Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 15

SuperFerry 9 on the main page
In case anyone wants to watchlist it while it's up to keep an eye on vandalism...Parsecboy (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added some information and copyedited. I'm having trouble finding sources to fill out the ship specs. The only informative listing I've found is a sale ad at but I haven't used any of the information (unable to confirm).  Shine runner   (talk)   13:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone have this book:
Naval warfare, 1815-1914 by Lawrence Sondhaus? It's available on Google books, but in all four editions online, pg 219 isn't viewable (though of course you can see pages 218 and 220...) Can anyone lend me a hand? Parsecboy (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WorldCat has some editions listed. Some are available online though it appears that you would have to have access to some sort of University network to read them. Otherwise you can search by zip code to find the copy nearest you. --Brad (talk) 11:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS Lützow now open
The A-Class review for SMS Lützow is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

FAC for SMS Hindenburg now open
The Featured Article candidacy for SMS Hindenburg is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Future Ship template
The debate at Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates has decided that all future templates need deleting and that includes the future ship template, am i the only one here who thought those templates were pretty useful for future ship articles? BritishWatcher (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't think so. If a ship isn't yet built then the article should be stating that. The template also added to page clutter and generally made a mess. --Brad (talk) 11:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I've gone and done it...
Hi all. I hope I'm not causing too much trouble, but I've reopened the can of worms over at Scharnhorst class warship (1936). I've come to view the current compromise title as an example of wikiality. I feel that the article would be greatly improved if we could finally settle on either "battleship" or "battlecruiser." The discussion can be found here. Parsecboy (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Alexandria (schooner)
A fairly new article by an inexperienced editor. Could do with a bit of TLC from WP:SHIPS members. Mjroots (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Standart (frigate)
I have written new article about legendary Russian frigate, please check up my English there.--Andrey! 21:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Lady Elizabeth barque ships
Hello- I need asessments and re-assessments for the Lady Elizabeth (1869) and the Lady Elizabeth (1879) to see how the page sits with the crew here on how well the page is put together please. Thank you for your time. 66.41.160.240 (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm now open
The A-Class review for SMS Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 00:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

NOTICE. Request For Comment: Changes to Naming policies which may affect WikiProject naming conventions.
Following recent changes by some editors to the Naming conventions policy page, a Request For Comment, (RFC) is now being held to debate the removal of the passage specifying that individual WikiProject and other naming conventions are able to make exceptions to the standard policy of using Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles.

This WikiProject is being notified since it operates such a specific naming convention. Editors are invited to comment on the proposed change at this location.  Xan  dar  01:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The above "notification" is a grossly biased misrepresentation of the changes under discussion. The old version of the naming conventions policy tried to lay down binding rules; we don't work that way, so it was necessary also to make explicit exceptions. The new version articulates principles, and allows for consensus to establish how they should be applied. Thus there is no longer any need for exceptions. In fact, making exceptions is nonsense, since there are no rules to make exceptions to. These changes are good for specific conventions. Xandar is trying to induce moral panic in those who stand to gain the most from this. Xandar is only opposed to the new version because he thinks the wording, not the general thrust, weakens his position in a dispute unrelated to this RfC. Don't be fooled. Hesperian 02:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Flaghoist signalling
Hi. I came across this new article and was hoping someone from the ships project would have a look. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * unless you want help with it, i suggest that we leave the author to do the authoring, it is called 'initial text' ClemMcGann (talk) 22:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As mentioned in the article, there already exists International Code of Signals. Also see International maritime signal flags.  And the skivvy-wavers also have an article.  There likely is overlap; we'll have to see if this article develops further. Kablammo (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And on a not entirely unrelated subject: Wikipedia contains a number of references to the custom of dressing ship, yet there are no links to an article, as there does not appear to be one.  It could be a nice little addition, if anyone has the sources and the inclination.  Kablammo (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Windmill ship
This seems like an interesting new article that I wanted to bring to the attention of this project. Cheerios. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

halyards and sheets.
hi. I was wondering if anyone knowledgeable about sails and sailing could explain the exact meaning of the order, 'let go the foretopsail halyards! Let go fore and maintopsail sheets!. The order was supposedly given by the captain of HMS Captain (1869) as she was heeling dangerously in a storm, just before she capsized. The source also comments that, '[by that time] the captain was reduced to fore topmast staysail and fore and main topsails double reefed, their yards braced  sharply to the wind from the port bow'. Captain was a three masted experimental turret gun warship.

Not knowing anything about sails i tried looking up the terms but am not confident of explaining exactly what was ordered and what the effect would be. It appears to be saying that only three sails were in use. Then, different things were ordered for the two topsails, but with what effect? Sandpiper (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The order 'let go' would mean release in this context. The problem seems to be that the topsails were catching the wind, which in a strong wind could cause the ship to heel considerably, while the lower sails in the same state, being closer to the ship's centre of gravity, would have less of an effect. The captain of Captain presumably ordered the halyards and sheets of the topsails released in an emergency measure, in the hope of reducing the heeling of his ship. I.e. The sails and stays, albeit reefed, were catching the wind coming from the portside, and causing the ship to roll excessively to starboard, but cutting the lines would allow the yards (which were braced against the wind by the halyards and sheets) to swing away, rather than being held against the wind, and would reduce the roll. Benea (talk) 22:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Padfield says there were only the three sails at the time and topsails at that. As the picture suggests maybe four sails on each mast, I am not sure whether 'topsails' literally means the very top, or might mean more than one per mast. I understand 'let go'. Its specifically the effect of letting go halyards and sheets in the one case, and only halyards in the other case which is bothering me. Halyards would appear to be ropes holding the top of the sail(?), whereas sheets may mean ropes holding the bottom of the sail to the yard below (?). Why issue different orders for these two and what exactly did they amount to? The order appears to be a specific quote though it does not say where from. Given the point you make, I don't see why they would be using top sails and not the lower ones? Sandpiper (talk)


 * According to Parkes, Captain had both watches on deck trying to bring down the topsail yards without success which has a somewhat different ring to it. It is interesting that the boy Gribble heard that the heel of the ship was eighteen degrees, when in July Captain's inclination test had suggested her maximum heel was fifteen to sixteen degrees in smooth water. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 23:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't understand that. The quote I gave is from Padfield/The battleship era, who devotes a few pages to the buildup and sinking. He appears to undertand sails, and his biography rather suggests that he would. I don't know what an inclination test demonstrates. The situation at the sinking would seem to be that the ship was proceeding at an angle to the wind with a lot of force pushing it sideways rather than forwards. If there was a steady wind holding her at about 18 degrees, then any gust pushing her past this would cause capsize (on padfields figures). Sandpiper (talk)


 * As I understand it the sails shown in black in my little diagram are the only ones which were up at the end. The two big ones probably ought to be smaller but I've only found one diagram of a double-reefed sail so far which didn't help.  As to what Parkes said about yards, that suggests that in desperation Captain tried to bring down the whole of the fore and main topsails by bringing down the yards (cross spars)to which the sails were attached, rather than just releasing the "sheets".  As to an inclination test, that is a test of inclination.  Parkes too devotes a number of pages to the loss of Captain.  If you'd read the garbage which Padfield wrote about director-firing you would treat anything he writes with a certain measure of caution. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 09:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This image also accurately shows the sails set, but on the image the topsails do not appear to be reefed (that is, shortened, which on square sails is accomplished by taking them up from the "head" or top of the sail). It appears to represent the sail set prior to reefing.  (Wikipedia's article on reefing discusses only reefing of fore-and-aft sails, in which the reef points are tied to the boom at the "foot" of the sail, and not of square sails, where the points are tied to the yard above.  An illustrated description of the process is here, under Naval Tactics.)  Kablammo (talk) 12:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That last section on Naval Tactics is where I found the one diagram I referred to earlier. Seeing it with all the other drawings makes a lot more sense (the joy of Google search).  I think therefore the fore and main topsail yards should be alot lower than shown in my drawing. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 12:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. To summarize (and feel free to edit or corect):
 * Simon Hartley's sketch accurately shows the sail set prior to foundering.
 * The other image Linked above also accurately shows the sail set. (That image would be a useful addition to Wikipedia commons, if its provenance can be established.)
 * As a sail are reefed from the yard, and the yard is then lowered, it is not clear from the images whether they show the sails double-reefed. There can be multiple bands of reef points on a sail; such rows are shown on the external link above, below the yards on both fore and mainmasts from which the sails depended.
 * Kablammo (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This is just as bad as particle physics. Thanks for all the comments. I am bothered that the image I posted of Captain shows four yards and four sails on each mast, whereas the britishempire website picture has only three yards, as does the alternative ship picture shown on the HMS Captain article. Someone has made a mistake or these extra yards might have been taken down?

Harley, I am amazed to find an inclination test tests inclination, but while I had the inclination to look it up on wiki, I couldn't find an article. I suppose I only had about 18 degrees of inclination, so didn't carry on looking but just asked. Your diagram makes sense.

So I am now left with the question whether what happened on the ship was reasonable. The padfield description seems to suggest that the heel of the ship caught them by surprise and they did not have time to reduce sails further. Some of the comments here suggest that they had time but were unable to reduce sail. That sounds as though there might have been a contribution to the sinking by crew error, in leaving up sails in conditions where it became impossible to take them down? Sandpiper (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be typical to send down unused yards. Any tophamper such as yards without sails would catch the wind in heavy weather.
 * I believe you will find that Captain often sailed with her lee rail under, to the alarm of some on board. Her design made her loss inevitable. Kablammo
 * Does Padfield mention that in the evening of 6 September (hours before the final capsizing) Admiral Milne visited Captain and the ship already had a heel of 13½°, but was assured by Coles and Burgoyne that it wasn't a problem? --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 06:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, though he puts it slightly differently and says the admiral was rather concerned about the sea washing over the deck one side, and later comments the deck touched the sea at around 14 degrees. I recall there were some comments about the later HMS Victoria that the fore deck was often under water, also some of the later steel battleships/battlecruisers, bacchante class armoured cruisers had gun ports unopenable in high seas. Designers did not give up on keeping the superstructure as low as possible. I don't know how much a sailing ship might have been expected to lean over in such conditions, but it sounds as though a normal ship would lean at least as much quite safely, so the crew would not automatically be worried about that? Sandpiper (talk) 08:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If I can bring this back to the initial question, the meaning of '' 'let go the foretopsail halyards! Let go fore and maintopsail sheets!'. '' What was the specific effect on the two topsails of the different commands supposedly given? Should 'let go halyard' be interpreted as causing the whole yard complete with sail to be released and come crashing down? So the fore topsail is being completely chucked, whereas there is still an attempt to keep the maintopsail yard and sail in place, just furled (or flapping from the yard?) Sandpiper (talk) 08:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Was there not generally a midpoint attachment of the yard to the mast, to transmit force and provide for smooth pivoting when trimming or tacking? Dankarl (talk) 16:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm confused about the language. I would have thought the halyard was attached to the staysail, and that jeers were attached to the yards to which the topsails were tied.  Kablammo (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Tosa class battleship now open
The A-Class review for Tosa class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  22:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Iowa class battleships and importance criteria
Transcluded from here. Ryan 4314  (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Importance criteria
By no means do I want to start a shit storm (I am aware of Op Majestic Titan), but I don't believe this article meets the "Top" importance criteria in WP:Ships. The criteria states "Top" is for "Ship types, like aircraft carrier and galleon", whilst "High" importance is for "Ship classes, like County class cruiser." The Battleship article is a Top, however this is a High. Additionally all the individual ship articles in this class are rated at High, when they should be Mid; "Individual ships, like USS Fletcher (DD-445)." Ryan 4314  (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Then shouldn't you bring this up at WT:SHIPS instead of here? -MBK004 00:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Its possible the article has an honorary ranking being as how its the center piece of the WP:SHIPS specific FT, however if you think the importance rating is in error it would probably be best to ask there and not here because I'm not familiar enough with there importance ranking to offer an opinion on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The second criteria for "Top" importance is Highly visited articles, like RMS Titanic or Mayflower. I submit that the Iowa class ships are amongst the most famous vessels ever operated by the US Navy, and merit the "Top" rating. As a bit of evidence, the Iowa class page was viewed almost 30,000 times in July and the Iowa class, Iowa, Missouri, and Wisconsin articles are among the most visited articles at WP:MARITIME. Parsecboy (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to disagree, they made a major motion picture about Titanic and the Mayflower founded the world's only superpower. Conversely if we use the "page views logic", HMS Cardiff (D108) was visited 50,000 times in the space of one month thus also making it eligible of Top importance critiria, no? Of course not, these high page views can be attributed to the article's FA class/FA topic. Ryan 4314   (talk) 00:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That still doesn't mean the ships aren't among the most famous warships ever operated by the United States. searching "Iowa class battleship" nets nearly 20 million hits in Google. In terms of historic relevance, for example, Missouri was the ship on which the Japanese surrendered and WWII ended. Parsecboy (talk) 01:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Still doesn't make it as revolutionary to the world as the invention of the Aircraft Carrier or the Galleon. Ryan 4314   (talk) 01:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They don't have to be. They just have to be very famous ships, like the Titanic or Mayflower. You have barely addressed this issue; the fact that the ships didn't have a movie made about them is irrelevant (though Missouri did get a visit from Steven Seagal). I will repeat it again: they are among the most famous ships ever operated by the US Navy, and as such are among the most well known ships in the United States, one of our primary reader bases. As such, they clearly meet the second criteria. Parsecboy (talk) 12:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They are not as globally famous at the Titanic or Mayflower, school kids aren't taught about the Iowas. Ryan 4314   (talk) 13:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't taught about the Titanic either. Are you going to dispute Bismarck's top rating as well based on that argument? Parsecboy (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? Wow, so when did you finally learn about the Titanic then, when they made the film? Nah the Bismarck should stay there.
 * I learned about it when I read books on my own time. The difference in fame between the Iowas and Bismarck is minute, if there is one at all&mdash;they are all incredibly famous ships and merit the "Top" rating.Parsecboy (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. I still find it laughable that you trying to insist you've never heard of the Titanic. 2. The construction of the Iowa class was still not as developmental in the history of ships as the Aircraft Carrier or the Galleon as per WP:ships criteria. Neither is it as famous as the Titanic, Mayflower, Bismarck or Mary Rose. Ryan 4314   (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And another thing: your point about Cardiff is irrelevant; the 50,000 page views was essentially only for the day it was on the main page. The Iowas are consistently highly viewed; in fact, the Iowa class article as well as the article for Missouri, both at nearly 30k last month, were viewed a couple thousand more times than Mayflower. Parsecboy (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If anything you've just proved ur own argument wrong, that Wikipedia hits do not indicate fame (if they do, then major motion pictures certainly do!) and that such high numbers are actually the product of having FAs everywhere and probably from an insistence of being on the top importance list. Ryan 4314   (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, because readers look at pages because they're rated "Top" or they have a little gold star in the corner :/ They look at the pages because they're interested in them, by and large. And the reason they're interested in these ships (as opposed to, say, SMS Von der Tann, an FA I wrote that only get a couple thousand views per month) is, survey says...because they're famous. Parsecboy (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

(out) - the SHIPS importance rating has nothing to do with motion pictures... the importance rating has to do with how important it is within our project. I highly doubt that it changes the web hits by more than a couple. But I digress. How about we all shut up and go our separate ways? We're arguing over an importance rating. Again: an importance rating. Does it really make that much of a difference if Iowa-class battleship is high or top? — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  15:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think all this is another good reason to do away with the importance rating. Plenty of other projects don't use it anymore, for one thing... and when all is said and done, the importance rating is not actually particularly important - in fact it's fairly irrelevant. I would also say that if people are now having a lengthy debate over why it should be one importance rating over another - something that has no bearing on the average reader of the article at all - then it clearly has become irrelevant ;) Martocticvs (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe the importance rating might have had some use in setting some sort of priority for the generation of new or improved articles, but I think it's pretty obsolete for that function now and should be deleted as I see no real use for it now. It certainly has no bearing on my decisions on what articles to write. That all depends on mood and available sources. (Oooh, shiny!) Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This topic has come up twice before with no resolution. The last time it was discussed there seemed to be a majority in favor or discontinuing the use of importance ratings but nothing was done officially. Are we ready now? --Brad (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with getting rid of them. Like I said one of the other times this was brought up, the importance rating doesn't matter to most editors when they decide what articles to edit. They'll write about what interests them. Parsecboy (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the drama generated by importance debates outweighs the marginal usefulness of having the categories. That said, it's not clear to me how objecting to a high importance rating, especially on articles that receive a great deal of attention, serves the project.  In any case, support removing.   H aus Talk 22:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that a Top rating for the class article is stretching it a bit far but I'm not opposed to it being rated such. The Iowa's are very notable as they were capital ships that served in WWII, Korea, Vietnam and the Gulf War not to mention the infamous turret explosion on Iowa. Therefore the individual ships themselves should have the High rating but you will notice that the two canceled ships are rated Low. --Brad (talk) 01:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Support or oppose importance rating removal
As mentioned above there have been conversations on this issue twice before and now a third time. Enter your signature below to support or oppose the removal of the importance ratings. We can leave this here as long as needed to arrive at some consensus. Removal will not cause any additional work as only an adjustment of the project banner is needed to deactivate them.

Support removal

 * 1) --Brad (talk) 00:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak support.  Would prefer the drama went away instead, but don't see that as likely.   H aus Talk 01:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) - Importance ratings don't serve much of a purpose; editors will write the articles that interest them. And to some extent, they're motivated to write more obscure articles, if only for the sake of avoiding editing disputes (I know this was discussed somewhere at some point in the past, probably over at WT:MILHIST). What's actually happening is the exact opposite of what the importance ratings are supposed to create (or at least my understanding of the purpose of importance ratings, that is). Look at the FAs that are within this project's scope: only a few are higher than "mid" rating, and the majority of those (for example, Moltke class battlecruiser, which is "High" rating) are still pretty obscure. Since everyone (including myself) is largely ignoring article importance, why not just get rid of them as other projects have done? Parsecboy (talk) 02:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) My thoughts echo Parsec's. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  03:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) My thoughts also echo Parsec's for the most part. Importance ratings serve no purpose these days, editors will edit what interests them, not articles that are deemed "important." We are all aware of articles that are important to the project, ship types etc and as mentioned above, given the propensity for disputes, are the least likely to reach the higher echelons of our rating system. Woody (talk) 09:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) I hadn't thought about external use of the ratings, but since they're pretty straightforward I don't see why we really need to bother keeping them. I see endless opportunities for arguments with a system that rates an article on the Yastreb-class guard ships as more important than one on the Bismarck or Yamato. As a ship buff I can understand why we do that, but to an uninitiated reader that's just crazy; they're going to assign a value based on fame/popularity. And we cater to that ourselves since popular ships have more information available to use as grist for articles and we ourselves may be more interested in those types of ships. I mean, really, how many highly important articles on minor warship classes are we missing compared to individual larger ships of mid-importance? So, to sum up, I see no real value in keeping importance ratings. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) I support removal, seems the idea was only implemented for the creation of Wikipedia 1.0  Ryan 4314   (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose removal

 * 1) I will conceded that importance is not typically the deciding factor in determining what editors will edit, but the importance rating is not solely used internally by the project. In one of the previous discussions I noted that the selection of WP Ships articles for the Wikipedia 0.7 release was made, in part, by our project's importance ratings. I will also echo Kralizec!'s words from that same discussion: our importance-assessment scheme for the project is pretty straightforward to implement, and will add that, despite a few differences of opinion every now and then, it works pretty well. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, I don't think it's true that "despite a few differences of opinion every now and then, it works pretty well". A number of my shipyard articles, like this one, have remained unrated because there is no consensus as to how to rate shipyards. Likewise, articles like marine steam engine have been rated from "low" to "high" by different editors with different views. Unless issues like this are cleared up, I don't think we can say that the rating system is currently working well. Gatoclass (talk) 05:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to agree with you. Far more misunderstandings and changing of ratings happen than is brought up here for discussion. It happened again on two articles that I've been working up the assessment scale. My talk page has also brought comments from people because I rated their article to something they dislike. If you're not assessing articles you obviously don't see this going on which is why I suspect some believe it's not a problem. The other question is to ask why two major projects like Milhist and Bio aren't using importance ratings. Does that mean their article aren't being selected for CD release? --Brad (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Some disagreement over the ratings is natural, however I am confident we can work through those in a case-by-case examination.  Our importance rating system is straightforward, intuitive, and works great for 99.9% of articles.  I see no need to junk the system just because consensus has been elusive for a couple of the remaining .1% of assessments.  — Kralizec! (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) My thoughts echo Bellhalla and Kralizec! on this matter. -MBK004 03:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) If the rating is only to help prioritize writing and improving articles then why not call it a priority rating, with two levels: High and regular.  High means its absence (or weakness) leaves an obvious gap in the encyclopedia - obvious, that is, to someone other than a ship or history buff.Dankarl (talk) 02:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal
Looks like there is enough consensus to disable the importance ratings. But I will wait another week before making the effort to get them disabled. --Brad (talk) 11:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The change was made a few hours ago. Database may lag in updating everything right away but so far things look good. --Brad (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Amagi class battlecruiser now open
The featured article candidacy for Amagi class battlecruiser is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 05:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

James Howden
I've started a page on the Scottish engineer James Howden who invented the Howden System of Forced Draught that was used on the the Lusitania, Mauretania, Queen Mary, Normandie and Queen Elizabeth, amongst others. As I have no marine engineering knowledge whatsoever it would be good if someone who does could look at this and explain what this system is and its significance in the greater marine engineering scheme of things. Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

in scope?
I'm confused,

I tagged Aamv and List of ground effect vehicles with the project tag, but it was removed as not in scope

The Ground effect vehicle article says that it is high importance to this project, so why isn't the list within the scope of this project? (note the article says that the International Maritime Organization classifies them as boats.

The Aamv article clearly says it's a marine vehicle that is always in contact with the water, and uses hydrodynamic lift... like a hydrofoil...

Are these out of scope of the project?

76.66.197.30 (talk) 05:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd say they should be tagged as WP:SHIPS articles. The IMO classifies them as ships. The tagging for WP:AVIATION is also correct as these vehicle have more in common with aircraft than ships. Mjroots (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As there have been no objections, I've reverted the deletion on both talk pages. Mjroots (talk) 05:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Expeditions
I just added a infobox to the page Tara_expedition because it was classified as schooner, but I'm wondering about th next steps: a- rename the article Tara_(schooner) and include the boat history and expeditions in one single page, or b- make a new article Tara_(schooner) and keep the expeditions separated? I prefer solution a but I don't know how to make that happen... Thank for helping a newcomer!
 * (Anneyh?). I would keep it how it is, but the article does need a lot of work.  I think the actual ship is not particlularly important compared to its function, so I'd keep the basic structure and concentrate more on what its role is.
 * Also, please remember to sign your contributions on talk pages using the four tildes; it makes it a lot easier to use. Jhbuk (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I usually sign. I'll grab more material on the expeditions. The new one just started. --Anneyh (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sort of doing the same thing for Tanager Expedition, and we currently have a separate page for USS Tanager (AM-5). Both pages need an image of the ship, many of which are free and available, but I would prefer if an expert from the project would choose one (or as many as they like) and upload it. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 11:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The difference between that and the Tara is that it seems to me that the only reason the Tara would be notable is because of its purpose in this expedition. The USS Tanager was a notable warship in its own right.  I still think you should keep it how it is. Jhbuk (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Will do. Any recommendations on where I can find the best free photographs of the ship? Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, I have uploaded File:USS Tanager (AM-5).jpg. Viriditas (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS Nassau now open
The A-Class review for SMS Nassau is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 21:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for SMS Derfflinger now open
The featured article candidacy for SMS Derfflinger is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 21:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ibuki
I propose renaming Japanese cruiser Ibuki (1907) to either Armoured cruiser Ibuki or Battlecruiser Ibuki. Loosmark (talk) 02:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like from the article that during the bulk of their (short) service career, they were classed as battlecruisers by the IJN (heavy cruiser: 1907–12; battlecruiser 1912–23). Assuming that the article is accurate, I see no objections to JAPANESE BATTLECRUISER Ibuki. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, if Ibuki is moved, JAPANESE CRUISER Kurama should be as well. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually i'm very puzzled the article says there were classified as heavy cruisers because I don't think the IJN introduced the heavy cruiser classification until they build the Furutaka class cruisers (which, i'm not mistaken, was after the Washington treaty, so much later). According to Lacroix's Japanese cruisers of the Pacific War, the Ibuki class were classified in the fleet construction program as "armoured cruisers" (the Kongo class was classified as such too but apparently changed to battlecruisers even before the contruction started) Then it seems that later they were reclassified as "battlecruisers". I did a bit of research and it seems that they were some sort of a transitional class between armoured cruisers and battlecruisers. For example http://www.hazegray.org/ calls them semi-battlecruisers and notes that both the Ibuki and Tsukada classes were built as exceptionally powerful armored cruisers but were often identified as battlecruisers and were reclassified as such in 1912.  They clearly belong in the Capital Ship category of battlecruisers rather than in cruiser categories, especially when compared to the previous two armored cruisers. Anyway I have 2 of the sources the article use and I'll check them later to see what they have to say about it. Loosmark (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio in Explosion! Museum of Naval Firepower
I have tagged this article as a copy of the museum's website. Kablammo (talk) 01:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Escort carrier classes proposal
In my personal project of systematizing the existing category structure for ships, I've come up against a dilemma regarding escort carrier class article and class category names. The ship naming conventions suggest that ship class articles be named "[Class name] class [basic ship type]" so that we have names like "Example class frigate" rather than the harder-to-find, or harder-to-remember, "Example class light fleet escort missile frigate" (or some such). Although there is no corresponding naming convention for class category names, there is strong consensus at WP:CFD for matching the class category name to the class article name. In the case of escort carriers right now, most class articles and categories are titled using "aircraft carrier" rather than "escort carrier", although there are some that are the other way around. And, frustratingly, there are some cases where the class article name and its corresponding class category don't match. Some other observations I've made:
 * There is a unique article (i.e. not a just redirect) for escort carrier
 * The United States Navy, one of the three main navies (the Royal Navy and Imperial Japanese Navy being the other two) to employ escort carriers, seemingly viewed them as separate from 'regular' aircraft carriers: the CVE hull code had a different numbering scheme than was/is used for the CV, CVA, CVB, CVL, CVN, etc., hull codes, which are all grouped into one numbering system.

What I'd like to propose is this: for escort carrier class articles that we standardize on using "[Class name] class escort carrier" (and not "escort aircraft carrier" or "aircraft carrier") and for class categories that we standardize on "[Class name] class escort carriers". So, to pick a mismatched example, Casablanca-class escort carrier would remain at the same name while Category:Casablanca class aircraft carriers would be renamed Category:Casablanca class escort carriers. What does everyone else think? — Bellhalla (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Makes sense, I support your proposal. Loosmark (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, this seems sensible. I would add though that it does make sense to me to place escort carrier and aircraft carrier categories in the same Category:Aircraft carrier classes parent category as the difference is not always clearly defined between different navies and eras.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I had in mind, too, as far as Category:Aircraft carrier classes was concerned. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur with all. - BilCat (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur as well -MBK004 23:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Surely the problem has to be that an early ship classified by its owners as an aircraft carrier will be smaller and slower than later ships classified as escort carriers. A category ought to hold comparable ships and splitting them by a name which was only applicable at a particular period in history doesn't make sense. To be consistent you need a definition of '....carrier' which is time-independant?

Incidentally, I just came across the torpedo boat carrier HMS Vulcan (1889) which seems to me to perform the role of an early aircraft carrier as its purpose is also transporting deck launched remote attack machines. Where does this fit into the categorisation system?Sandpiper (talk) 08:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Why are they "xxxx class ESCORT aircraft carrier" when so far as you point out we don't make the distinction of "xxxx class LIGHT cruiser". We have Majestic class aircraft carrier and not "Majestic class light aircraft carrier" yet there were about as many British light fleet carrier classes as there were US escort classes. The escort part of the article name is redundant as ship class names are not repeated. I see no probem with a subcat of aircraft carriers being escort aricraft carriers equally there could be a subcat of merchant aircraft carriers but to include the aircraft carrier type in the article name seems to be bordering on unecessary disambiguation. If we set the escort carriers to "xxxx class aircraft carriers" like the rest, half the problem of category matching goes away. To go the other way opens a case for retitling a lot of ship articles for no particular need. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

More ship tables for deletion.
Ship table header 01 and Ship table header 02 have finally been cleared of several thousand articles that were using them. did the majority of the conversions so we owe him a big thanks! Please delete these old templates under the housekeeping rule. I certainly won't miss them one bit. --Brad (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Both have been deleted. :-) — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  21:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Collins class submarine now open
The A-Class review for Collins class submarine is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 05:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for HMS Graph (P715) now open
The peer review for HMS Graph (P715) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 00:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Premier Cruises draft article
Any comments or suggestions that could improve this draft article would be appreciated User:Miami33131/Premier Cruises —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miami33131 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ooobbs for got to signMiami33131 (talk) 02:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussing project banner changes.
@ Template_talk:WikiProject_Ships. Input is welcome and I believe the proposed changes are an improvement albeit all minor in nature. --Brad (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Brazilian cruiser Bahia now open
The featured article candidacy for Brazilian cruiser Bahia is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  19:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for USS Chesapeake (1799) now open
The A-Class review for USS Chesapeake (1799) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 04:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Empire ship articles
Some of the articles for individual Empire ships have a "Background" section" and some of them don't. Mostly my fault as I created most of them lol. If there are no objections I propose th addition of the section to all articles which currently lack it, per SS Empire Abbey. Mjroots (talk) 12:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that's such a good idea. It means people who want to read a number of the articles are going to be reading the same thing on page after page.


 * IMO you'd be better off creating some sort of "Empire ships" article and just putting all the info there, and then just linking to it in the text in the same way you would for a ship class article. Gatoclass (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Concur with Gatoclass, I don't see the point of using boilerplate text in this way. A single article with links from the ship articles would be more appropriate. Benea (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, If I do create such an article it will be rather stubby. The boilerplate text is already in as the lead of each of the lists of Empire ships. Maybe I'll leave it at that. Mjroots (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Haven't you got a book about the Empire ships? Surely they have a few words about the history of the concept in that? Gatoclass (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I borrowed that from the library, there's only one copy in the whole of Kent and it went back ages ago. Mjroots (talk) 05:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There is only one copy in Essex too and it happened to be at my local library, so I've got it now. I have made a start on the generic article - Empire ships.  Only problem is that it is currently single sourced, only when I've finished I should be able to back up the main source with references for individual ship biographies.  Now a couple of questions for Mjroots - Are you going to create articles for every ship, or leave the less interesting ones just in the lists?  Is it worth creating sublists or sub-categories (but sub-categories those only will only work if every ship has an article), for eg Empire ships transferred to Belgium, Empire CAM ships etc? Viv Hamilton (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * All Empire ships which I feel have sufficient notability to sustain an individual article are redlinked in whichever "List of Empire ships" list is applicable. It may be in a few cases that it will not be possible to write more than a stub article, in which case simply de-linking the list entry will be the way to go. Mostly the smaller vessels aren't redlinked (coasters and tugs) with the exception of those shipwrecked, lost to enemy action, recent survivors and current survivors (there are two surviving Empire ships). I'll gradually work through the lists, interspersed with Dutch windmill articles and other stuff. If anyone wants to fill in a few of the gaps then I'll not object. Two useful sources are Miramar ship index and Plimsoll ship data. The latter has Lloyds register entries for all ships over 100 GRT between 1930 and 1945. Mjroots (talk) 06:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've made a few improvements to the Empire ships article and raised a couple of points on the talk page. Re sub-cats, I don't think that will be necessary. Category:Empire ships covers them, plus the categories for World War II merchant ship by country, Merchant ships by country and Steamships by country (if applicable). Mjroots (talk) 07:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that we have a nice article on Empire ships, I see little justification for retaining the "Background" boilerplate in the individual articles. Comments? Gatoclass (talk) 07:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No objection to removal from individual ship articles. Needs a link somewhere in said article to the Empire ships article though. Mjroots (talk) 08:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, a link would certainly be appropriate. Gatoclass (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added a wikilink to the Empire ships article from each of the Empire ships templates by sufffix letter. Mjroots (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

(out) Is it possible to do anything about the pile of templates at the bottom of Empire ships? I think it looks really tacky with 24 templates all stacked together. Wouldn't Empire ships work better? --Brad (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd forgotten about that template. It could be rewritten to link to all the lists of Empire ships articles. It's original use has now been superseded by the individual templates by suffix letter. Mjroots (talk) 07:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅, all templates replaced by one which links to all lists. Mjroots (talk) 08:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That looks heaps better, thanks Mj. Gatoclass (talk) 08:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've retitled the article to Empire ship (singular) to match the naming style of other type/class articles, like Liberty ship and Victory ship. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

WWII convoys
I've posted a proposal at WT:MILHIST to create and add templates to individual convoy articles. Comments there please. Mjroots (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Cargo liners
I've created the cargo liner article. Assistance with expanding it would be welcome. Mjroots (talk) 11:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, not sure about the title, in my experience these ships were usually referred to as passenger freighters, or passenger-cargo ships. Gatoclass (talk) 11:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Title seems perfectly good to me, it is used in the title of the book by Lord Ambrose Greenway after all! Mjroots (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have more commonly heard them referred to as passenger freighters or passenger-cargo ships, but they are often referred to as cargo liners, which I think is a more appropriate title. Jhbuk (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've created redirects for the alternative terms. Mjroots (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I wonder if the definition is too restrictive. The article relies on a source coming from a period when there was no great specialization in ocean-going merchant ships, and when every ship that carried passengers also carried cargo.  The word "liner" is now attached to many types of merchant ships operated by shipping lines; it has been used for cruise liners, container liners which do not carry passengers, and even for a barge carrier, Baco-liner.  We may be imposing too strict a definition on the term cargo liner to say that they all carry passengers.  While it is true that the term ocean liner refers to passenger-carrying ships, that is not the case for all other types of liners.  Kablammo (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to suggest that the term is archaic; it has been used for recent vessels such as NS Savannah and cargo-passenger ships of the Blue Funnel Line, among others. My only question is whether the term means that passengers could be carried, or if it is more generic and included non-passenger freighters on line voyages.  Kablammo (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If the definition is too restrictive please expand the article to widen the definition. While ocean liners and cruise ships may carry cargo, their primary purpose was to carry passengers. Cargo liners were more concerned with the carriage of cargo, with passengers generally an added extra bringing in a bit more revenue. From a passenger's point of view, they could possibly be considered in the same light as flying with a flag carrier or a budget airline - i.e. they were a lot more attractive if cost was your primary consideration.


 * BTW, if you know of any articles not already added to the Category:Cargo liners, please add them. Mjroots (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the point Kablammo was making is that "cargo liner" these days may be used for cargo only ships, in the same way that "container liner" is used, or be confused with such.
 * My own impression is that "cargo liner" is a British usage that is not in widespread use. Indeed, I never even heard of the term until Mj wrote the article. Another problem is that if you google "cargo liner" it turns out to be a term widely employed for a type of boot mat used in motor vehicles - in fact this is by far the most frequent usage, running into hundreds of thousands of hits, whereas hits for cargo liner ships appear to be very few and far between. Gatoclass (talk) 02:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, the problem of a phrase being usurped for modern purposes. Maybe "cargo liner" is a British useage, but redirects have been created for alternate terms so that shouldn't be too big a problem. If an editor creates an article for the modern useage there is a disambiguation process to differentiate between the two. Mjroots (talk) 05:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Mjr-- I found a useful definition in . I will post later to article talk page.  Kablammo (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Now added. I agree with your statement above of 18:36 28 October.  Kablammo (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but again that's a British source. What American (for example) source uses the term? In every US source I've seen, they are referred to a passenger freighters or passenger-cargo ships.
 * Also, I'm a little uncomfortable with the term because liner is often interpreted to mean a first class vessel, and I'm not sure the average passenger freighter would fit the bill. Gatoclass (talk) 12:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Having just taken a look at the article, I'm not even sure the definition is accurate, or if it is, that it is referring to the same type of ship at all. Many of the passenger freighters I have read about did not carry passengers as a secondary, or intermittent, function - their passenger component was every bit as important, if not more so, than their freight component. But you wouldn't know that from reading this article. Also, most freighters have, or had, a modest ability to carry passengers, but if you read this article you would come away with the impression that any freighter which can carry passengers would qualify as a "cargo liner", and while that may be the case for cargo liners (I don't know), it certainly isn't for passenger freighters. Gatoclass (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The definition is a quote from the source, but the text after may need some tweaking. I'll take a look.  Kablammo (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) If that is an accurate definition of a cargo liner, then it is essentially referring to a ship's function rather than its form. To put it another way, under this definition, any freighter employed in regular sailings on a fixed route would qualify as a "cargo liner", even if it carried no passengers at all. Is that an accurate definition? If not, I think this definition should be dropped from the article as it can only mislead readers. Gatoclass (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the term 'liner' actually suggests anything about its class: a one star cruise ship could still be described as a cruise liner, and many "cargo liners" have this or a better level of quality. The term may be perceived by some as having a link with a higher class of vessel, but I don't think it necessarily implies this. However, it does not appear really to suggest any particular function, other than possibly it being part of a line: Hapag-lloyd describes their container ships as liners for example:. Regarding the prevalence of the term, the phrasing shuold be used to reflect in which country "cargo liners" are most common, athough this may be difficult to judge and is probaly fairly even. I think we should just go for a definition which everone can understand;can I point out now that the RMS St Helena [website] describes her as a "cargo-passenger ship". Jhbuk (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Cargo-passenger ship redirects to... guess where? Mjroots (talk) 14:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Gatoclass, if a source states that a ship is a cargo liner then it should be described as such, and added to that category. In the case that you mention, I'd say that it wasn't a cargo liner unless described as such by a RS. Mjroots (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Cargo-passenger ship redirects to... guess where?" That's irrelevant; my point is that their preferred name is cargo-passenger ship, not cargo liner, which may suggest that cargo liner is less commonly used, or less clear to readers. Either way, there must be some good reason they have chosen to use it. Jhbuk (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The two books I have added to the sources (and another in the National Maritime Museum series on The Ship) routinely use the term "cargo liner", and the definitions and descriptions each give are consistent with each other and the online source referenced in the article. As for nomenclature:  Wikipedians sometimes get too caught up in narrowly and precisely defined categories, and think that membership in one excludes another.  I'm not saying that is happening here, but we need to resist the temptation to impose a logical order that does not actually exist in the real world.  There is no question that the term "cargo liner" was routinely used to describe, not a certain narrow  type of ship, but a broad spectrum of vessels used for a variety of purposes.  And even if the term was principally a matter of British usage, the majority of the world's tonnage was British for much of the period in question.  Kablammo (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I was going to post this - As the article says, cargo liners were mostly active between the 1860s and 1970s, so the term should generally be viewed as a historic one. Cargo-passenger ship, passenger-cargo ship, passenger freighter are also used to describe this class of ships but Kablammo has just said it much better than I could. Mjroots (talk) 17:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent - as mainly in response to Jhbuk) I agree with Mjroots about the historic context of the term. I think the distinction and the reason for coining a term cargo liner was that they went faster than the norm for cargo ships of the time. Certainly that is clear from the context where I have read them. Once commercial avaiation became widespread, affordable and accepted, the need for them presumably disappeared. Viv Hamilton (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * One more point: While passenger carriage was a typical feature of such vessels, there were freighters on regular line service which did not have passenger accomodations.  Southampton Castle and Good Hope Castle of the Union Castle Line were examples of such ships; although they were not "cargo-passenger" ships (or some variation of that term) they nevertheless were called "cargo liners".  Miller, The Last Blue Water Liners, p. 57.  Kablammo (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * But that's the point I'm making. "Cargo liner" according to the definition of this article is not synonymous with "passenger freighter" or "passenger-cargo ship". So it should not be substituted for the other terms. To put it another way, ships that are described in the literature as passenger freighters or passenger-cargo ships should not be described as "cargo liners". Gatoclass (talk) 01:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW here is one book that has an extensive discussion of cargo liners, and which also makes the distinction between cargo liners and "passenger-cargo liners". Gatoclass (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The "categories" are not exclusive, and overlap. A passenger-freighter or passenger-cargo ship can be a cargo liner, and is described as such by reliable sources.  It may be that some cargo liners do not carry passengers, but according to reliable sources most did.  We should not impose precision where none existed, nor state that different terms are mutually exclusive where they have not been used that way.  The source you cite actually makes the point very well.  All major passenger liners until the 1950s also carried cargo.  Many freighters also carried passengers.  Ships carrying 12 passengers were treated as freighters under applicable regulations.  Mail liners carried more than mail. Yet terms such as cargo liners, ocean liners, mail liners, and freighters were used despite a lack of precision. We should not, at this remove, retrospectively impose uniformity of usage upon terms in use for more than a century, nor limit the scope of those terms when they were not so limited historically.  Kablammo (talk)


 * We should not, at this remove, retrospectively impose uniformity of usage upon terms in use for more than a century
 * I agree, but that is essentially the point I'm making. We shouldn't be referring to ships as "cargo liners" that are called passenger freighters or passenger cargo ships. By all means link this article to ships described as "cargo liners", but not to the other categories. Gatoclass (talk) 04:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The best way to deal with this is to expand the article to describe passenger-cargo ships / cargo-passenger ships / passenger freighters more fully. Mjroots (talk) 05:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Or we could have separate articles, but I'm not about to quibble over that right now. My main concern ATM is that ships that are described in the literature as "passenger cargo ships" or "passenger freighters" etc are not changed in their articles to "cargo liner", since cargo liner is a more generic term that doesn't make it clear these ships carried passengers. Gatoclass (talk) 02:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

U-boats
A template has been created which will cut down the amount of typing needed when referring to U-boats. See GS for details. Mjroots (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

One ship, two names = two articles?
I don't know how to handle this: SMS Stralsund and French armoured cruiser Mulhouse are the same ship, but in different articles. Is it usual stated in two articles? I also noticed, that several ships were in wrong categories. Sebastian scha. (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It depends on the ships. I personally think that all 'incarnations' of the same hull should be in the same article, with the article title being the more 'famous' or well known name. However, common practice and consensus appears to be if the actual or potential size of the articles would be too large to be combined, or if there is disagreement over which is the 'more famous' incarnation of the hull it is better to keep them separate. -- saberwyn 22:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks. IMHO there should be only one article, but it's okay. Sebastian scha. (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * These two articles should be merged as they are both stubs. If it is possible to write two decent article about the ship under each name then there may be some justification in having two articles, but not in this case. Mjroots (talk) 05:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My vote would be to combine the articles onto SMS Stralsund as her war service was in this incarnation. Even the point about the construction in the French armoured cruiser Mulhouse stub fits more naturally into construction as being part of her original incarnation.  I've added merge templates Viv Hamilton (talk) 08:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Nautical day-trips for tourists
A suggestion: project members should consider better organization and perhaps broader coverage of the smaller vessels designed to haul tourists for sightseeing. While there's plenty of individual articles around, category:Passenger ships doesn't have an obvious sub-category to look for them, and neither does category:Boats, category:Tourist activities, or category:Types of tourism. There's no article for a tour boat. I'd be happy to learn I've missed something, so please reply. Thanks in advance. 68.167.191.217 (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC).
 * And don't forget about tour submarines! I've been on one, quite spectacular. --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for USS Constitution now open
The peer review for USS Constitution is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 02:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for USS Congress (1799) now open
The featured article candidacy for USS Congress (1799) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 01:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Design A-150 battleship now open
The A-Class review for Design A-150 battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 06:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

RNLB Mary Stanford peer review
This article doesn't cross over with Milhist so it's being ignored after 18 days. comments are welcome on the review page. It'll be a hootenanny. --Brad (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Having read the article, I consider that it does fall under WP:MILHIST as she was active during the Second World War. Mjroots (talk) 10:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not have a problem with milhist or anyone else taking an interest in the article. However there was little activity off the south coast of Ireland during the war.  convoys went north of Ireland, as the southern coast was within range of german bombers based in France.  Consequently, the lifeboat saw little wartime activity.  Its main impact was from mines.  ClemMcGann (talk) 05:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Article names
There are two article about lifeboats named Mary Stanford. Both should be renamed to comply with WP:NC-S. RNLB Mary Stanford should be renamed to RNLB Mary Stanford (ON 773) and Mary Stanford Lifeboat should be renamed RNLB Mary Stanford (ON 661), with RNLB Mary Stanford being converted to a shipindex page. Any objections?Mjroots (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Bellhalla, if you see this, howabout a template for RNLBs? RNLB? Mjroots (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Are there (or will there be) that many articles that a template is necessary? How about just using ? — Bellhalla (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I did post a question here (on talk:WikiProject Ships) if there was a standard naming convention. There was no reply.  There are a few other RNLBs, such as RNLB Zetland (which is a redirect)
 * In answer to the question "how many others": Cromer Lifeboat Louisa Heartwell ON 495, Cromer Lifeboat H F Bailey ON 670, Cromer Lifeboat H F Bailey ON 694, Cromer Lifeboat H F Bailey ON 694, Cromer Lifeboat H F Bailey III ON 777, Cromer Lifeboat Henry Blogg ON 840, Guide of Dunkirk (ON 826), as well as the two Mary Stanfords and the Zetland. Inevitably there will be more. (and I have located a third Mary Stanford! - there were two in Rye).  If there is a standard for the name then these articles need renaming.  ClemMcGann (talk) 04:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, all lifeboats operated by the RNLI are named in the style RNLB Foo and further identified by Official Numbers. Therefore it would seem consistent to name articles about RNLI lifeboats in this style. There are a few non-RNLI lifeboats, such as Caister on Sea. I'd suggest these are named in the style (Location) lifeboat Foo. If there is consensus for this suggestion perhaps it can be added to WP:NC-S. Mjroots (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Existing policy covers non-RNLI lifeboats. Caister's would be Bernard Matthews II or Bernard Matthews II (lifeboat) if it was considered too close to the article on the food company or the turkey "baron".GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there a way for the mainarticle template to point at more than one article? Category:Lifeboats has a main article pointing at lifeboat (shipboard), but a lot of its members are lifeboat (rescue)?  Or maybe the category should be split into the two?  Category:Classes of RNLI lifeboat should be a subcat, but I haven't added it as I think better to discuss here about the problem with the rescue vs shipboard category. Viv Hamilton (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The main article for the category Lifeboats should be lifeboat (rescue). I'm minded to change it. Mjroots (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As there were no objections forthcoming, I've changed the main article in the category for lifeboats. Mjroots (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There seem to be competing sets of categories ie Category:Lifeboats and Category:Sea rescue/Category:Sea rescue in the United Kingdom. Currently it looks to be a random as to which category individual lifeboat articles are listed under.  Viv Hamilton (talk) 10:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for SMS Lützow now open
The featured article candidacy for SMS Lützow is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 00:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

MV Francop merge proposal
It has been proposed to merge MV Francop into Operation Four Species. comments welcome here. foregoing added by User:Mjroots
 * It has now been suggested that both the article on the ship and the one on the incident be deleted and merged into a separate article on a UN resolution.; see also . Discussion and "voting" on proposed merger at Talk:Operation Four Species.  Kablammo (talk) 13:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * At WT:Israel, Shuki says he's willing to delete both articles. AFAIK he's not an admin so he can't do that. I've already challenged the mergists to nominate MV Francop at AfD, but it hasn't happened yet. Mjroots (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Shuki is not an admin, and even if he was would be operating well outside his remit if he arbitrarily deleted either article. That said it would be good to see more input from WP:SHIPS regulars so that a clear consensus can emerge, especially as this discussion is germane to the issue over whether large ships like the Francop can be notable in themselves or not. Benea (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hopefully the dispute has been settled. MV Francop to remain a separate article to Operation Four Species, which will deal with the arms seizure. We just need to ensure that O4S doesn't dominate the Francop article and it looks like all will be happy. 17:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's weird seeing myself get talked about in 3rd person. Thanks. Why are you getting worried that I'll delete the articles? I'm just an editor with an opinion that might be right or wrong, can reasonably say whatever I want, and FWIW, the 'deletion' admins that deal with deletions rarely take part in the del discussion anyway, so don't take any perceived threats seriously on Afd. Given that, and after discovering this project, can you point me to a notability guideline for ships? Why hasn't any such guideline been produced in the Afd? --Shuki (talk) 22:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Good questons. The reason that no notability guideline has been quoted is that none exists. The nearest we do have is a proposed guideline which has not been adopted. That said, it is generally felt that all ships (even generic freighters) will meet WP:N via WP:RS. A ship costs many millions to construct, and as such is a big investment. For modern ships it is easy to find enough info about constructions, identification and ownership to meet WP:V, thus establishing notability. For older ships it is not quite so easy, but generally do-able, even for generic freighters such as SS Empire Galahad. The involvement of MV Francop in O4S only adds to her notability. Mjroots (talk) 04:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, and here is another example: SS Timothy Bloodworth, a WWII Liberty ship which was saved from an AFD and is now an A-Class article both here and at MILHIST. -MBK004 05:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Another example of what? Military ships are much more notable than mass produced generic shipping containers. --Shuki (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Liberty ships are the quintessential mass-produced generic freighter; they built some 2,700 of them. I doubt any other ship design even comes close to that. About the only thing out of the ordinary about Timothy Bloodworth is that she was hit by a V-2, which is as much of a ONEEVENT as with Francop. Parsecboy (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at the various Lists of Liberty Ships, there's plenty of article to create there. I'd help out but I'm still working on the Empire ships. After the Liberty ships are dealt with, there's the Victory ships, the Park ships, etc. etc. Mjroots (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Assistance request to avoid 3RR: USS New York (LPD-21)
is insisting that the name of the recently commissioned ship is named for the city and not the state of New Yorkdiff. This is the third recent edit regarding this sourced information, provided at https://www.pms317.navy.mil/ships/LPD21FactSheet.pdf. This user is the same who previously posted on the talk page as an IP, claiming to have an email promoting his/her view. Usswisconsin has reposted the original IP comment in full, including disclosure of personal information that may be considered sensitive. I am requesting that an admin or someone who has experience dealing with such single-mindedness assist with setting the record and this user straight, there is obviously some emotion involved. Sswonk (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Left a 3RR warning, if they insert the info in the article again they get blocked. As for the personal information, WP:OVERSIGHT is that a way. -MBK004 20:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * MBK, is the link to WP:OVERSIGHT meant to caution me for removing the first talk page entry, containing email and information about a unnamed relative? Not sure what the reference is for. – Sswonk (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC)The article currently contradicts itself. In the lead it says after the state; while the infobox says city and state. The citation given for city and state is to a website (ussny.org) that does not appear to be a US Navy source otherwise it would have the "This is a US Navy website DOD" etc on it and that site is also selling hats which a real US Navy site would not do. Sources need to be fixed up on the article before a position can be taken. A note in the lead would also help prevent the editing. --Brad (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The linked PDF above is from the Navy, I can use that but it is almost two years older than ussny.org, which is some sort of non-profit. I really am not involved in editing the article, just stopped by when it was mentioned on a World Series broadcast and fixed dead links, and have been watching the edit war. I'll try adding a note in the lead using https://www.pms317.navy.mil/ships/lpd21.asp. Sswonk (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I would think the opening of http://www.navy.mil/ussny/ny_history.asp would be definitive. The current [Note 1] quote alluding to the "people of the Empire State" strikes me as a tad bit ambiguous if it's supposed be preventing this argument.  --J Clear (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Image Gallery on HMS Daring and HMS Ocean
HMS Daring (D32) has had an image gallery added, but I don't think it is beneficial, and should be deleted per WP:NOTREPOSITORY. All images are from the september 'navy day' at Devonport, but other than this, the captions show nothing. By far the best image of the ship is the title image, and none of these show anything to present any particularly important features of the ship more clearly. One is of the name and another of the crest. A similar gallery has also been added to HMS Ocean (L12). Should these be deleted, or is there a good reason for them to stay? Jhbuk (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For Daring, once someone has made sure that the images are covered in the Commons link near the end of the article, the gallery can go. Same with Ocean, once the appropriate commons link is added to the article. Navy Open days are brilliant chances for photos, but unless part of the article is describing what is in the images (the name board, the ship's boat, etc) I don't think there's much point. -- saberwyn 20:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the original lack of specifics in the descriptions, my fault from cut-and-pasting the captions in due to time contraints. I have since added the information pertinent to these images to (hopefully) justify their inclusions. The name and crest have been added since - to my knowledge - there are no images of similar features on any other warship - surely one entry to illustrate such a feature? The rest of the images have been clarified as demonstrating such features as the stealth shapes and internalisation of standard kit on the Daring, and features such as the aft loading bay door on the Ocean which is not clearly shown on the generic image on that page. I hope this clarifies the inclusion of these images. Please do not hesitate to let me know if I need to change/remove anything. Steel city ady (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If the images of the crest and name are there just because they are not any where else, they should go somewhere more general like the warship article.Jhbuk (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've deleted both non-encyclopaedic galleries for the reasons discussed above. Shem (talk) 13:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Commanding Officers Section on USS Kentucky (SSBN-737)
I need a discussion and opinion on a topic of disagreement between myself and MBK. MBK blanket deleted the Commanding Officers section of the USS Kentucky (SSBN-737) article with the reason being that the source was not properly referenced. There was, in fact, in the references section the document from which I took personally took this list, the Welcome Aboard pamphlet given to me when I had the honor of touring the SSBN-737. I added the section back, added a proper wiki reference to the citation, and left a note for MBK to inform him that the reference problem had been resolved. He then deleted the section again, but this time he gave a reason that the individual captains listed are not all notable and don't meet Wiki's notability standards. I fully agree, some if not all of the Captains of the SSBN-737 may not at this time be notable. This is why none of the Captains have their own individual pages on Wikipedia. They would have to have to be notable to have their own page. However, I believe that the historical record of who the Captains are of this fine ship is notable with respect to the ship itself and should therefore be completed. MBK warned me not to restore the section back again until I have appealed to this forum which I am now doing. Thoughts?--P Todd (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to turn the list into prose? Instead of a bullet list maybe one paragraph of description would help. --Brad (talk) 06:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * When the list of commanding officers was added into the page all of the names were wiki-linked (redlinked), so it looks like they were expected to be notable - and they are clearly not. I agree with Brad that a list looks a bit odd.  Personally I would prefer to see the commanding officers mentioned in passing in with the history of the ship, rather than having sections or paragraphs devoted exclusively to the commanders.  What I mean is that the article is about the history of the ship and when you are talking about a particular period you could say,  for example,  "In 19XX USS Kentucky was on station at ZZZZ.  At this time she was commanded by Commander John Smith (Blue watch, 19XX to 19XX) and Commander Fred Smith (Gold watch, 19YY to 19YY)." If you do it this way don't forget to add a citation at the end of each such sentence. Viv Hamilton (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would imagine that where this nuclear sub was on station is classified. So, the proposal is that the commanders be listed in prose with a reference after each sentence and without the commander's names set up as wiki links?  The reference at the end of each sentence in the paragraph would be to the same source since they all come from that source.  Doing it this was seems much less accessible then a good list, but if that is the consensus . . .--P Todd (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you properly cited a source and wikilinked it, then you should be able to list it. MBK is a bit power mad.  I've had run-ins with him before.Openskye (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm personally of the opinion that listing all commanding officers in a ship's article (either in list format or integrated into the text) adds very little to the article, and only those officers who have had a significant impact on the ship's history should be mentioned at the relevant point in the article. In most situations, most people don't care who is in command at any given moment, as they are all responsible officers doing what responsible officers do, and to the outside observer there would be no difference in events if the officer in command was replaced by another officer. My rule of thumb is that the commander should only be specifcally identified in the situations where a different officer on the bridce could have radically changed the outcome of events (battles, collisions, sinkings, etc). -- saberwyn 03:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Savberwyn - lists of commanding officers of ships and individual military units aren't encyclopedic. COs change over regularly and few of them do anything particularly significant beyond their usual duties. Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

New template
In Russia there is a Lena River. It is the big closed river world: the river runs into Arctic ocean. Here the isolated shipbuilding, the navigation. I would like to collect this information in a navigation template. I suggest to name it Shipbuilding and shipping at Lena River. Whether there will be this name correct?--Andrey! 14:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds fascinating. I'd try Shipbuilding and shipping on the Lena RiverDankarl (talk) 01:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, let will be so.--Andrey! 14:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed List
Inspired by the List of aircraft by tail number, I've been messing around in my sandbox to create a proposed List of ships by Code Letters. The list has been arranged alphabetically by ship name rather than alphabetically by Code Letters for aesthetic reasons, I don't think the latter method would be pleasing aesthetically. If consensus is for the list, I'll create it. Possible similar lists would be by IMO Number and by Maritime Mobile Service Identity. Mjroots (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I see the utility of such a list at the moment.
 * I could see the case that WP:NOTDIRECTORY could apply to such a list.
 * What would link to such a list? Would every ship with known code numbers have a "See also" section with a link? (Yuck.)
 * If it's titled as "by Code Letters" (why the capitals, by the way?) wouldn't that suggest sorting, you know, by the code letters?
 * And, after looking at the list — Ahh! My eyes! If consensus is for (or at least not against such a list), please, please do it without the flag graphics. They don't really convey any information that's not already in text form, and a large number of flags could make the load time (even though we're not supposed to worry about performance) soar through the roof. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a combined list - by Code Letters (it's a proper noun phrase, hence should be capitalised, despite the article being moved after I created it with the correct title), by IMO number and by MMSI. I will remove the flags if it is felt that inclusion is not productive. At least I've learned a bit more about creating tables by doing it that way. I can make the table sortable if desired. Possible new title "Ships by identity" Mjroots (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you know that all warships have International Code Letters too? For example, HMS Daring (D32) is GPLA.  ACP113 is the unclassified book of NATO callsigns.  The version here is AG (Nov 07), and I believe the latest version is AH - the changes are only in getting rid of decommissioned ships and adding new ones.  It's going to be a long list... On the other hand, those who wish to add callsigns to articles will find an almost endless source of fun!  Yours, Shem (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Can't see the point myself. If the code letters are in the article, then the ship will be found by a search. If the ship is known then the place to look for the code letters is in the article. Is anyone going to browse through the list looking for a particular code letter combination The one link I followed off the Code letters article consistently refers to them as "signal codes" which makes me wonder about the choice of the article name. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * One use that comes to mind: Annual List of Merchant Vessels of the United States Part 6 (when you are lucky enough to find it) lists ships in code-letter order and has data not in parts 1-5.  Could be handy as a sortable table but I would not argue it's clearly encyclopedic.  More useful when the article hasn't yet been written.Dankarl (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Would it be a useful addition to add the ships and Code Letters (sans flags) to the Code Letters article? Mjroots (talk) 08:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)