Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 16

Mary Rose update assistance
I've been working on a major update of the Mary Rose-article for a few months now and I have been tinkering with it at a sub-page of mine that can be found at user:Peter Isotalo/novelties. The reason for my not doing the editing in article space is because I've wanted to submit it as a DYK. There's also the matter of waiting for a possible image donation from the Mary Rose Trust that is in the works. Anticipating that the update will be realized within a few weeks, I'm inviting anyone who's interested in improving the quality of the update (and to share DYK credits) to freely edit the above mentioned draft.

Peter Isotalo 10:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Fouled Anchors is a great read.
If anyone is interested in the USS Constellation (1797) vs USS Constellation (1854) controversy the report Fouled Anchors is a great read. Wegner slams with grace the "documents" that were used to support the theory of the present ship in Baltimore being the same as the 1797 ship. It had me ROFL several times. This is off topic but oh well.. couldn't help but mention it. --Brad (talk) 09:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Replied to this so the archiver won't dump it.Dankarl (talk) 02:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the pointer. Yes a good read.  Hmm, a naval history tale involving forgery, public mud slinging, technical forensics including the FBI and BATF and dead Presidents.  Hello NCIS?  I expect at least TV mini series if Hollywood ever gets a hold of this.  ;-)  While debunking the rebuild theory evidence occupies much of the paper, the key is actually the finding of the hull half model for the sloop.  As the paper points out, they don't create those for rebuilds.  I enshrined the URL link in USS Constellation (1854), which already mentioned the paper, so you don't have to worry about this section being archived in a few months.  --J Clear (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to wonder if there is enough information on the controversy to warrant a separate article on the subject. I think there could be.
 * What I found most humorous was that anytime someone made a statement against the originality of the ship, a "document" would surface some time later that debunked the latest argument. An employee of the Constellation foundation was noticed to be in possession of a rubber stamp that said "National Archives" on it. Even the US Navy thought it was the same ship as you would see in the original DANFS entry for the ship hosted at hazegray. The current DANFS article was updated in 2004 to reflect there were two different ships.
 * But still the naysayers are trying to debunk Wegner's findings. There was a book published in 2003 that tries to do exactly that. There is a rebuttal from Wegner on that particular book at the same website Fouled Anchors is hosted on. Again, Wegner just blasts the theory into pieces. --Brad (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * At this point I wouldn't go for a separate article, but the Controversy section of the 1854 article could use work. I think I'd also trim the 1797 article but point to the section of the 1854 article.  --J Clear (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Guideline discussion
In light of some confusion over the interpretation of the naming guidelines, I've proposed an amendment/use of examples here. Feel free to add your opinions. Benea (talk) 12:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Infobox help needed
Could someone help me and Ed figure out why the infobox at Dutch 1913 battleship proposal is not displaying correctly? -MBK004 22:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me; what is the trouble? --Brad (talk) 02:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * fixed it already. Thanks, -MBK004 02:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, don't applaud, just throw money. Benea (talk) 02:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for North Carolina class battleship now open
The featured article candidacy for North Carolina class battleship 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 04:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ships and mines
A general query, we have Category:Ships sunk by mines and Category:Ships damaged by naval mines. has been replacing instances of the former category with the latter. In some cases the 'sunk' category seems more appropriate (the ship in question was sunk not merely damaged). Is there scope for two categories on the ship/mine interaction depending on the result? Should one be merged into the other? Currently phasing one out as User:Bonewah is doing is the wrong way to go, but I'd like to get some opinions before taking this to WP:CFD, if indeed this needs to be where either category should end up. Benea (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I didnt mean to act unilaterally, but I figured the move would be uncontroversial. The description in Category:Ships damaged by naval mines says "These ships were damaged or sunk by naval mines." so I figured Category:Ships sunk by mines was redundant.  Perhaps we could rename Category:Ships damaged by naval mines to Category:Ships damaged or sunk by naval mines? In any event, I can say for a fact that many of the ships in 'damaged' were actually sunk by mines, so some sort of sorting would have to be done no matter what decision is made here.  For my part, I think we should deprecate 'sunk' in favor of 'damaged' or 'damaged or sunk' Bonewah (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be in favour of Category:Ships damaged or sunk by naval mines, but whatever we do, can we please make sure the category it sits in is appropriate - currently Category:Ships sunk by mines is in Category:International maritime incidents, while Category:Ships damaged by naval mines is in Category:Anti-ship weapons and Category:Maritime incidents. Cats do my head in at the best of times! Shem (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Category mergers are done through a process initiated at WP:CFD, pre-emptively emptying categories makes it harder to judge their utility. 'Category:Ships sunk...' implies a fate to me, Category:Ships damaged... implies no such thing. Sometimes ships were damaged by torpedoes on several occasions, ran aground, damaged by gunfire, collision, etc. Category:Ships damaged by naval mines could continue to exist, but are we opening the door to a 'Ships involved/damaged in xxx' scheme, rather than a fate scheme, as we already have existing, viz Category:Ships sunk in collisions, Category:Ships sunk as targets, Category:Ships sunk as artificial reefs, Category:Ships sunk by submarines, etc? If a ship was sunk, why say she was damaged, which implies she survived the mining? I would certainly favour deprecating simply 'damaged', there may be scope for a 'damaged or sunk'. Benea (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What about ships that were damaged by mines, survived only to be scuttled soon after. Clearly the ship was sunk as a consequence of striking a mine, but the actual cause of the final sinking would not be a mine?  Likewise with collisions, I can name several ships damaged, even sunk after collisions that were either raised and fixed, or badly damaged and scuttled soon after.
 * Im all for 'damaged or sunk' and Ill do the work to make it happen. Again, sorry if I acted improperly in moving ships from a category that seemed redundant, for my part I was just being bold.Bonewah (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Categories: Maritime incidents in xxxx year
Since this seems to be the place to discuss this sort of thing, I have been going through the various shipwreck categories and making sure the ships in question also belong to a Maritime incidents in (year) category as I feel that every wreck should have year in which it wrecked. Most of this entries are unambiguously 'Maritime incidents' as it involves a ship that was a total loss and involves loss of life, I cant think of a better example of a Maritime incident. However, what about ships sunk as targets, or ships sunk accidentally but with no loss of life? What exactly is a 'Maritime incident' for purposes of categorization? Should every wreck be included in a category for the year it wrecked? I say yes, even if we have to create a sub-category for 'ships scuttled in xxxx year'. Thoughts? Bonewah (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would describe it as any substantial, unplanned damage to a vessel, whether or not someone is hurt or killed. So I would put accidents in, but not target wrecks.  I agree with the categorising with years, but possibly also by the type of incident may be good as well. Jhbuk (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ive been adding damage or destruction type (mine, collision etc) whenever I see the opportunity. If the consensus is not target vessels, Ill remove them by traversing the ships sunk as targets cat, It wont be difficult and ill be happy to do it.  Question, what do you think about ships sunk as target in XXXX year as (sub-)categories of maritime incidents? Bonewah (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A maritime incident would include a sinking/shipwreck, collision, grounding, fire or hijacking. For ships deliberately scuttled or sunk as a method of disposal I'd say that a single category would cover them. Mjroots (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No year for scuttled vessels? What about vessels scuttled as a consequence of some other accident? Bonewah (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that years will be necessary for scuttled ships. If it can be shown that a year has a lot of scuttled ships, then it may be beneficial to have a cat by year. It's not really worth having a lot of cats with only a few articles in each. If a ship was torpedoed, but not sunk by the torpedo, and later scuttled / sunk by friendly fire as it was too badly damaged then the torpedo is the primary cause of the loss. Mjroots (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I can get behind the exclusion of any ship that fits into categories such as 'sunk as targets' 'sunk as reefs' 'sunk as dive site' etc. Basically, any ship where the scuttling was not as a consequence of some accident, unforeseen event, or combat.  How about hulks that sink while under tow?  I personally think they should be listed as 'maritime events' as their sinking was unexpected and sometimes the wreck is noteworthy (like Murmansk (cruiser) for example). Bonewah (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Lloyds Registers
It seems that a great many Lloyds Registers are available online. Those from 1930-45 are available via Plimsoll Ship Data, but Google Books can also find them, for example this is from 1857/58. I don't know the years available but it is worth investigating. Mjroots (talk) 06:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's very useful Mj, thanks! Gatoclass (talk) 14:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just passing on something that was posted on my talk page which deserves a more prominent location. Mjroots (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. On Google books, on the overview page for a book, near the bottom, there is a box that usually has thumbnails of other editions.  There is a small link in the corner, show all editions, which takes you here Dankarl (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Looks like those with full access run 1799-1881. Dankarl (talk) 13:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yours goes to 1881? That link only takes me to editions up to 1865. Gatoclass (talk) 14:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you click the link here or work from the overview page? The link here gives me the date-sorted set (there are gaps) 1881 and earlier plus 1 volume (1883) with foreign yachts added to the title. Going in thru google books with a search on the title gave me a different list but 1881 was still there half-way down the page. MJ's link did not show the overview page and I don't remember exactly which volume I found to get the overview page.  Sometimes the link says all related rather than all editions. I've found some later editions searching more generally on Lloyds Register but so far not full view. Dankarl (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)Going in thru the overview page on the 1857 edition, reached from the title search, gets me what looks like the same list as the link above. Dankarl (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I get a chronological list from 1776 to 1865. I guess this is probably due to google displaying different lists for different countries' IP's. Pity, it would have been nice to have access to 1881, but I guess if I need it I can always ask someone else to take a look for me :) Gatoclass (talk) 04:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's the raw link to 1881 and here is the version from the link window. I suppose if it is an IP issue it will come up unavailable or no access.  Dankarl (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, "no preview available" :/ Gatoclass (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Shipindex category
Does anyone know the origin and reason for the name of the category generated by Shipindex? Presently it is Category: Set indices on ships. Personally I can't "fathom" it. Why not call the category "Ship indices"?

Also, whatever we call that cat, why isn't it a sub cat of Category:Disambiguation pages, probably under Category:Vehicle disambiguations. Although perhaps we should rename that Category:Transport disambiguations and do something the few car dabs that are in the old one. One reason we might not want that link is to avoid having the stringent WP:MOSDAB rules overrule our more liberal ship index descriptions.

FWIW, I just went and retagged a few USS and HMNZS indexes that were tagged disambig instead of. So USS and HMxxx are in good shape now, but anybody working other ships or prefixes may want to check Category:Disambiguation pages.

Anyway I'm advocating renaming our category and moderately in favor of linking it into the dab categories. Discussion? --J Clear (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you read Disambiguation? They are a different type of animal from disambiguation pages, and since 'set index' is the wiki term for them, I don't support a rename that would obscure that identification.
 * As to the categorization scheme: Category:Set indices is itself already categorized under Category:Disambiguation pages. Maralia (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

River shipping in Indigirka River
 Discussion is transferred with User Talk:AndreyA 

River shipping is an important and neglected topic. I am not sure a banner template on each river is the way to handle this, especially in an article such as Indigerka which does not yet have a shipping section. My concern is that navigation banner templates should be restricted to a set of closely-related articles. So if you had an article Shipping on the Indirgika then a tanker banner would be appropriate. And certainly on the tanker pages. The present need could be met with a simple see also link or a shipping section in the article linking the tanker article.Dankarl (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The most part of article Design 414N tankers is enough is devoted incident on Indigirka River. Therefore the template is in article.--Andrey! 11:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I still think the article needs a shipping section. That section could mention the incident and link the tanker article.  I'm not in a position to write that section but could help edit if that would help. Dankarl (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I now plan to finish articles connected with Lena River and I will not promise anything. I have put in article a template.--Andrey! 16:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Source problem
I'm currently writing an article on the Empire ship Empire Blackwater but have a problem with a source. This thread on the Warsailor's webforum has much info about the ship, particularly this post by Theodor Dorgeist. Almost all postwar history given there is backed up by other sources that meet WP:RS. The wartime history is quite detailed, and I'd like to use it. Question is, can I? That post is the only source I can find online for the Code Letters used by Pompeji. Mjroots (talk) 08:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If it were me I would not use the reference and try to find it elsewhere. Web forums in general aren't considered reliable. --Brad (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've used it for the code letters only, and added an EL pointing towards the rest of the history during WW2 - SS Pompeji. Mjroots (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Dutch 1913 battleship proposal now open
The A-Class review for Dutch 1913 battleship proposal is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 21:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Research source
I came across this source which looks to have lots of info on UK merchant and naval ships from the late 1700s to the First World War. Thought it worth sharing. Mjroots (talk) 08:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Which has set me thinking - Would it benefit this project to have a sub-page where useful sources can be listed, to help editors in finding sources when researching articles? Mjroots (talk) 08:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a resources subpage would be an excellent idea Viv Hamilton (talk) 08:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You'd be thinking of WikiProject Ships/Sources then. Feel free to add new sources to it. Benea (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Didn't know that existed! :-/ I've added a Merchant ships section and a few links. Mjroots (talk) 14:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Unassessed-Class Ships articles
This category currently has a lot of USCG&S articles listed, but they are all redirects. Should the Ships WP tag be removed from the redirects, or should they be categorised as such? Mjroots (talk) 08:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * class=redirect would be the thing to do. But I've just taken care of those. There were 14 total. --Brad (talk) 08:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The Incredible Hulk
Hello folks. I’ve started a thread here, where I’m trying to uncover the identity of a hulk moored off the Isle of Wight in 1853/54. Any help, or anyone who would know what direction to head in to find out more would be most welcome! Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

RMS Queen Mary 2
I have been trying to get this article up to GA class. It is akready quite substantial and is currently at B class. I put a message on the talk page here for suggestions, and as a result of that I have added a number of references, covering most of the article. However, there hasn't been much response on this for about a fortnight, so I thought I'd come here for any other ideas suggestions. Jhbuk (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have the reference book and will be adding in the references for the items I said I would during the American thanksgiving holidays when I have more free time. I haven't forgotten about this. -MBK004 21:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't expect you to do it instantly, its just I wanted some more feedback so I could do the bulk of it now, as I might not have as much time in the next couple of months. Jhbuk (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I have put the article up for GAN here:Good_article_nominations Jhbuk (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Naming convention
I see this isn't entirely an uncommon problem here! I'm currently writing an article in my sandbox about the Red Dragon, and while it isn't complete yet, I would like to move it over to article space as I feel it is now detailed enough that it can be a useful resource, in spite of being far from complete. However, I don't know how to name it. I feel that the best title for the article would involve the Red Dragon name, rather than Scourge of Malice, as this is the name it used for the majority of its service, and possibly the more notable part of its service, although that is subjective. Is Red Dragon (1595) appropriate, in spite of the fact that in 1595, it was named Scourge of Malice? There was an earlier Red Dragon which prevents a more simple Red Dragon (ship). Any thoughts or comments? Harrias (talk) 10:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If it was a full-rigged ship, then Red Dragon (ship) would be fine. If there were more than one full-rigged ship named Red Dragon, then disambiguate by launch year, with the ship page being a shipindex page. Mjroots (talk) 14:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, that reminds me, I don't know what to name my ship either; I'm working in userspace. The Advance was a sidewheeler (paddle steamer) used (effectively) as a blockade runner in the American Civil War.  Before North Carolina bought it, it was the Lord Clyde, basically a ferry between Dublin and Glasgow, and after it was captured by the Union, it was renamed the Frolic, and participated in the blockade.  But it was really only notable for blockade running ... so how do I name the article? - Dank (push to talk) 21:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * When I faced a similar dilemma, I opted for the more notable name. The Irish Oak started life as the West Neris, but was notable as the Irish Oak, when torpedoed in mid-Atlantic.  btw, I assume that you have seen:  and  - ClemMcGann (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Concerning Voices of the Confederate Navy, I have "reached my viewing limit for the book", so I suppose it's more accurate to say I've heard of it rather than seen it. - Dank (push to talk) 22:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I got a lot of good stuff from Women of the Civil War South, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 00:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Happy editing ClemMcGann (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can expand the lead section on Red Dragon (1595) to a full paragraph or two, it will easily make a B-class rating. Looks nice. --Brad (talk) 04:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm aiming to expand that and a fair bit more and aim for a GA-class rating. Will post here for more input once I've got more of the information and research done, there's still a lot more to be added! Harrias (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Composition nails
Does anyone know, in the context of 1870s-80s wooden shipbuilding, what are composition nails? The source is J.E. Nourse, American Explorations in the Ice Zones describing how the USRC Corwin was prepared for arctic service:
 * "She was now strengthened with one-inch oak plank, two feet above water line to six feet below, from stem to stern, put on over the copper and secured with two and a half inch composition nails."Dankarl (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

In modern usage, for roofing, this seems to refer to a copper-zinc alloy. Same stuff? Dankarl (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * With oak, nails and screws used must be made of something other than iron. Brass is the usual material for this. Copper nails were used in the construction of cowls, but would be too soft to use in oak. Mjroots (talk) 08:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality of merchant ships in wartime
Copied from WP:LAW talk page Can any members of this project assist with the SS Irish Oak article where there is an unreferenced statement about Irish Oak and whether or not her warning a British convoy of the presence of a German U-boat would have been a breach of neutral status. Can this be referenced, or is the statment incorrect? Mjroots (talk) 07:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

wp:ships scope change on sailing ships?
Hi, i'm not a frequent contributor here. I notice this edit removing a NRHP-listed ship, a sloop, from wp:ships, while adding it to a wikiproject on sailing, a small and perhaps new or dormant wikiproject, which does not seem to be a sub-project of wp:ships. Has the scope for wp:ships changed to exclude sailing ships? I don't see why this article and others like it would not stay part of wp:ships, even if added to the other wikiproject. doncram (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That is kind of odd. The scope of the project is "ships of all types and eras" and the Christeen is, well, a ship. Off the top of my head I assume its an inadvertent AWB error and have re-added it to the project. If there is a good reason to remove it, anyone should feel free to revert my reversion. Euryalus (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The addition of WP:Sailing was correct, but the removal of WP:Ships was not. Looks like it's been sorted now. Mjroots (talk) 06:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

An inquiry about '
I really don't get it at all. Why make the apostrophe and the "s" non-italic in the possessive form of a ship's name? I see "how" it's done, but not "why." (See AP Stylesheet, which is what I've followed ever since I was the copy editor of the student newspaper.) Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to note, the original discussion can be found here. Parsecboy (talk) 03:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The apostrophe and the s are not a part of the ship's name. Just like we don't style ship class names like Iowa-class battleship (we only italicize the portion of the class that is named after a ship, making it, for example, Iowa-class battleship), we don't italicize something that is not a part of the ship's name. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Parsecboy linked the original discussion. What I find amazing, and more than a little bit disturbing, is that a community of 1 million editors is bound to abide by a decision made by just three editors: Sswonk, Martocticvs and Barek. No offense to any of them and I'm sure they're fine editors, but none of them has ever served on the Arbitration Committee. None of them is an administrator. Two of the three are on WikiProject Ships, but anyone can join WikiProject Ships. It's no more exclusive than the Democratic Party. These are the only three people who participated in the discussion.

There seems to be a pervasive belief that once a template has been created, it should be adopted and universally employed regardless of its impact. It's obvious from the first usage of the ship's name, at the top of the article, that the name of the ship is (for example) Enterprise. Occasional use of the term "Enterprise's" farther down in the article won't confuse anyone into thinking that the real name of the ship is "Enterprise's." I believe we should follow the style established in other publications. That way, when people (like me) arrive at Wikipedia, with or without a substantial non-Wiki background in editing, we're not forced to learn a new "language." As always, I hope that everyone accepts this in the spirit with which it's intended: constructive criticism, and the starting point of a constructive and collegial discussion. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I won't presume to speak for you, but it looks like you are confusing the discussion of a method of formatting rather than the formatting issue itself. (And it was more than just the three editors you listed that participated in the discussion; I, myself, was a participant.) As for your assertion that the print world uses "Enterprise's", I can't recall ever such a construct in professionally printed work. Going one step further, author Patrick O'Brian in the Aubrey-Maturin series of novels even used a non-italic s when collectively referring to crews of ships (e.g. Sophies or Polychrests).
 * But, that aside, every publication and every medium has their own style rules and formatting methods. When I was in school (I'm dating myself here), we were told when typing a paper that the titles of books were to be underlined (done to address the shortcomings of typewriters), but I don't insist on continuing to use that style. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

St. Roch
Is St. Roch the correct title for that article? I thought ships were supposed to have their full titles, at least when necessary to distinguish them from something else (and here it should cetainly be distinguished from Saint Roch, who is surely the primary topic for St Roch and St. Roch).--Kotniski (talk) 08:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, not sure if we have a policy on this, but as a general rule we should go with what the sources say. So if the sources refer to the ship as "St. Roch" I would do so. Gatoclass (talk) 14:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems that in this case, sources do indeed refer to the vessel as St. Roch. So that's the name it should be referred to as in the article. Gatoclass (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In the article, yes. But as the title of the article (where it ought to be disambiguated, if it's not the primary usage of the name)? (I see in the meantime someone's moved it to St. Roch (ship) - is this in accordance with the naming systems?)--Kotniski (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * St. Roch (schooner) would be more in accordane with the naming conventions. Mjroots (talk) 07:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ellan Vannin
SS Ellan Vannin redirects to Ellan Vannin (ship). Per our naming conventions this should be the other way round.

As I'm still learning the admin side of things, can I check before I do it? Do I delete the SS Ellan Vannin page under G6, then move the Ellan Vannin (ship) page to the correct title? Mjroots (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Can't you just move on top of a redirect? Hmm, the redirect has an article like edit history. I'm guessing some one did a "move" by cut and paste.  I think this complicates matters, as I believe edit histories are to be retained.  You may want to take this up in a more generic forum.  --J Clear (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Italian battleship Roma (1940) now open
The A-Class review for Italian battleship Roma (1940) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  04:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Auxiliary repair dock templates x 3
Unless I'm missing something, all three of the templates: Auxiliary repair dock - ARD-12 class auxiliary repair dock - and Auxiliary repair dock (ARD) are doing the same thing? I think we should eliminate two of these if indeed they're redundant. --Brad (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Bellhalla has repaired and fixed these to something more legible. --Brad (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned templates
Almost wish I hadn't found these but here they are. They should either be utilized or deleted. --Brad (talk) 10:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments
Looks like these are either boilerplate text to be placed in fields of the ship infobox (which is frowned upon and should be deleted: see TMP - "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article.") or remnants of code from an old incarnation of the ship infobox (as they are orphaned, all occurrences of these have been replaced by the current template, and should be deleted). About the only one that deserves a home is Template:Ships of Canadian Navy, unless that has been superceded by another, more appropriate template. -- saberwyn 19:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree as well. These should be non-controversial housekeeping deletions. Template:Ships of Canadian Navy appears to have been superseded by another but that one should be verified as unwanted before it's deleted. Otherwise an admin can start blasting most of the other ones. --Brad (talk) 06:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Could an admin please start deleting these when they find the time? There is no hurry of course but tagging these with speedies or going through the nomination process would take even more time. I see no objections to removal. --Brad (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

First World War German submarines
I've been noticing that has been active in the field of First World War German submarines, either writing articles where none existed, or adding material to additional ones. The additions mostly consist of a list of reference works and a list of 'Operations known to British Intelligence' e.g. here, taken from the archives at Kew. All well and good, though I'm a little concerned at the section they always add in the hidden text, which runs:

This seems to go against the principle of editing, correcting and making MOS edits to these articles. Is it good practice to build articles around chunks of declassified archive material? More recent research sometimes means that some information in these reports is disproved. But my main concern is this admonition not to touch the material that's been added. There would seem to be better ways to construct articles on the submarines' careers than this, and this 'My sources - Wright or Wrong...' part may lead to WP:OWN issues. But I wanted to get some perspective on this from other members. Benea (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Without looking into it too deeply, aren't we also getting into plagiarism and WP:COPYVIO too? For what it's worth, I'd totally disregard any hidden text of that sort and make edits regardless; and agree with your feeling (if I'm reading this right) that that hidden text should be removed. Harrias (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * All I can add here is that you're probably seeing these articles after I had cleaned them up a bit. The editor has been prolific; probably started 50 articles so far. I do agree his style needs work. The "wright or wrong" inserted into the article. Quality over quantity would be nice. --Brad (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I pinged Bellhalla for help when I first noticed it, but I don't think he ever responded . -MBK004 22:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also direct interested users to WT:MILHIST where I raised this issue almost at the same time as Benea did. SGGH ping! 13:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The user has been in touch with me via email but since I don't check everyday I just now received it. It's very obvious that English is not his first language. I feel that he is making good faith efforts on these articles but his lack of English and lack of WP experience are making this difficult for him. He doesn't quite understand why his articles are being edited. Let's not scare an editor away over this issue. He needs some guidance. --Brad (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately this has apparently gone south. The user is insisting on the articles appearing how he wants them to, and when told no, he started blanking articles. See the discussion here for more. -MBK004 05:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ships and countries
Members of this WP may be interested in a question I've asked at WP:Countries re the tagging of ship articles with country WPs. Thoughts and suggestions welcome. Mjroots (talk) 10:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Book-class
Since this is one of the bigger projects, and that several Wikipedia-Books are ships-related, could this project adopt the book-class? This would really help WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as the WP Ships people can oversee books like Tucker class destroyers much better than we could as far as merging, deletion, content, and such are concerned. Eventually there probably will be a "Books for discussion" process, so that would be incorporated in the Article Alerts. I'm placing this here rather than on the template page since several taskforces would be concerned.

There's an article in this week Signpost if you aren't familiar with Wikipedia-Books and classes in general. Thanks. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there will be any objection to the new class. We can wait a few more days before going any further. --Brad (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Been 5 days now. Anyone against this? Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 07:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a deadline for this? --Brad (talk) 09:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really, but the quicker things are decided, the quicker we can work on getting things done and making sure they make sense. At least IMO. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 10:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok then. I don't see any reason why it cannot be implemented now. Will need someone to code it into our template, however. --Brad (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps User:Kirill Lokshin of the MILHIST project could give a hand here? I can to it with Metabanner-based banners, but this is a custom one. I'll give it a look though. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright the changes have been made. You have 16 books for the moment, although I've tagged one that I'm not too sure about (and you can also double-check if I haven't missed any). Here's an example of a book (PDF version): Tucker class destroyers.

If you find any problems with books, need help writing them, find things that just "don't look right", or don't really know what books are aronud, just let me know and I'll try to answer as best I can. If I don't seem to reply, just poke me on my talk page (I will watch this page for a couple more days however). Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Shipping Magazine
Has anyone got the May 2009 edition of Shipping Magazine? Mjroots (talk) 05:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

John Barnett Humphreys
posted the following on my talk page. I'm afraid I cannot help so I'm passing it on for a wider audience.

''Hello Mjroots, having you by chance some information about John Barnett Humphreys. Please have a look at John Barnett Humphreys. We have no information about the birthday, the live after return to England and the death of him. Thank you for help.''

Any German speaking editors able to assist him? Mjroots (talk) 18:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, is there anybody? -- Beaverbear (talk) 12:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Request additional input on the use of the "Ship builder" field
On the MS Oasis of the Seas article, there's a disagreement on the use of the "Ship builder" field, and I would like additional input from members the Ships wiki-project.

My understanding is that the field contains both the name of the shipbuilder, as well as the physical location of the shipyard where the construction took place, for example, in the format "STX Europe shipyards in Turku, Finland", or "STX Europe in Turku, Finland". However, believes that the field should be used exclusively for the name of the company doing construction, and the the additional information belongs in a "location section" (I cannot locate any existing field in Template:Infobox ship begin for that purpose).

Can others please review and provide their input on this? We started discussing it at User talk:Alohahell; but we were unable to agree on this field. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The shipbuilder field refers to the name of the shipbuilder only - not the location of the shipyard. That belongs to the location section of the article. The additional shipyard information is your own WP:POV which has no relevance with this discussion. Alohahell (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that adding the location of the shipyard in the infobox is acceptable, as it doesn't take up much more room, and provides useful context or disambiguation at a glance(particularly if a company owns shipyards in more than one location). -- saberwyn 22:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with saberwyn, adding the location seems fine, nowhere does it say that the builder field has to be just the name of the builder and cannot include the yard. Is it just your opinion that that's how that field should work, or have I missed something? Adding the location can be very helpful, especially if a shipbuilder owns a number of yards in different locations. Harland and Wolff's most famous yard is the Belfast one, but they also had a yard in Govan at one time, in an entirely different country. Just putting that a ship's builder was Harland and Wolff may confuse readers into thinking the ship was built in Ireland. To be honest many of the infoboxes I've seen also include a location so I don't think we've ever mandated against it. I'm struggling to see how the location of the builder is of no relevance to the field, or how it could be seen as POV, other than the perennial argument over whether Belfast should be listed as being in Northern Ireland, Ireland, or United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in the RMS Titanic's infobox. Benea (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've got to agree with saberwyn as well. I don't think there has ever been an issue with having the shipbuilder and location in that field, until now. When I looked at the infobox for Oasis of the Seas, I am left to guess if it is STX Europe Finland or STX Europe France (the former Chantiers de l'Atlantique. In addition to the example with Harland and Wolff, Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation and Todd Pacific Shipyards had several shipyards in the United States, and Fincantieri has EIGHT in the same nation. It is irresponsible to just list a corporate entity when there are so many yards associated with each entity. I also fail to understand why this issue would be a POV problem? -MBK004 04:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on the above discussion, I've restored the wording "STX Europe shipyards in Turku, Finland" to the article in the "ship builder" field. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

USS Prairie
USS Prairie (1890) and USS Prairie (AD-5) appear to be the same ship. Mjroots (talk) 12:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. I've done the merge. -- saberwyn 20:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

AFD for United States Naval Gunfire Support debate
I have nominated the page United States Naval Gunfire Support debate for deletion, interested editors may comment on the matter here. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Red Dragon (1595)
Have been working on this article on and off for a little while now, and wanted a bit of input on the content that is there. I'm not a regular member of this project, and have probably missed a lot of the intricacies of your own MOS etc. I have a lot more to add on the other voyages that are currently only very short sections, but I would appreciate it if anyone can find the time to go have a read of what I've got (ignoring the tiny sections) and give me some feedback. Regards, Harrias (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Year based categories
Ran across this thread in the archives and wondered if another bot run to add the appropriate year category to articles is in order?

I recently used the ships by century category to scan some articles with AWB. There are a little over 15,000 articles currently under that parent category which allowed me to scan a large majority of ship articles looking for various problems. We have about a total of 25,500 articles under the project so there are 10,000 more with the potential to be categorized by year. The more articles we get under the parent category makes it a whole lot easier to spot troubles. --Brad (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Still waiting for a bot owner to volunteer for the job. No luck so far. --Brad (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Rich Farmbrough ran the bot code. About 2700 additional articles were found. --Brad (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

First World War submarine "S-60"
Does anyone know which boat is referred to by "S-60", which sank The Queen on 26 October 1916? Mjroots (talk) 11:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Neither SM U-60 or SM UC-60 seem to have been in service that early. Do we know it's definitely a submarine - could it be a destroyer numbered S-60? There certainly seems to have been one, though I can't immediately find anything out about it... Shimgray | talk | 13:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Damn, you beat me to it! Yes, its the destroyer S60, not a submarine. Built by Schichau-Werke (hence the S designation, launched in 1892, surrendered at Scapa Flow and scrapped after the war). Benea (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys, I've corrected the article. Mjroots (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for HMS New Zealand (1911) now open
The peer review for HMS New Zealand (1911) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 04:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

WPBannerMeta
Any chance of migrating WikiProject Ships to the new(ish) WPBannerMeta? WP Ships is one of the last projects not to have done so already, it seems. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll take a crack at it "real soon now". If someone else wants to before I get to it, please sandbox it and have the project review so we only disrupt the servers majorly once.   --J Clear (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This issue has been discussed at length on the banner talk page. Last main discussion was here. So far no one has come up with a good reason to make the change. Bellhalla and myself have invested a large amount of time in custom tuning our present banner; most recently about two weeks ago. I am still opposed to the change. --Brad (talk) 02:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I was going to ask what the real benefits to changing the banner were. After having read through the most recent discussion, I found none. Martin stated that the point of the meta banner was to save time by not making projects create their own banners. We already have one that works pretty well; where's the benefit in changing it? Parsecboy (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly. Until a compelling argument for change comes forward there is no reason to change. --Brad (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have spent some time looking this issue over. WPBannerMeta requires the 6 criteria B-Class checklist. We decided last year to stay with the 5 criteria checklist ala milhist when we implemented a B-Class checklist for this project. So if you pro-BannerMeta people want to change the ships template over, you're going to have to:


 * 1) Make BannerMeta function on a 5 criteria checklist.
 * 2) Get the project to agree on using a 6 criteria checklist.
 * Unless that can be done there is no reason for the change to be made. The other issues I have with it amount to layout and appearances. --Brad (talk) 09:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And I forgot to add that BannerMeta doesn't allow our customized C-Class criteria either. --Brad (talk) 09:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And the final dagger is the fact that BannerMeta won't allow auto assessing of template and category name spaces among others. --Brad (talk) 10:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The irony of that is almost beyond comprehension, since those have to some of the easiest things to auto-assess! — Kralizec! (talk) 12:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I should stop carrying on about this but it's annoying when we keep getting pushed to change the banner. I wonder if Milhist gets this much pushing? Anyway, now that all of the reasons are laid out here I can just point to this in the future. --Brad (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Florida class battleship now open
The A-Class review for Florida class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 02:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for SMS Blücher now open
The featured article candidacy for SMS Blücher 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 02:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia-Books duplicate
Books/Admiralty Ships/Subs lost 1939 to 1946 and Books/Admiralty Ship/Sub lost 1939 to 1946 Seems that these are both about the same topic. Can someone confirm that these are essentially duplicate book, and merge the two if necessary? Just send the lesser of the duplicates (assuming they are duplicated) to MfD or speedy after the merge. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for USS Hawaii (CB-3) now open
The A-Class review for USS Hawaii (CB-3) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  01:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Article has passed A-class. Changing date of post from 30 December to 14 December for the archive bot.

Ship article format
Hate to take issue with another wikiships regular, but I've noticed in recent times that Mjroots has created a number of articles, like this one, where he puts the "Description" (or Construction/design etc) section after the "History" section. Sometimes he puts an ID section after the History section too.

In my experience, this flies in the face of standard practice on this project, which is to have the "Description/design/construction" section first and then follow it with the "History" section. Would anyone like to comment? Gatoclass (talk) 04:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know (not!). Anyway, I'm easy as to order of sections. If consensus is that they need to be in a different order to that which I've been doing them I will reorder in future. The important thing is to get the info into the article. Mjroots (talk) 07:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've just checked WP:MOSSHIP and there is no article structure laid down. Over at WP:MILLS there is a laid down preferred article structure for windmill articles (doesn't necessarily mean that all articles conform, but the majority do) which is there to guide editors on how WP:MILLS would like things done. Would WP:SHIPS be prepared to thrash out how ship articles should be structured? Mjroots (talk) 07:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure we need to have everything nailed down in black and white, as a little flexibility is at times appropriate, but I do think as a general rule of thumb it is appropriate to have design and construction details etc., ahead of service history. It's only natural, I think, that people would expect to be presented with details of the ship in question before reading about its exploits. Gatoclass (talk) 08:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What I'm saying is that there seems to be an "unwritten rule" at the moment. This could be turned into a "written guideline" so at least editors have a point of reference. With windmill articles, there are occasionally good reasons to have exceptions too, and IAR then comes into effect. Mjroots (talk) 08:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Article structure
So, what is the preferred structure then?


 * Infobox
 * Lead
 * Construction details (who, where, when, size, propulsion)
 * Career
 * Fate
 * Wreck site discovery/investigation (if applicable) - added Viv Hamilton (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Indentification
 * References
 * External links

Is the above preferred, or some other order? Mjroots (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't put ID information in the main body text at all, unless there is some really compelling reason to do so. I think such minor details are best left in the infobox. If you really think it necessary however, I think it would probably be best to put such info at the end of the development/design/construction section, just as part of that section. Or if the ID details change, you could just include that where appropriate in the service history I guess.


 * Other than that, I think relating the story of the ship in chronological order is generally best - development first (if such details are available), then design, construction and description, followed by service history. Of course, sometimes it's not altogether possible to give a completely chronological history - when say, construction and development, or design and description overlap, as they often do - but overall, I think it's generally the best fit and AFAIK the way the overwhelming majority of ship articles are structured. Gatoclass (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Re the identifcation section, there have been many changes over the years, some identitiesn are changeable such as Code Letters and call signs, Some semi-permanent such as Official Numbers (by country), and others are permanent such as IMO and MMSI numbers, which stay with a ship for its entire life. It seems reasonable to me to list these in a separate section of an article. Mjroots (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, take a look at your recent article SS Crown Arun as an example. The ID section has exactly two sentences. Two sentences are not enough to justify a separate section in my opinion. If I was going to place info like that in the main body text at all, I would just place it at the end of the "Description" section. Gatoclass (talk) 04:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just added wrecksite to the above listViv Hamilton (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone really into ships might want ship details first, but we risk losing the interest of the general reader if we start off with a lot of numbers. I generally like the order Mjroots has been using. - Dank (push to talk) 21:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What particular use is there for the "identification" section? --Brad (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said, can't really see one myself, I think there are plenty of more elegant ways to present such material, either by just leaving it in the infobox, or putting it at the end of the "Description" section, or, where it changes, just including it where appropriate in the main body text. Gatoclass (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see I missed your above note. I think that laying down a format on ships invites trouble because there are too many variables that may come into play. The MoS covers layout fairly well I think. --Brad (talk) 05:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I tend to think a little flexibility is required, because a lot depends on what information is available, and one has to tailor the end product accordingly. However, as I outlined above I do think there are a few basics which ought to be followed wherever possible. Not sure I'd want to add anything to the guidelines at this point though. Gatoclass (talk) 10:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The identification section - Ships can be identified in a variety of ways apart from name. There are Official Numbers, Code Letters and Call Signs (semi-permanent) and IMO Numbers and MMSI numbers (permanent), which is why I include that section in articles. Mjroots (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I still don't see why that info can't be left in the infobox, with link where appropriate. Gatoclass (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Maritime incidents cat
User:Bonewah has been adding "Maritime incidents" categories to ships sunk by submarines. I always assumed "maritime incidents" referred to accidents rather than deliberate sinkings in wartime. Can anyone clarify this? Gatoclass (talk) 09:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the addition. A sinking of a ship, whether by accident or enemy action classes as a "maritime incident". The alternative is to create a series of categories "ships sunk by enemy action in (year)" Some of those cats would be very thinly populated. Mjroots (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We already have categories for ships sunk by submarines. Why do ships need to go into both cats?
 * I've always assumed that "maritime incidents" referred to accidents, and it seems to me it lessens the usefulness of such categories if ships sunk deliberately are also included. At the very least, I would suggest that "Ships sunk by -[nationality] submarines" should be a subcat of "maritime incidents", so that one cat does not clutter up the other. Gatoclass (talk) 11:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've done Bonewah the courtesy of informing him of this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 11:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope that wasn't intended as a backhanded swipe at me Mj. This thread is not about Bonewah per se, it's about what consensus is on a particular issue. There was no more need for me to inform Bonewah specifically of this discussion than there would be for me to inform any individual wikiships member. Gatoclass (talk) 12:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry if it came across that way Gatoclass, but as Bonewah was mentioned in the opening post, I consider it only polite to inform him of the discussion. Let's be clear, nobody is claiming his editing here is disruptive or worthy of any administrative actions or sanctions. He is welcome to contribute here, as is any other editor. Mjroots (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course he is welcome to contribute. As I said, this is not about Bonewah. I'm simply trying to determine what consensus is in regards to this issue, as I'm not sure myself. Gatoclass (talk) 13:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There was a brief discussion above about what constitutes a "maritime incident" the rough consensus was more or less any kind of unintentional sinking. Im not saying that is binding, but that was the basis for my proceeding. By all means, lets develop consensus for how to handle this from now on, and perhaps update the MOS. For my part, I think its only proper that any ship that went down at sea that wasn't sunk as a target, made a block ship, or something similar have a date associated with it. I don't really see the difference between a ship that goes down with loss of life in peace time due to an accident and one that goes down in wartime with loss of life due to enemy action.  To answer your question, we need both a "ships sunk by submarines" and "maritime incidence in XXXX year" because the information imparted is different.  Just knowing that a sub sank a ship doesnt tell you when, it doesnt even tell you what war. For comparison, we have both "ships sunk in collisions" and "maritime incidents in X" as well, again, the information is different.


 * One possible comprimise solution would be to create a sub-cat like "wartime losses in XXXX year", for WWI and WWII there would be plenty of ships, other wars might only have one or two though. Bonewah (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm a little confused by that post Bonewah, because when you say "the rough consensus was more or less any kind of unintentional sinking", then surely that would exclude ships sunk by submarines, as they are deliberate sinkings? Gatoclass (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In my opinion the only ships sunk by submarines which can be described as "Maritime incidents" are controversial sinkings like the Reuben James, Lusitania, Awa Maru etc. Sinking for example a destroyer under "normal" circumstances is not a maritime incident. Loosmark (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I meant unintentional as opposed to premeditated scuttling, like an artificial reef. Let me ask you a counter question, why not categorize wartime losses by year?  I just dont see why being sunk by a submarine should change whether or not we catagorize by year, one has nothing to do with the other.  To Loosmark, I see where you are getting this, but I think you are reading too much into the word "incident".  If there were a catagory called "ships sunk in XXXX year" I would much rather use that, because incident is one of those vague, double-speak words that PR guys use to disguise ugly facts.  But we already use, and have cats for incident, so I continued to use that scheme. The important thing here is the year of the sinking, in my opinion, not so much the manor or level of controversy.


 * Let me rephrase this so as to, hopefully, be more clear. I only care about the date the ship met its end, if need be, Ill be happy to create a sub-cat like "WWI losses in 1915" and categorize all the war casualties in that manor. Again, I feel that if a ship met its end in any other way besides an orderly, premeditated disposal, we should categorize that by year.  Bonewah (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(od) WWII losses in (year) could throw up a few oddities, such as Category:WWII losses in 1947 (MV Aqueity). Mjroots (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that is a feature, not a bug. ;-) There are some ships that were sunk in both wars, too. It doesnt have to be perfect, but it should as much sense as possible. Also, note that the cat Category:U-boats sunk in 1915 is a sub cat of Category:Maritime incidents in 1915, so we already do categorize war losses as Maritime incidents, at least for subs. Bonewah (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a maybe stupid question, what exactly is the benefit of having such categories? Loosmark (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Have a read of WP:CAT, that may answer your question. Mjroots (talk) 06:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * So, do we have some resolution on this? Is everyone ok with me adding wartime losses to maritime incidents? Do we want to sub-cat war losses? Bonewah (talk) 14:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not happy with adding wartime losses (except accidents) to maritime incidents, for reasons already given. Someone should drop a note at Bellhalla's talk page. He's the one who's done most work on cat. pages in recent times and I'd like to hear what he thinks. Gatoclass (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * How about wartime losses as a sub cat? Can you get behind that? Bonewah (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts:
 * First off, there's no need to race off before discussing the topic even 48 hours, since there's no deadline.
 * Given that there's no article entitled Maritime incident to look to for guidance, we just have to go on discussion. (Has there been any other for what constitutes a "maritime incident"? Bonewah alluded to one above…?) As for me, I'm inclined to agree with Gato and Loosmark that a wartime sinking between belligerents does not constitute an "incident". (Tragic? Yes, but unexpected or out of the ordinary? No.)
 * Back when we discussed the addition of the various categories and subcategories of Category:Ships by decade and Category:Ships by century, my interpretation of the discussion was that there was not consensus for categories like "Ships sunk in [year]", or "Ships commissioned in [year]", "Ships scrapped in [year]", etc. (the existence of several U-boat categories of this type notwithstanding). This would seem to speak against adding any of the proposed "World War I losses in [year]". In that regard, we do already have Category:World War I shipwrecks, Category:World War II shipwrecks, and all of their subcategories, as well as the articles List of shipwrecks in 1914, List of shipwrecks in 1915, etc. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is the previous discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships for your perusal. The discussion you linked doesnt really deal with ship sinking in any great detail, but i get the general point that it is good to avoid too many overlapping cats.  However, I dont think that thinking applies here because 1)These cats already exist and 2) the only question is do we put wartime losses in the same categories as peacetime accidents.  I must say, I really dont understand the resistance to categorizing war losses by year, what difference does it make if a ship wrecks on a reef or if it is shelled by an enemy ship? The ship sunk either way.  Im baffled as to why we would categorize the Titanic by year lost but not the Lusitania, what difference does it make how the ship sunk?


 * Again, I want to ask, what is the harm in categorizing wartime losses by year? It can, and should be a sub cat of things like Category:World War I shipwrecks and Category:Maritime incidents in 1915 and we already do this for (German) subs (Category:U-boats sunk in 1915) why not do this for every other war loss?  Further, if we have notable engagements we could further sub cat them like Category:World War I warships scuttled in Scapa Flow which is a sub cat of Category:Maritime incidents in 1919.  To my mind, this is exactly what categories are supposed to do, group entries together based on a useful, common criteria.  We already group ships together by loss date, why not do the same for war losses? Bonewah (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's another question: What makes people think that "maritime incidents" are limited to sinkings at all? If that is what people wanted the category to be limited to, it should have been called "Sinkings" or "Accidental sinkings" or whatnot. "Maritime incidents" could include all sorts of international incidents, domestic incidents, storm-related events that don't involve sinkings, rescues that don't involve sinkings, hostage taking, piracy etc., etc. If you really want a sinkings only category, it should be named so as to make that obvious; if you want a category that includes other types of maritime incidents, then "maritime incidents" is a good name but should not be limited to sinkings. And, if you limit "maritime incidents" to sinkings, you have painted yourself into a corner without a way of categorizing other maritime incidents under, well, something like "maritime incidents." Category names should be tailored closely to what they are to include, or chaos will result and the editors' workload will increase and increase. Mdnavman (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)mdnavman


 * I think that is part of the reason there is so much disagreement about what should and should not be in this category, the fact that everyone has a different definition of what constitutes an "incident". Some people think it is any kind of loss, some think its only accidental loss, some think its only controversial loss, and some think its any sort of maritime event. The reason is that "incident" is a vague word that doesnt convey any information about what really happened.  If it were up to me, I would change all the categories to "ships wrecked in xxxx year" because that tells the reader exactly what happened to the ships in that group, they wrecked.  I dont see that happening, however, so the next best thing is to simply put all wrecks into a maritime incidents year cat. Bonewah (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * An incident is something untoward that happens. Apart from sinking, there are collisions (RMS Fort Victoria and SS Algonquin), groundings (SS Prenton), fires (SS L'Atlantique), hijackings (MS Achille Lauro), cargo shifting (MV Cougar Ace). Not all of these result in the ship being wrecked, but they can all be classed as "Maritime incidents". Mjroots (talk) 07:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact that it is called "Maritime incidents" (and not "Ship incidents", for example) doesn't even necessarily mean that whatever it is has to include a ship. A mass beaching of whales might arguably be categorized as a maritime incident. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal
Based on the above discussion, I'd like to open a more formal discussion to gauge the consensus. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you support the creation of categories like "Ships sunk in [year]", "World War II losses in [year]", or some other appropriately worded name, to be added to ship articles?:

Support "Ships sunk in [year]", "World War (I/II) losses in [year]" as subcats of "Maritime incidents in [year]. Also support creation of "Ships scrapped in [year]" category. Mjroots (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Support at least "World War (I/II) losses in [year]" as subcats of "Maritime incidents in [year], further sub-categories should be created for important battles with heavy ship losses, so category:ships sunk at the battle of midway would be a subcat of category:World War II losses in 1942 Bonewah (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think ship articles are overcategorised as it is, ( added note: I personally find the "Nation Shiptype in Conflict" to be the most unnecessary ) but I'm happy to follow whatever consensus results from the discussion. That said, I'm not a fan of the proposed "World War X losses in YYYY" categories. If we are going to subdivide up the "Ships sunk in YYYY" category, I think it should be by how she was lost: i.e. "Ships sunk in combat in YYYY" (with specific battle categories as subcats of this), "Ships sunk following collision in YYYY" "Ships sunk by mines in YYYY", etc). That way, we can develop a consistent system of "Ships sunk..." subcats that are not confined to wartime eras: mines and collisions don't need a war to happen. -- saberwyn 06:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment Categories for ships are just out of control and I'm sure that categories in general across WP are the same. Would it not be a good idea to pause and rethink what we're doing here? As a rule I stay away from category implementation and discussion mostly because I feel it's a hopeless cause. I don't understand the fascination with trying to categorize every little point and/or incident that occurs during the life of a ship. How far away are we from having categories for ships that tore a sail in 1812? Maybe that would be a maritime incident. --Brad (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I need more time to think about this. We already have Shipwreck categories after all (although to be honest, I think this category is misnamed and not very useful). I kind of like saberwyn's suggestion above. One thing at least we should consider is breaking up the "Ships sunk by German submarines" cat into "Ships sunk by German submarines in WWI/WWII", because there were literally thousands of ships sunk by subs in both wars and there's no doubt we need more cats in that area. I tend to be of the view that the ideal cat is no longer than 200 articles (one page) in size, at which time one should consider breaking them down further. There's nothing wrong with lots of cats providing they are logically ordered, and you don't end up with too many of them on individual ship articles. Gatoclass (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment To Brad, I agree with you that over categorizing and too specialized categorizing are a bad idea, but clearly a ship sinking is not a "little point" in the life of a ship. Bonewah (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A possible solution to this particular flavour of overcategorising would be restricting Category:Maritime Incidents In XXXX to articles on the incidents. So, articles like Melbourne–Evans collision, USS Missouri grounding incident, or King Cruiser wreck would be included in these categories, but HMAS Melbourne (R21), USS Frank E. Evans (DD-754), USS Missouri (BB-63), or King Cruiser would not. Instead/in addition to, each ship article would have a single "Fate category" (which in most cases would replace the current "Maritime Incident" category), being the most accurate category to describe what happened to the ship At The EndTM. Ships sunk would receive the fate category Category:Ships sunk in XXXX (which will be a subcategory of "Maritime Incident in XXXX"), or the relevant flavour of subcategory (mine, collision, battle, etc...see my comment further up), while other ships receive more relevant fate-categories, like Category:Ships sunk as targets, Category:Museum ships in Sweden, or Category:Active ships of Australia (for those Fate hasn't caught up to yet). -- saberwyn 06:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sold on the need for these categories, but your proposal seems to be the most common sense. I especially agree with your logic wherein a ship should not be categorized as an incident. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I also like this proposal. My only concern is that it would necessitate the creation of thousands of new cats and that would take some time.  I would be happy to participate in that sort of work, however, if this becomes the agreed upon scheme. Bonewah (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A second problem I just realised is that we would have to rename the current "launch year" categories (currently i.e. Category:1997 ships) to something more descriptive (like Category:Ships launched in 1997. -- saberwyn 21:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Can someone point me to the previous discussion that was apparently had re: year of ship loss-type cats? I can't seem to find it. Gatoclass (talk) 07:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There was the discussion about year-of-launch cats at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Archive_13. It looks like there was some discussion regarding a range of year+event based cats, but year of launch was the main thrust. -- saberwyn 08:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I read through that discussion earlier and saw very little on this topic. Just read it again and still didn't see anything much. If that's the only thread on the topic, seems we haven't really had a good discussion about it yet. Gatoclass (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The only discussion that I am aware of outside of the archive link from Saberwyn is what immediately precedes this one (i.e. ) — Bellhalla (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is also this discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships, it doesnt contain that much. Bonewah (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to relight the fire under this. Lets ignore the how for now and find out if there is support for adding a category (year-based or otherwise) to describe the end of a ship's life to articles. Thoughts? -- saberwyn 19:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To make my position clear, I don't like the idea of overcategorisation, but would support the addition of a single "fate category" as the logical opposite bookend to the ship year of launch category. -- saberwyn 20:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

ITN articles
We currently list DYK articles on the Wikiproject page, but what about ITN articles? Should these be listed too? See Category:Wikipedia In the news articles where all the qualifying articles will be listed. Mjroots (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never seen the point in listing DYK articles in the first place. They aren't very important overall. Adding another area of articles in the same vein seems just as pointless. All of those articles should have a notice on the talk page anyway. --Brad (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, they do have to meet certain standards to get a DYK, but at the rate we are accumulating them, we are going to end up with thousands. I was thinking only last night that it might be an idea to move them to a subpage sorted alphabetically, because scrolling through that list isn't really terribly useful. 15:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A separate page would be ok. I'm not sure how up to date the entries are since the page is on my watch list and I haven't seen any DYK articles added in quite some time. --Brad (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you keep an eye on the Article Alerts that will show up DYKs that have been tagged with the ships WP. Mjroots (talk) 07:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Maritime/Tudor period DYK opportunity
There's a planned press release from at least two Wikimedia chapters (UK and Sweden) for an upcoming image donation from the Mary Rose Trust scheduled for January 3. It's going to be accompanied by a major update of the article on the Mary Rose which is going to be suggested as a DYK in conjunction with the press release. If anyone here is interested in joining in, check out Wikipedia talk:Did you know.

Peter Isotalo 23:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

SS Irish Oak
The SS Irish Oak (1919) article has been reviewed following a GA nomination and found to be in need of a copyedit. Is there any editor who would like to polish the article up a bit? Mjroots (talk) 07:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Guideline
A new discussion on the current guideline's position on the use of prefixes has been opened here Interested users may wish to comment. Benea (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Resources page
The resources page continues to grow. I just posted
 * E. W. Wright (1895) Lewis & Dryden's marine history of the Pacific Northwest full access on Google books

and noticed some other additions. Which raises the question, should this page have more prominent placement on the project page?Dankarl (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Ships sidebar template has many of our pages listed there. --Brad (talk) 13:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess my point is that the Project Documentation section of the template is in Hide mode, and the name of the section does not exactly invite casual exploration. Could it open unhidden? or have a more inviting name? or could there be a section labeled How To?Dankarl (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No longer hidden. I made some other adjustments for things to stand out a bit more. In general I've never been satisfied with our front page and there are a lot of things that could use some freshening. --Brad (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

HMS Fortitude
How many ships were so named? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  23:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Having just done some cat sorting that involved that shipindex I decided to see what I could find. If I take your question literally, then two (that I've found with Google), both age of sail 74s.  HMS Fortitude also shows up in two novels.  That designation was also given to a port during WWII.  Fortitude was also the name of a sailing ship that carried free immigrants to Australia.  See HMS Fortitude for links.  --J Clear (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Is that a warship ... ?
... on the sea behind the castle on the left side of File:Hotel Del c1900b.jpg? It looks like something from the Great White Fleet or an early 20th century cruiser (like the SMS Emden (1908)). However other than the fact that it has three funnels and two tripod or lattice masts, I am not sure. Anyone else have an idea? Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Skimming through early c20th US warships, it bears a resemblance to USS New York (ACR-2) - note the gap between the funnels and the rear mast. The funnels of USS Brooklyn (CA-3) are too tall, and none of the other cruisers look right. Alternately, it might be a Connecticut class battleship - they seem to have had masts like that at first - but that would have to be c. 1905-1910, and I don't know how loose the date on the picture is. Shimgray | talk | 15:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think she is likely to be the New York - compare with File:USS New York (ACR-2).JPG. At first I thought she might be the Brooklyn, but the masts are wrong for the Brooklyn.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah. Comparing this and this, which are about the right angle, it seems to rule out one of the Connecticuts; the larger superstructure at the back seems right, and the first funnel closer to the mast. New York was around the California area in 1904-1905, which fits with our timeframe. Shimgray | talk | 15:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It's probably a warship, but the photograph is too old to have been part of the actual Great White Fleet mission (although the ship might have sailed with them a few years later). San Diego has a large Naval base and it's not unusual to see a few ships going out on exercises on any given day; the background of that panorama is the mouth of the harbor. Now if you want to check out something interesting, see below.

I don't know exactly when the Great White Fleet visited San Diego, but 1908 means it's a possibility. That's an unusually large number of Naval ships on the horizon. If anyone from the Ships project has the sources to verify that this is indeed the Great White Fleet's San Diego visit, then please let me know. I'll relay word to the Library of Congress staff and if they confirm the find then this photograph will become a whole lot more encyclopedic. Best regards, Durova  390 22:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * San Diego was April 10-16. For it to be the GWF, you'd expect three squadrons of four three-stack battleships, and one squadron of two-stack battleships; it's hard to be sure, but it certainly looks like that's what we have here. Shimgray | talk | 22:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a slightly hazy day, so if that was the Great White Fleet then some of the ships could have been lost on the horizon. That's one reason I've never been sure.  But the cluster of onlookers at the hotel pier has always made me wonder.  Durova  390 22:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly sure that is the Great White Fleet, I can see both three and two-stack battleships in that photo, keeping in mind that the two stackers would appear to have one because of how the stacks were arranged. That combination of warships was not seen on the west coast in these numbers except for the Great White Fleet during this time period. Also, the link provided by Shimgray above states: "At 12:47 the fleet anchored off the Hotel del Coronado" and later on it mentions that a ball was held in honor of Admiral Evans in the hotel. We would need something more concrete than that link, but it should not be too hard to uncover the source attesting to where the fleet anchored. -MBK004 23:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you have a source for that analysis, MBK004? Durova  390 23:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not on hand, I remember reading a book about the fleet that said something to that effect about the fleet size on the west coast during that time period, but I am not at school for another two-three weeks. As to the identification of the warships, hours of looking at profile views of US battleships, although admittedly pre-dreadnoughts are not my specialty. -MBK004 23:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a rush; when you find a reference please leave word at my user talk page. The librarians will need something to compare it; your argument sounds good if the documentation is available.  Durova  390 00:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I can confirm that the GWF was in San Diego in that time span; says that "the fleet arrived at San Diego on April 14." I can't explicitly confirm with a secondary source that it was the largest fleet to be off the west coast in that time period, but I can come close. Thence round Cape Horn by Robert Erwin Johnson, p. 165 (GB link) says that a fleet formed in 1907 of four armored cruisers, four protected cruisers and USS Yorktown (PG-1) "was far and away the most formidable naval force assembled in the eastern Pacific." Note that the cruisers came from the Pennsylvania-class armored cruisers and the St. Louis-class protected cruisers (ref the DANFS entries for the Pennsys and Johnson, p. 165. As all six Pennsys were in the Pacific at that time, I'm not sure why only four were included in the fleet&mdash;Johnson doesn't give specifics on that point). The important part here is that all nine members of those classes above had four funnels, whereas the ships in that photo either have three or side-by-side funnels. Also note that there are at least eleven vessels in the photo plus the indistinct ones on the far left. I just can't see any possibility that the collection of ships gathered there isn't the Great White Fleet. Regards, —  Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  08:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm counting 13 vessels and the 14th is likely obscured by the smokestack on the hotel grounds or elsewhere. Seems like this is the GWF. --Brad (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There should be a combination of both types of two-stackers, I forgot that both Kearsarge class ships were in the fleet, along with the Illinois class. (Kearsarge and Kentucky had the traditional arrangement of two funnels, while Alabama and Wisconsin had the side-by-side funnels. -MBK004 09:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)