ship, I have submitted Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BattyBot 54. @Chris the speller: wrote:

There are about a thousand articles that contain the parameter

Ship sail plan = Full rigged ship

but should be

 Ship sail plan = Full-rigged ship

according to well-known dictionaries and common understanding of compound modifiers. About a hundred or so are unlinked, and it wouldn't hurt to link them while we're at it. There may or may not be spaces on either side of the equals sign.

If you have any questions or concerns about this bot request, your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BattyBot 54. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Should articles be on separate ships, or are groups/pairs OK?

See Talk:Kanimbla / Kurra-Ba and Kosciusko - the article is currently about a pair of similar ships, I've suggested to @Merbabu: that it be split into ones about each ship. I'm not sure what the norms are here. It would be useful if others could have a look and comment. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

As the creator of this and a number of similar articles, I've paired ferries from within a loose early 20th century grouping of 25-ish ferries known as the Sydney K-class ferries. While they had broadly same characteristics and were for the same operator, they usually were built in near identical sister pairs.

I would agree that perhaps the case for this particular pairing that @Mike Peel: has picked up is weaker than some of the others. The two vessels which sources decribe as similar were built by different builders and had different careers. On the other hand, for example, Karingal and Karrabee were much more similar, same builder, and had shared a lot more of their history. They make a better article pair.

In summary, my first instinct remains to keep them paired - particularly as I work on the rolling out other articles for the K-class. However, i won't die in a ditch over this particular pair, but suggest that separation of other K-class be considered on a case by case basis. (and maybe after each K-class are given articles - either as pairs, or alone). --Merbabu (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not aware of any particular norms, and in my view either format would be OK in the circumstances described - both points of view have clear merits. If it is thought that combined articles are more difficult to read, maybe a modified format would help. Davidships (talk) 03:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Just a thought, but perhaps these comments, and any future ones, should be on the article talk page? Instead of a split discussion, best to keep it one place. (imho) - wolf 04:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

On the general point, if an article covers 2 or more closely related vessels, there should be redirects from the later listed names, so that a search works. If you search for "Kosciusko", you do not get to the article Kanimbla / Kurra-Ba and Kosciusko.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with redirect point - however, i note since 2004, "Kosciusko" redirects to Tadeusz Kościuszko - which i think is a "more primary" meaning than the ferry. There is a disambig page (Kościuszko (disambiguation)) --Merbabu (talk) 08:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I was hoping by linking to Talk:Kanimbla / Kurra-Ba and Kosciusko at the start that this discussion would happen in one place, on the article talk page. Thanks for the comments. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

No need to apologise - and my comment was intended to refer to your query about norms, and the range of examples mentioned in reply.Davidships (talk) 02:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

FAC that could use attention

Hi all, if anyone has the time, I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Gneisenau/archive1, which hasn't drawn much attention thus far. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

An article on a naval shipbuilding company is proposed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civmec (2nd nomination). I can understand reasoning behind first deletion due in concerns about notability, however as information has now been added that company will be building ships for the Royal Australian Navy, I believe the company is notable. Please provide feedback at proposed deletion page. Regards Newm30 (talk) 11:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

USS Dallas (SSN-700)

Concerns have been expressed by an editor about the validity of WP:SHIPSNOTCREWS on the talk page of this article. Interested editors are invited to comment Lyndaship (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Peterhead

Does anybody know where Peterhead, as in the boat type, should link to? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 05:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Probably whaleboat(s) from Peterhead? C.f.: Peterhead Whaleboat sbb (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

It may depend on context - Peterhead was/is such an important fishing port, that the term may not refer to a specific boat type. Nearest I find to a "type" is Basil Greenhill referring to a "Peterhead herring boat" (lack of capitalisation of the last 2 words is significant - but he is referring to a type of vessel).ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Here is a thread from a forum on the subject. In summary: The Hudson Bay Co. used to sell them, starting with boats actually built in Peterhead and then having similar designs built in Canada. The boats themselves were fishing/workboats in the 40'-45' range, originally schooners and later powered, with an aft cabin; the Inuit use(d) them for hunting, fishing, and moving small cargoes around the north. Broichmore (talk) 12:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

In that case, [[2]] is relevant - details of a vessel described as a "Peterhead" and used by the Hudson Bay Company. Also, possibly, [3]. Photo in [4]. Hudson's Bay Company vessels has "Peterhead" in a list of types, but no more than that. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all. I did find a few images of the type here, here, File:Kimmirut-boat-launch.jpg and Aklavik (HBC vessel). I think it is possible that the term was confined to the Hudson Bay and eastern Arctic area. Nobody here seems to have a clue what a Peterhead was and when I showed them the image said it's a boat. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 05:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you could ask the Arbuthnot Museum, Peterhead for any information? Broichmore (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Admiralty - UK is primary topic or disambig?

Like me you may have found your notifications full of the results of Admiralty being moved to British Admiralty and replaced with disambiguation. This was on basis of brief discussion - two respondents to the move discussion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I got that too. A most dissatisfactory state of affairs. Should have been noticication to at least the SHIPS and MILHIST WikiProjects but there wasn't. I don't suppose it's worth going to DRV, is it? As far as I'm concerned, those that created the mess can sort it out. I'm not going to be fixing any dabs caused by that move. Mjroots (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)