Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 17

Single ship classes
I was browsing some of Wikipedia's warship pages and I noticed we have class pages for some single ship classes. For example, we have pages for both USS Long Beach (CGN-9) and Long Beach class cruiser, despite CGN-9 being the only ship of the Long Beach class. Similarly, we have a USS Bainbridge (CGN-25) page and a Bainbridge class cruiser. This seems rather redundant. In both these cases, the class page doesn't really say anything not already covered in the ship's page. There might be a special case if a ship was meant to be the first of a larger class, but no sister ships were ever built, where the class page could include some information beyond it's sole member. However, in these cases, they were both intended as one-offs. In other cases, such as Enterprise class aircraft carrier, the class page redirects to the article about the ship. This seems to be a much more sensible alternative. Should we have class pages for classes of only one ship? Blackeagle (talk) 03:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If it can all be covered in the ship article, I think that single-ship classes should be merged and redirected to the ship. Even if more vessels of the class were intended but cancelled, I think this could easily be covered in a "Design & development" section of the ship article. -- saberwyn 03:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I've never created class articles when there is just one ship in it... really a one-ship class is a bit of a misnomer - it's just a one-off, regardless of what the original intent may have been. If there was only one ship built to a design, it is unique, and there is no logic in referencing another article that can tell you no more than could, and probably should, be in the article on the ship. Martocticvs (talk) 13:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In some cases, a class article for a single ship is warranted. For example, the Normandie class battleship, of which only Béarn was completed, is an obvious case (i.e., the battleship tech specs need to go somewhere, and the article about the converted carrier isn't a good place for it). Another case I think warrants a separate class article is the series of minor navy dreadnought battleships ordered from British yards in the run-up to WWI (the Turkish Reshadieh and two uncompleted sisters, and Almirante Latorre and the converted Almirante Cochrane). These class articles are good places to cover arms-races, budgetary conflicts, etc. that wouldn't be appropriately placed in the individual ship article. I do agree that where there was only one ship built, and only one planned (i.e., HMS Tiger (1913) or SMS Von der Tann) only the individual article is needed. Parsecboy (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Categories
We have categories for merchant ships active during WWI and active during WWII. For those ships active between the two wars, there is no specific category. What about a new category Category:Inter-war merchant ships? Mjroots (talk) 10:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Can't really see the point. There is nothing terribly interesting about ships active in the interwar period. WWI and WWII are interesting periods, which is why there are categories for them. Gatoclass (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So, we have Category:Merchant ships covering 1918-39, and 1945 on. Seems a bit odd to me. Mjroots (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I don't see that an Interwar merchant ships cat will serve much of a purpose. Most ships that saw interwar service probably saw service in at least one of the world wars already. Perhaps there is an argument for more merchant ship cats, but I don't see much point in that particular one. Gatoclass (talk) 18:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

More invented ship class names
There seems to have been a rash of applying class names to ships for a period when US Navy ships were not regularly assigned class names. List of ships of the line of the United States Navy is just one example but I've been seeing this trend on other articles. Is anyone aware of any official US Navy policy on named ship classes? I don't believe that named classes were commonly used until the early 20th century. --Brad (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to find a source for this, but I believe by US law, USN ships are named after the lead ship, the first ship to be authorized by Congress. I believe this dates back to the early 1800s. I think I'm thinking of ship names themsleves, not the classes. - BilCat (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There are some modern "historians" trying to change history by giving ships class names when it was not common for the era, which I greatly dislike. The Naval Institute Press seems to be responsible for allowing this trend in the books they publish. Rather then weighing evidence for such, we have editors coming in and declaring it gospel based on one published book. --Brad (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Template help
I've messed up the LSWR Ships template. When you click on the "e" to edit it, you get a message saying there is no template of that name, but when you click on the edit this page tab, you can edit the template. Any expert about who can sort this one out? Mjroots (talk) 11:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Brad 101 sorted it out . Mjroots (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not about being an expert; just that you need to make sure the template name matches the template space name. The case of the font was the trouble ie: ships instead of Ships. --Brad (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I just couldn't see what was wrong for looking. Mjroots (talk) 06:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've made the same mistake a few times myself, either when creating them, or when renaming the template, as the name has to be changed within the template then also. I've seen the PAGENAME function used in the name field in some templates, but not very often. This might not be recommended, but I don't know. - BilCat (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Nimitz class aircraft carrier
I have opened a peer review for this article WikiProject_Ships/Peer_review/Nimitz_class_aircraft_carrier. I have moved the previous discussion below here:

I have been trying to improve this article by adding refs and additional information, and removing the bullet points. Although there is the odd place that needs some improvement, I think it's probably nearly a B-class now, but I'd like other opinions as to how it can be further improved. Jhbuk (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Citations are still needed in some places, particularly in the sections for the individual ships. We don't currently have any FA carrier class articles, but take a look at HMAS Melbourne (R21), particularly the sections on the ship design and outfit (the service history is obviously much longer, since it's just the one ship). A example of a class article FA Moltke class battlecruiser, which has a little better example of how the individual ships should be treated. Parsecboy (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm aware of the lack of references in some places, and I've been adding them in. All I really did with the individual ships was to combine the bullet points and add any other important information with a citation, as I wasn't really sure how to deal with them.  As I mentioned, I haven't finished with it, but I just wanted some better ideas about what more should be done. Jhbuk (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, since the Nimitzs have served since the mid-1970s, I would instead recommend Iowa class battleship as the guide because the Iowas had quite long service careers as well. -MBK004 22:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for trying to improve this extremely important article! A thought from me: image overload. I know that for many capital ship class articles there is a picture of each individual ship for the corresponding section, but many of these articles don't have ten members. Especially seeing that there aren't very many aesthetic differences between the older and newer ships (at least, I don't think there are), I think that the number of images in that section can comfortable be reduced by half. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  05:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have made some imrovements. Regarding the parts about the individual ships, I have written this for the part on Nimitz and intend to make the others of a similar style. I am a little worried that it's turning into more of a list though, and it may need some slight adjustments to improve that. Jhbuk (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)  I have since completed this for all of the ships and I'd like some additional advice as to what I can do now.  I've done everything I intended to do. Jhbuk (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The "Design and Construction" section could use some more info about how the design changed as newer ships were constructed, cumulating in the half-Ford-class USS George H. W. Bush. The info regarding Bush should probably move out of the lead and into this expanded content. A slightly expanded "Future" section might also be an idea... something like a paragraph comparing the basic stats of the two designs (size and dimensions, crew, aircraft, etc.). -- saberwyn 22:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've done most of that. There's still the odd thing that needs some minor alterations and possibly slight adjustments for MOS that I'll correct - the lead may need a little expanding for example (I was trying to put US spellings in wherever I could, but I'm not that familiar).  I can't see anything substantially wrong with it though (that would immediately fail it), so I've put it up for a GA nomination, that would give a better idea for improvements if necessary. Jhbuk (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Infobox ship
There has been another proposal made about infoboxes for research ships. I think this particular issue should be discussed on the template talk page along with the other proposal. --Brad (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Discussion copied over to the template talk page per Brad101's suggestion. Let discussion continue there. Mjroots (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Nimitz class aircraft carrier now open
The peer review for Nimitz class aircraft carrier is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 09:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for USS Missouri grounding incident now open
The peer review for USS Missouri grounding incident is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 09:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ships navboxes and books
After creating Book:Nimitz class aircraft carriers, I thought it would be nice to include books in the navboxes, but there was no place to put them. I've created a mock-up of what the end-result could look like.

Please comment at Template talk:Navbox. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * On a related note, can you address a problem I discovered with the project template? See Template_talk:WikiProject_Ships. --Brad (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Article naming - HMS Belfast
I am starting a GA review of HMS Belfast (C35), and I noted that the title has disambiguation brackets (C35) even though we only have the one article on a HMS Belfast, and that HMS Belfast redirects to HMS Belfast (C35). The disambiguation brackets are not needed, are slightly problematic, so that, for example, the find}} template has to be adjusted, as a search for "HMS Belfast (C35)" produces incorrect results, and are against the guidelines given in [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions. I have checked your guidelines, and didn't find guidance on using disambiguation brackets in situations like this. However, I don't wish to restore the title to HMS Belfast, without consulting with you first. I am also notifying User:David Newton who did the move in 2004. Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 12:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * From Naming conventions (ships): "If there is only one article for a given ship name, you should still pre-emptively disambiguate it, creating a redirect from the plain name ...This means that when a second article is written about another ship with that name (and so the plain name becomes a disambiguation page), you do not have to go round fixing all the links." -- saberwyn 22:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thankyou. I will put a link to Naming conventions (ships) in WikiProject Ships/Guidelines.  SilkTork  *YES! 06:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah! OK - I see it is already there, right at the top! I missed it earlier.  SilkTork  *YES! 06:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Further to the GA review that initiated this discussion, the reviewer is now advocating the article be split into two articles, one about Belfast's career as a warship, the other about her career as a museum ship. This seems counter-intuitive, and our featured article on a current museum ship, USS Constitution, doesn't do it this way. Perhaps there could be a wider discussion on this from project members. Benea (talk) 14:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree that this is counter-intuitive: the only time I'd support this is if it was a split due to size, which is not necessary by any means in this case. -- saberwyn 20:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't like splitting articles on ships. In the case of Belfast it makes no sense.  People are more interested in visiting her as a museum ship, because she had a history as a cruiser.  I could understand wanting to split the article if she was now used as an art gallery - where the things of interest were the paintings, etc;  even then a good case could be made for keeping it as one article.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If the ship's active duty history has a short summary of the museum status with a main to the Museum ship article, it should work out. This might not be a bad thing for USS Constitution, either, but one has to contend with an article about the nearby, but separate, USS Constitution Museum article in that case.  I'd bet her restoration(s) would make another good sub article, too.  --J Clear (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

City of Adelaides - Article Naming Issue
I working on an article about the City of Adelaide, a vessel wrecked off the coast of Magnetic Island, Australia. The article was originally written under the title Adelaide (coal barque), however, further research has yeilded the vessels full name is the City of Adelaide, and furthermore, the vessel was also previously a passenger steamer before it was converted to a barque for cargo transport. The name of the vessel is of course shared with the famous Clipper, The City of Adelaide. The article for the clipper is filed under City of Adelaide (1864). This is the launch date for the vessel, which is also shared with the barque I have written the article on. I'm a bit puzzled as to where I should move this article. "City of Adelaide (coal barque)" should not be used because of the previous uses of the vessel (plus its quite hard for those who know little of marine vessels to find by title), but using the launch year would clash with the other article. I want to try and minimize the movement of articles, does anybody from Wikiproject Ships have any ideas on how I should name the article when I move it? --Twistie.man (talk) 05:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As she was a steamship, and as she was actually launched on 22 December 1863, SS City of Adelaide (1863). Benea (talk) 06:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Does it need the (1863) if it's the only SS City of Adelaide? Gatoclass (talk) 07:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, for she isn't. The Ellerman Lines had two steamships by that name, launched in 1917 and 1920, and had the annoyance of losing both of them to submarines in different World Wars. There was also an MV City of Adelaide, launched in 1964, as well as the clipper of exactly 100 years earlier. Benea (talk) 08:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you've done your homework :) There was only one City of Adelaide when I checked the dab page though. Gatoclass (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Anything to avoid real work :) I've updated it since. Benea (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Can I get a source of the launch date, all the databases I have consulted list 1864 as launch, though I may have missed one. --Twistie.man (talk) 06:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * here and here for starters. The two sources you have used for the article that give any date use the term 'built' rather than 'launched', which gives a rough period of completion of the work of finishing, fitting and equipping the vessel. Benea (talk) 06:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Good Topic nomination for Gorgon class monitors
All interested editors are invited to comment at Featured topic candidates/Gorgon class monitor/archive1 as to its suitability as a good topic.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Historic moment
Knock Nevis, currently the world's largest ship period, is being scrapped. I just learned about it not more than an hour ago. I took the liberty of adding some information to the article, just what I could find, for a shot at a spot on the in the news section on the main page. As this is still fair recent news I am having trouble finding information through my usual channels, so I left this here to both inform everyone of the development and to see if anyone can gather more information on the event. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

A strange and curious bias
The ship infoboxes allow a few spelling choices, with double parameter listings
 * Ship honors=
 * Ship honours=
 * Ship draught=
 * Ship draft=
 * Ship armor=
 * Ship armour=

Can anybody tell me why I'm finding hundreds of American ships where the infoboxes use "armour" and "draught" and "honours", yet for the British ships it seems that I can find several using "armor" in the text but not in the infoboxes, where it is "armour".

Am I not looking right? Maybe it's my own bias, but I doubt it. I think there is a real difference in the frequency of misuse of the infoboxes. Does anybody have an explanation why that happens? Gene Nygaard (talk) 07:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably some editors who aren't used to US spelling conventions. It's quite possible that the infoboxes were copied from non-US ship articels, and that the ZUS fileds had already been removed, thus the editor didn't realize there was a choice. However, it would be quite a job to check the history of several hundred articles to see if these were changed from trhe US conventions, and probably not worth the effort, unless this was all done by a single user. - BilCat (talk) 08:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that all of them I have done so far have included both spellings for at least one of the parameters on the edit page; only a few have had one spelling removed for one or two of those parameters, so that explanation is possible for a few, but most of them were like USS Sandoval (1895) is now, or like this difference where you can see that the American spellings were already there in that article's infobox before I moved the info to the proper parameter and deleted the one spelt wrong. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe those are the result of an automated program that was used to convert several thousand obsolete infoboxes over to the new one. It was only after being finished that I realized he had used Commonwealth words on US ships. Another mistake made was to the ships in active service. The "Status" line was moved to "Fate". So we ended up with - Fate: Active in service - on many articles as well. Of course the problem gets compounded when people copy boxes or use a box that is in error as an example. --Brad (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The alternate spellings are in accordance with WP:ENGVAR to enable British or US spelling in infobox and article without forcing one or the other in the infobox. Mjroots (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * When a bot does something like that, I'd say that the bot should do the fix-up work too. Note in particular that in accordance withWP:ENGVAR, the use of American English is not limited to U.S. ships.  Gene Nygaard (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for HMAS Sydney (R17) now open
The peer review for HMAS Sydney (R17) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 06:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Ships of Patrick O'Brian
Category:Ships of Patrick O'Brian has been nominated for deletion. See Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 11.

76.66.197.17 (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Help please...
I am concerned by some recent edits I noticed to German cruiser Lützow (Hipper class) by a user who has recently came off of a one year block and who predominately uses online machine-translation of foreign sources for his edits. The edits in question have removed existing references (in English) and replaced them with references in what I assume is Russian. I can tell immediately that this was put through an online translator because the grammer is extremely poor and not of the professional quality that we strive for. I am especially concerned by the discussion on the user's talk page where he doesn't get the message about not copy-pasting from online translations. Could some others preferably in the United Kingdom or anywhere else where it is daylight please help deal with this since it is past 3 AM where I am? -MBK004 09:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've gone for a revert to an earlier version - as the easiest thing to reverse as necessary. There appears to be some info added but its such a grammatical mess. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Iowa class battleship FAR
nominated Iowa class battleship for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Mary Rose peer review
Mary Rose is up for peer review. Comments and suggestions for improvement would be greatly appreciated.

Peter Isotalo 21:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured Article Review for Imperial Japanese Navy
nominated Imperial Japanese Navy for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -MBK004 11:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of battlecruisers of Germany now open
The A-Class review for List of battlecruisers of Germany is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 13:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Recognized content bot
A new bot was just put into service that locates and lists a project's "recognized content" by generating a list of FA's and GA's etc. I set up a preliminary page at WikiProject_Ships/Showcase. The bot is very tunable and we could separate content to its own page or wherever we feel it's best to locate it. This eliminates the task of having to manually update the data on our own and should answer some of the questions that were raised about ITN Articles above here.

There are some limitations in that the bot will only list articles that have our project tag on the talk page. This presents a problem with featured pictures as most of those are at commons which does not get project tags from the various wikis. --Brad (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If you don't want to tag the images, you can also have a hybrid version, where the bot picks up the DYK and so on, and keep pictures done manually. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Aren't we forgetting our A-Class articles. That point was the reason why MILHIST probably will not utilize this bot, it doesn't recognize it. -MBK004 23:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yet. Talk to User:JLaTondre about that. I'm pretty sure he'll implement it if you ask him nicely. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I did on the bot request page, and he said that unless it was category based it would not be possible with the bot. The issue is that MILHIST and ships cross-lists their ACRs and MILHIST has recently begun cross-listing with the Aviation project as well, meaning that a SHIPS A-class article may have had a MILHIST ACR but be an A-class article for both projects. See how the bot wouldn't be able to work? -MBK004 00:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this thread was to gather thoughts and possible improvements we would like to see. As you say we can take the issues to the bot owner later on. In the meantime let's not just dismiss and stomp on the overall idea. --Brad (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the Ship project tag it's A-class articles with A? If so, that should be placing the talk pages of articles in a category. It may require a different behaviour than the others, but it shouldn't be all that hard to modify. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, Category:A-Class military history articles and Category:A-Class Ships articles — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  05:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

User:JLaTondre says that A-class is now supported. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're quick! :-) I edited conflicted in leaving my own message. As project's usually have their own category for A-Class articles, I added a new content type parameter that allows you to specify a category. See the template for how to use. If there are any questions or issues with the results, let me know. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I added the parameter. Hopefully it's set correctly. --Brad (talk) 00:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It was set correctly & I ran the bot so the page has been updated. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I've asked for support with In the News articles and this will be added. Also support for FA's that have made a main page appearance along with the date of appearance is being worked on. --Brad (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured and good topics will soon be added. Starting to be a lot more helpful now. --Brad (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Using Determiners for Ship Names
I would like to propose a standard usage in Wikipedia for all ships' names: that as inanimate objects, and according to traditional English usage, ships' names should be proceeded by a determiner whenever they occur. "The Queen Mary," "The Titanic," "The Bremen," etc. It has been an unfortunate occurrence since Jame's Cameron's "Titanic" that somehow we have begun addressing ships as thinking beings. "Normandie boasts... " "France held...." This recent habit is ridiculous if you think about it. Take a discussion of any inanimate object, say a freeway. Would you ever write: "I-10 is a pleasure to drive. I-10 is made of concrete. Built in 1970, I-10 runs directly to Burbank. I-10 requires 10 million a year in maintenance." Never. Omitting the determiner (or using it only once at the beginning of the article) simply adds a pompous tone to the text, and causes editorial confusion, as names now appear in Wikipedia articles both with and without articles in the same paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doesitbetter (talk • contribs) 08:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to make it clear, the editor wants us to change WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines and then implement this change across every ship article on wikipedia. They have been edit warring on this issue for a day before eventually deciding to discuss this instead of being blocked for disruptive editing on SS Normandie. -MBK004 08:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am against this because it is a slippery slope to having to rehash the she/it debate all over again. The guidelines were clearly written that way for a reason and while each article needs to not change its style internally, each is currently accepted. -MBK004 08:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. I might also point out that vehicles are often referred to as if they were entities rather than objects, that's why they are given names in the first place. Gatoclass (talk) 10:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ships are not inanimate objects, they move. Centuries of tradition has referred to ships (as with all machines) in the feminine form in the English speaking world. Mjroots (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed most recently (at least that I am aware of) here. Suffice it to say, the MoS allows both ways, but if one style has been chosen, it shouldn't be altered (a la WP:ENGVAR). As a side note, you certainly wouldn't write the I-10 runs..., you most certainly would drop the definite article from that sentence. Parsecboy (talk) 12:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe in the UK you would write "the M52 runs from x to y", but in the sense that its a contraction of "the route of the M52 runs from...." That said, the current guideline works and does not need changing. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I write either "North Carolina was" or "The battleship North Carolina was ..."; that's a compromise between the style guideline for ships and AP Stylebook, which says on the one hand that Jane's Fighting Ships is the reference of choice for military ships, but OTOH prefers "it" over "she" and prefers definite articles ("the Queen Elizabeth 2" is their example). - Dank (push to talk) 13:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, and I do stress that it is just my opinion, using the definite article before a ship's name is just wrong, for the simple reason that it is a name, and not a thing. Ie, you wouldn't say 'the Fred opened the door,' so by extension 'the Victory fired her guns' doesn't work for me. 'The ship fired her guns' is obviously perfectly fine, in exactly the same way as 'the man opened the door' is. That has always been my take on the issue. Martocticvs (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I hold the same opinion as Martocticvs. Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  18:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I hold Ed's position on this matter and disagree with the proposed change. To me, this looks like a solution in search of a problem. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know about for other ships, but in regards to Australian warships, I've been told by sailors that it is incorrect to use "the" (as in "the Sydney". The reasoning runs along the lines of: calling the ship Sydney is a convenient shortening of her name (HMAS Sydney) and HMAS is an acronym for "Her Majesty's Australian Ship". "The Her Majesty's Australian Ship Sydney" breaks grammar. "The frigate Sydney..." is alright, because "the" is associated with frigate in that phrase.
 * It should also be noted that calling a ship by its/her name without using "the" in front has been around for a long time, and was common usage in the days before the film Titanic. -- saberwyn 03:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Miramar
The Miramar website has announced that as from 19 January, a US$20 annual subscription will be needed to access the site, apart from a free 7-day trial. Mjroots (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well that sucks. I guess that $20 isn't a lot, and I understand why he had to do it ("Sponsorship has now ceased and donations are no longer sought."), but I still don't want to pay it. :/ This is a little cheap, but maybe someone could register and post the registration here so we can all access it and use it as a reference still? I'd be willing to pitch in and/or pay it next year if someone does the groundwork now. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  01:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe this means the source is no longer considered "reliable" if it is not accessible by everyone. --Brad (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's still reliable, just not an ideal source. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  01:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So in Ed-speak this means the source will be plastered all over the place? --Brad (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, no, it just means that if there is another online source that is free, that one should be cited. Actually, double-citing would probably be the best option... Regardless, I believe Miramar remains a reliable source. Nowhere in WP:RS does it say that online sources have to be accessible to everyone. Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  08:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Does this mean that cite Miramar will need altering on the 19th to state that the site is a subscription site? Mjroots (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly. I recommend waiting until the site actually changes to subscription only and then present the issue to the reference desk or whatever they call it. --Brad (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The website is now subscription only. The template will need to be altered to reflect this. Mjroots (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't you fill in the template documentation so we can see the options and layout. --Brad (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * created the template. These type of templates are beyond my editing skills.
 * We now have a problem with editors removing Miramar as a source and replacing it with a blog source (see here). While Miramar is no longer free, it is still a RS. Ships Nostalgia, while giving useful data to search with, is not a RS. English language sources are prefereable to non-English ones. Mjroots (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Template documentation needs nothing more than examples for the use of the template in articles. This is fairly simple because you know how the template is supposed to be presented in an article. --Brad (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going to leave Bellhalla a message re the template, but he's not edited since 17 Dec. Mjroots (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, we have a problem. The links simply don't work anymore&mdash;they redirect to the home page unless you are logged in. I'm not sure what should be done here. Should the urls just be removed and the titles altered to remove the "Search results for" part? — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  16:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've enacted a temporary fix while we sort this out —  Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  16:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because Miramar is now a subscription only site doesn't stop it being a RS. The best way to deal with this would be to find alternative sources for any Miramar references where possible, leaving Miramar to cover only what cannot be referenced elsewhere. Mjroots (talk) 07:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for HMS Lion (1910) now open
The A-Class review for HMS Lion (1910) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 01:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

USAT R. E. Callan
The rundown on this ship indicates that ir was not active in December 1946. However, as a Private in the US Army I'm sure that I boarded her on 11 December 1946 In New York (I think a pier in Brooklyn) enroute to Italy. We stopped for two or three days in Reykavik, Iceland to off load cargo and some Air Force personnel who would be stationed there. We were not allowed ashore because we were told that the Icelandic people were very susceptible to diseases such as the common cold, chicken pox, etc. We docked in Leghorn (Livorno) Italy on 22 December 1946 and most of us were then assigned to the 88th Infantry Division for duty along the Yugoslavian border. Rodney Hoots, Arlington, Virginia 18:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.199.38 (talk)
 * The article on USAT General R. E. Callan says in regards to the time period:


 * sailed thence via Panama for Boston, where on 24 May 1946 she was placed out of commission and turned over to the Maritime Commission for peacetime operations as an Army transport . Her name was struck from the Navy List on 19 June 1946.


 * The Maritime Commission seems to have turned it over to the Army as a transport so therefore it was not out of service during the period you describe. --Brad (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * And unfortunately, the Army apparently threw out all its transport ship records in the 1950s, so information on the movements of most Army transports is scanty. Gatoclass (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

SS Constitution
THe SS Constitution article states that the ship sank in 1997, but the source used says she is still in service. Can anyone clear this up? Mjroots (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is correct, Constitution did sink on the way to the breakers in 1997. -MBK004 02:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone with access to JSTOR?
If so I could use a look up on Voyage of the Frigate Congress, 1823. I'm not exactly sure how JSTOR works; don't know if an entire downloadable copy is available. --Brad (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have JSTOR access, and can read the article, though the terms of content redistribution are pretty strict. Is there something specific you wanted to know? I'd be happy to provide citations and details if so. Benea (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've had someone else come forward with assistance. We'll see how that goes. Thanks. --Brad (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Heh. What a hoot that article is. This was a mission that DANFS described as During the second half of 1823, she carried the United States Ministers to Spain and the Argentine Republic but failed to mention the lengths that Biddle had to go through to please a pampered politician and his broken coffee mill and butter churn. That doesn't even cover the complete deck remodeling done to the ship to accommodate Rodney and his 11 children. Anyhow, this will be a nice little snicker to add into the article :) --Brad (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well of course it doesn't. A government publication can't ridicule a foreign dignitary&mdash;alive or dead&mdash;for fear of starting a diplomatic row. :P — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  00:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Which only reinforces my dislike of using DANFS as a main source in articles. If you can read the article please do. I was totally laughing when Biddle described how one of Rodney's old horse saddles got wet and then smelled so bad they had to run it up the mast to get the smell away from them. --Brad (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hahaha that's great. I actually can't read it. For some reason, even my university access doesn't allow me to read it... — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  01:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the usage policy stated on the document, it's only to be used for personal non-commercial use. I'm interpreting "personal use" as not using it on a public site such as WP. I am wrong in reading it this way? --Brad (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for German Type UB I submarine now open
The peer review for German Type UB I submarine is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 03:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Infobox code
Can someone point me to the page that contains the ship infobox code? I would like to experiment with a copy of it in my sandbox. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 09:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Is this it? - Template:Infobox_ship_begin/doc Mjroots (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, that's not it, because it doesn't contain the code for handling the individual fields, which is what I want to mess around with. Gatoclass (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like the code is split up by the subsections, so Template:Infobox ship image, Template:Infobox ship career, Template:Infobox ship characteristics, and Template:Infobox ship class overview. -- saberwyn 20:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, that's what I'm looking for. Nice work saberwyn, thanks very much! Gatoclass (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured List candidacy for List of battlecruisers of Germany now open
The FLC for List of battlecruisers of Germany is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 11:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Project merge with shipwrecks?
About two months ago I left a note at wt:shipwrecks about a possible merge into Ships. There hasn't been any conversation on the matter and I don't know if Shipwrecks is basically abandoned or not. The editor who started the project hasn't edited in a couple of years. Seeing as it's highly likely that a shipwreck article will also have a ships tag in place I'm not really sure of the need for two separate projects. Maybe some conversation here will result in a solution. --Brad (talk) 06:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd support a merge, but maybe Shipwrecks could be a task force? Mjroots (talk) 11:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that a shipwreck taskforce/sub-project would probably be the best way to go, on the logic that 99.9% of shipwrecks are going to be...you know... ships. Would be dependant on members of the shipwreck project agreeing...if there is no more comment there, it might be worth bouncing the talkpages of the thirty-odd members. -- saberwyn 20:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A task force is the thought I had. Pinging the talk pages of the current member list is a good idea. I dislike the idea that the project would get merged without any comment from them, yet the message has been sitting there for over two months. --Brad (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't forgot about this issue but have not had the time to follow through. Unless someone wants to volunteer instead. --Brad (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I notified all listed project members. --Brad (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for going through all this effort, Brad. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  20:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There were responses from 3 people who claim the project should remain where it is. Why exactly, I don't know, seeing as I had to pry a conversation out of them. IMO the shipwrecks project is inactive and bordering on abandoned but at this point it can just sit there. I've got better things to do. --Brad (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As a member of both projects, I'll restate here that a merge would be a good idea. WikiProject Ships, to me, is better organized and there is a overlap in coverage naturally. Shine runner   (talk)   00:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It occurred to me that we could just go ahead and make our own task force for this project and carry on as usual. --Brad (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Page rename
I realize that this topic has been covered previously but I thought it best to double check to make sure. I had started renaming some articles in Category:Paddle steamers of the United States using the ship prefix PS (an example of one such move is Lady Elgin (steamship) to PS Lady Elgin). Another editor questioned the use of the PS prefix feeling that SS would be more appropriate. Shine runner  (talk)   01:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And is PS standing for Paddle Steamer? I think Steam Ship (SS) is more familiar to the average reader. --Brad (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * PS is a valid prefix, per ship prefix. Mjroots (talk) 09:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've also notified User:Niagara who was involved in the original discussion. Shine runner   (talk)   11:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The ship prefix article hardly has any references at all. I'd say PS is . --Brad (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe it depends on where you are. PS Waverley is one of the most famous ships about (here for a quick scan of sources that use the prefix PS) but its certainly a term in common use (here for references to other vessels using PS. A little list here includes PS as standing for Paddle Steamer. And when you widen the search to books not viewable, several more spring up, including ones that say 'In this book the prefix PS before the name of a ship denotes that the vessel is a paddle steamer...' in Tim Collins's 'Transatlantic triumph and heroic failure: the story of the Galway Line‎' Benea (talk) 12:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * A list of callsigns from the Wireless Operator's Handbook has only SS and USS prefixes for ships. A quick Google search also turned up no results for "PS Lady Elgin" but several thousand for "SS Lady Elgin". I note that PS Waverly is British and wonder if that prefix is more predominate over there than in the United States. ​​​​​​ ​​ Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 13:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It does seem that both SS and PS are acceptable prefixes from the searches I've done. Another problem that may arise is that some paddle ships aren't steam powered. Would these ships then fall into the MV designation? Shine runner   (talk)   21:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, interesting question? Are there any articles on Wikipedia covering such ships? What prefix do they use? Mjroots (talk) 08:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking at category:Paddle steamers (and subcats), there are some in the form PS name. There seem to be several craft in there with articles in the form Name (sternwheeler) or Name (steamboat) and there's a Labouchere (paddle steamer). I haven't read the naming conventions on this subject but Enterprise (1855) (and the 1814 and 1862 versions) don't strike me as correct naming.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

←I've been struggling with the same question on an article I'm working on in userspace, Advance (steamship). There have been other steam ships named Advance, and if you guys agree that inserting PS is okay (it was in fact a paddle steamer used as a blockade runner in the US Civil War), PS Advance is very unlikely ever to get disambiguated. - Dank (push to talk) 15:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Some of the PS named articles are my page moves like PS General Slocum. Shine runner   (talk)   20:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The issue I'm having with the use of PS is that some ships never used the designation. For example, the PS General Slocum, the only place that seems to use the phrase "PS General Slocum" is on Wikipedia or any of the mirrors. ​​​​​​ ​​ Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 22:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I don't think we're saying that we get to make that up, I think we're saying that there are cases (I don't know if this is one of those cases) where it's acceptable to use a name widely used by people who came later, even if that wasn't the name used at the time. - Dank (push to talk) 22:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In a similar vein I think that there have been previous discussions regarding the use of HMS or USAT on Wikipedia ship articles. If it was a made up ship prefix, such as PV for Paddle Vessel, I could see a problem. If PS is too obscure then perhaps SS would be better since it's a commonly used, though sometimes incorrectly, prefix. Personally, using PS might, in some ways, be better. It may make a casual reader curious as to what PS stands for, why it's being used and move them to explore other pages. Shine runner  (talk)   23:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hyphens
Yes, hyphens. (Incredibly geeky, I know.) In order to fix the hyphenation in the bottom section of North Carolina class battleship, I need to get agreement on when to use Sclass. It's fine in Aircraft carrier: "... and the Lexington-class aircraft carriers." Lexington class aircraft carrier (as a page title, not in running text) is also fine, because that's a kind of "headline", and headlines can get away with fewer hyphens than you need in the text. But use of this template produces "North Carolina-class battleship" in the navbox at the bottom of North Carolina class battleship. I could live with "North-Carolina-class battleship", but since we're not hyphenating elsewhere when the phrase stands alone as a title of a page or section, "North Carolina class battleship" would probably be better ... any objections if I remove Sclass from the bowels of military navigation? This may affect a number of pages. Specifically, in Template:North Carolina class battleship, I want to change:

{{military navigation
 * raw_name = North Carolina class battleship
 * style = wide
 * title={{Sclass|North Carolina|battleship|1}}

to:

{{military navigation
 * raw_name = North Carolina class battleship
 * style = wide
 * title=North Carolina class battleship

- Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm still on my first cup of coffee, but this example shows that Sclass is being used in a template call to pass a parameter. No navbox change needed—just don't encapsulate the parameter in Sclass if you don't want to (although if you want a link, you'll have to change the title param to title=North Carolina class battleship ).
 * FWIW, I find hyphenation in navboxes incorrect and ugly. I also know I'm pickier than the average bear. Maralia (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite right, I want the link. I added it above. - Dank (push to talk) 15:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the hyphen is needed for the adjectival phrase, which is exactly its role in "North Carolina class battleship" as North Carolina class modifies battleship. Furthermore that's going to be the most common usage as North Carolina still modifies (ship) class. About the only place it's not used is in the title of Wiki articles. The sclass template doc page shows how you can control the expression of the hyphen. It's important here because of the necessary italicization for ship names, which is not met by the standard link formatting.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A couple of options that might or might not be helpful: in the infobox in BB-55, I used Ship class=North-Carolina-class battleship . I considered using Ship class=Battleship, North Carolina class, which doesn't need hyphens. - Dank (push to talk) 14:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

An unrelated issue, but interestingly also involving hyphens, {{User|Msa1701}}, a user who has on occasion taken it upon himself to change all instances of 'screws' to 'propellers', and to convert all instances of arabic numerals to words, (eg. 317 to three hundred and seventeen), now seems to be removing hyphens from articles, so 'anti-submarine warfare' becomes 'anti submarine warfare', 'carrier-borne ASW role' becomes 'carrier borne', 'nuclear-powered aircraft carrier' becomes 'nuclear powered aircraft carrier' and bizarrely the company Rolls-Royce is changed here to 'Rolls Royce'. I'm not sure a lot of these changes are grammatically necessary or even correct, but I want to see if other more grammatically aware users have a different opinion. Benea (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * For articles in American English, Webster's New World Dictionary is helpful. It's widely used as the reference of choice by American journalists and publishers, except in those few cases where AP Stylebook and a few other style guides disagree.  They don't list "anti" as a word (in this sense), so "anti submarine" is impossible. - Dank (push to talk) 18:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Would it be possible to add a parameter to eliminate the hyphen when needed - |hyphen=off ? Would that work? Mjroots (talk) 09:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be a nice option. - Dank (push to talk) 13:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured Topic for Moltke class battlecruisers now open
The Featured Topic nomination for the Moltke class battlecruisers is now open. Editors are invited to participate here to determine whether it meets the Featured Topic criteria. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for HMS Calliope (1884) now open
The featured article candidacy for HMS Calliope (1884) 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 02:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Prevent archiving. --Brad (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Long tons
There's a copyediting call to make on North Carolina class battleship. I've searched all the FA US battleships named after states and all the FA "battleship class" articles, and none of the other give long tons as a converted figure (at least, a search on " lt" comes up empty), nor do they give the weight in long tons of the guns or anything else on the ship, only for displacement. Anyone have a problem with my removing references to long tons in North Carolina class battleship except for displacement? - Dank (push to talk) 15:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I would have though that when discussing things of relatively insignificant contribution to the displacement eg the weight of a shell, that (short) tons and tonnes would be sufficient - or it could be long tons and tonnes as per cultural preferences. However I'm puzzled as to why there is a conversion to short tons for the displacement when long tons is the general unit of displacement (for the period) and especially in the lede which should be written for conciseness. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. - Dank (push to talk) 16:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This article, and others, have conversions every place a measurement is given. Once we have given a metric equivalent to a 16" gun, do we really need to repeat that conversion at each mention of the weapon? And for units of weight is it necessary to give three measures at each repetition?  Can we not simply place the necessary conversions in the infobox, and streamline the text?  Kablammo (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally I convert once in the info box and once in the main text and that's it. A conversion for every use is just like over-linking.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've done some poking around and I think I can support this for any units that are converted in the infobox, but getting it through FAC would probably require an edit to MOSNUM of some kind. There's no guidance on this in the MILHIST or SHIPS style guides.  Many units in ship articles feel more like names of things (16" guns) than measurements, and we have a long infobox on each article with plenty of room to provide a handy conversion guide. - Dank (push to talk) 14:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this may allow it:"When units are part of the subject of a topic—nautical miles in articles about the history of nautical law, SI units in scientific articles, yards in articles about American football—it can be excessive to provide conversions every time a unit occurs. It could be best to note that this topic will use the units (possibly giving the conversion factor to another familiar unit in a parenthetical note or a footnote), and link the first occurrence of each unit but not give a conversion every time it occurs."from Mosnum. Kablammo (talk) 14:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on MOS and FA criteria here. Kablammo (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

---

If we do not know which "ton" is used to measure the weight of components, we should not make assumptions. There are still hundreds of examples of incorrect conversions on Wikipedia because editors did not know that displacement is typically stated in long or metric tons; and that burthen, gross tonnage, and gross register tonnage are not units of weight. Kablammo (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm hoping that someday Mediawiki will let users set a preference for metric or US units and then see only the units they want to see, at least when a convert template was used. - Dank (push to talk) 00:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

There is further discussion of conversions of units at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_criteria, and a consensus is forming that the MOS does not require conversion of every unit. Kablammo (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Cruise ship delivered but no article exists
I was reading a trade paper and saw that the newest vessel for Costa Cruises was handed over today: Costa Deliziosa, but as I went to look at the article here I noticed that we did not have one and the page was protected from creation because of excessive spamming. Since the vessel was delivered today, it is imperative that an article is fabricated quickly.

Unfortunately I am about to go to bed, but I can provide some basics, along with un-salt the title. She is the sister ship of Costa Luminosa and the trade publication I was reading, which provides a source is here:. I would be greatly appreciative if someone would not mind throwing something together quickly. Thanks, -MBK004 07:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Working on it. -- saberwyn 11:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC) How's that? -- saberwyn 12:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Much better than what I would have been able to throw together. Great work! -MBK004 22:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Category deletion
Per the conversation here it would be appreciated if Category:Unassessed Ships articles was deleted. It is causing problems with the assessment bot and to my knowledge has never been used for this project to begin with. Rather than attempt cramming this explanation into a speedy request, I'll ask here. --Brad (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ -MBK004 05:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The only trouble with that deletion is that the category cannot now be used to check which new articles have been tagged with WP:SHIPS and are awaiting assessment. How are we to keep track of such articles now? Mjroots (talk) 08:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Category:Unassessed-Class Ships articles --Brad (talk) 08:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, my bad. Was getting the two mixed up. Mjroots (talk) 11:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

FAC talking about us: URGENT
See this: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_criteria

How nice of them to explicitly talk about us but not notify us. They even mention that we are explicitly encouraging plagiarism by having this: WikiProject Ships/DANFS conversions. Unbelievable ... we stand to loose quite a few FAs if this goes through since Bellhalla has gone completely inactive. -MBK004 05:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not even going to entertain the idea of getting into the free-for-all on that page. As anyone should know, plagiarism is taking another authors work and calling it your own. Copying DANFS Text and attributing it correctly with DANFS is clearly stating and crediting the work to those who wrote it. Copyright is not an issue here since DANFS is public domain. Plagiarism and copyright are two different things. The word "plagiarism" gets thrown around too loosely by those who don't understand its meaning.
 * With that said, I do see a point in not allowing verbatim DANFS text in articles that attempt to pass an A or FA review. I've already been advocating such when commenting on A or FA candidates. We can simply do better than copy/paste and cite for articles of that class. The articles that already include DANFS text and have passed A or FA should remain where they are if and until a FAR is called. --Brad (talk) 09:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Given the terse grammar and technical phrasing of the DANFS sources, I wouldn't allow unedited text into a A class article bacause it makes for poor reading. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Not all DANFS articles are poorly written. Some of them are quite well written and comprehensive. For example, articles on lead ships are often a lot more detailed than for ships of the rest of the class. Gatoclass (talk) 10:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The editor who started the discussion doesn't seem to have meant to have used 'plagiarism' in the way it's normally interpreted (eg, as serious misconduct regardless of where its taken from and how it's used). My reading of the point they're making is that copying and pasting any PD prose into high quality articles is a bad practice, and the DANFS material is problematical as some of it isn't well written. Another issue raised by several editors (including myself) is that DANFS may not be a sufficiently independent and reliable source for FAs. In my view, this was going to come up sooner or later, and it's important that it be addressed. From what I've seen, it's now quite rare for articles which rely heavily on DANFS to pass ACRs, so this is more a maintenance problem than something which effects the recent crop of FACs. I suspect that this project is going to lose some FAs as a result of this discussion, but that's part of the normal process as Wikipedia's standards continue to improve. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I began to notice the chinks in the DANFS armor while working on several articles that I'm aiming for FA's. I have found some minor errors in DANFS articles when compared to other sources but so far nothing major. DANFS is quite reliable for noting that a ship "went here" and "did this" and then "went over there" and did "something else" and the associated dates. Other than that you can't rely on DANFS to give the complete picture. This reason alone is enough to consider an article relying heavily on DANFS as not well researched. --Brad (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The "Navy Public Affairs Resources" seems to be DANFS with some factual corrections (for instance, see chinfo for BB-55 vs. DANFS) ... does everything we're saying about DANFS also apply to the Navy PA Resources? - Dank (push to talk) 14:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I posted WP's definition of plagiarism into the discussion, yet some editors continue to make up their own definitions, as Nick pointed out. I think DANFS is a good place to start an article, but it can't be te only major source for an article, nor should it be used verbatim in its entirety. By the time an article reaches the FA level, most of the text should have been rewritten in the course of normal editing, as DANFS's style is really incompatible with that of WP. But those aren;t plagiarism issues, not per the definition that WP is using. Quite frustrating. - BilCat (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * @Dank: Both articles you point out are essentially correct but they leave out the fact that Iowa was involved in a "near miss accident" while Roosevelt was aboard. As I stated above, DANFS often leaves out information that could be embarrassing to the Navy. You will never find any information from the Navy about the real story behind the Iowa turret explosion either. In a thread above I pointed out another shortcoming of a DANFS article. Essentially it's that DANFS is not a source to be used exclusively for A or FA articles. Relying only on DANFS will never allow for well researched articles. --Brad (talk) 01:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Book:Admiralty Ship/Sub lost 1939 to 1946
Anyone got a better name for this book? Something like Book:Admiralty Submarines Lost During World War II? Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

USS Orion (AS-18)
There is an ongoing discussion going on about the relevence of a particular incident involving an individual who served on the Orion for a short time. The article relating to the incident was deleted at AfD, but there remains some resistance to removing the content from this article. As the article comes under the wing of this project, any comments would be welcome. Please see here. wjemather bigissue 11:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Its or her?
Do we refer to ships as "her", or "its"? I'm re-writing Blackbeard and it would save time to know now :) Parrot of Doom 17:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "She/her" is the most common usage on this project. Gatoclass (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Either is acceptable, as long as its consistent within the article. -- saberwyn 21:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ta very muchly Parrot of Doom 21:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Voyage of the Karluk now open
The featured article candidacy for Voyage of the Karluk 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 04:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Anthony Roll at FAC
I've nominated Anthony Roll for FAC. The nomination can be found at Featured article candidates/Anthony Roll/archive1. You are most welcome to contribute to the review of the article.

Peter Isotalo 16:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for HMS Lion (1910) now open
The featured article candidacy for HMS Lion (1910) 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 05:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Images in infoboxes
There's a discussion that might be of interest to project members about whether images in ship infoboxes can be made wider than 300px, taking place here. Benea (talk) 11:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS Goeben now open
The A-Class review for SMS Goeben is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ships/Shipwrecks tagging
Following an announcement at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shipwrecks here, it appears that there is the intention to replace WP:SHIPS tags with WP:SHIPWRECKS tags (as an example, see here). Are the two incompatible, should there only be one rather than two? Or should the WP:SHIPS tag be retained and the WP:SHIPWRECKS tag be added to it? My feeling is the latter, but I'm a little concerned with the wording at WT:SHIPWRECKS that it is now 'time for shipwrecks project to have its specific categories and articles 'reclaimed'.' Is there really a struggle going on over who can claim a category or an article or not? Is this an unintended backlash after the proposal to merge SHIPWRECKS into SHIPS? Benea (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The two banners are extremely incompatible since they use the Meta banner that has been the focal point of several unsuccessful attempts to be forced down our throats on multiple occasions even though it does not do all that we need our banner to do. Brad has been leading the charge against this. -MBK004 01:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm confused, so is it that an article/category/template can only be tagged with either a 'ships' or 'shipwreck' banner and not both? has been removing the ships banner from categories and replacing them with the shipwrecks one as on for example on Category talk:Shipwrecks in the Indian Ocean, as seen here. I don't see any problem in adding the shipwrecks banner, but I'm dubious as to what the rationale is for removing the ships one. As the proponents of keeping ships and shipwrecks unmerged made clear in the project merge debate, these projects are seen as separate. Benea (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify my point a little more, SatuSuro has announced that many shipwreck categories were 'blanket tagged with 'ships' project templates', and that in order to 'correct the issue [he is] changing the ships to shipwrecks - and when finished ... there will be a better sense of what is 'ships' and what is 'shipwreck' territory' - my question is, given that a shipwreck must inherently have been at one point a ship, what is the point in declaring the two as being separate territory? While adding the shipwrecks template seems fine, I query the damage that defining what one project may consider as being their articles or categories may do to collegial editing. In short, ought we re-add the 'ships' template to these cats, or are they considered redundant if the shipwrecks tag is there, and if so why? Benea (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I completely mis-read the initial comments then. Both tags should coexist since to be a shipwreck it has to be a ship. The territory thing is ludicrous and smacks of non-collegial editing. Perhaps a warning or strongly-worded note along those lines is appropriate for that project accompanied by a trout? -MBK004 02:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) I have restored the SHIP tags SatuSuro has removed, as it doesn't make any sense to remove them. As you say, every shipwreck is a ship, and therefore within the scope of this project. I see no need for there to be an absolute line that neither project can cross.
 * I don't know if anything strongly-worded is necessary. I left a note on the shipwrecks talk page asking him to stop. That should certainly do. Parsecboy (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi guys thanks for asking me if I would like to be involved in a discussion that mentions my username :) good to see the AGF. My apologies to any above offended by my comments at shipwrecks, and the deletion of ships categories and the inconvenience. I have no problem with parallel tagging - and thanks to parsecboy for fixing it up - sorry for the inconvenience.  SatuSuro 04:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently there was some misunderstanding about tagging. I have probably tagged several thousand articles or non-mainspace for this project. The tagging wasn't in relation to the later proposal I made to merge the two projects. Since SatuSuro seems to have taken on reviving the shipwreck project then I'd consider the proposal to merge a dead issue. --Brad (talk) 05:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well reluctantly in more ways than one - if the shipwreck category pages has parallel tagging there is obviously a clear and certain misunderstanding about the scopes of the two projects - but after this current experience, unless someone disinterested from outside of both projects comes in an reviews the situation - I am definitely not touching another ship tag - even if I disagree with it - you look after your own project maintenance folks! SatuSuro 05:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sigh, in the 'List of shipwrecks in xxxx' some years have Categories: Lists of shipwrecks by year and Maritime incidents in xxxx while others only have Lists of shipwrecks by year - is that simply because someone hasnt checked them to put the maritime incident category ? SatuSuro 06:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

USS Congress now at FAC
USS Congress (1799) is now having its second FAC. Be aware however, that any comments you make to improve the article or point out discrepancies may be ignored and the article passed anyway even if it contains inaccurate and uncited information. Welcome to FAC 2010! --Brad (talk) 05:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * @second sentence. Question mark? — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  05:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ed, just read this: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates -MBK004 09:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Brad, I feel your comment was in poor taste. Please read the directors' comments at the linked thread above. Please assume good faith and don't jump hastily to such conclusions in the future. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm half and half. While I fell that some of the wording was in poor taste, the underlying feelings behind it are not, but I think some of those feelings were missed with the addition of the second comment. For example, the "adding OCLC numbers to book sources" comment is true. Yes, "it isn't a requirement", but it helps the article, so why not? — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  23:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Dabomb, you really need to look at the timeline of events in that thread. Two days after I mentioned promoting articles with open issues, they did exactly that! Further, Karanacs just admitted he promoted the article to keep the FAC list from growing too large; again proving my point. I am far from diplomatic and never will be but when people complain about the shortage of FAC reviewers (the last Signpost had an article relating to just that) and then do exactly what I commented about, they're their own worst enemies. And instead of pausing and thinking about what I said they just throw policy at the issue. --Brad (talk) 04:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Karanacs did not admit that (and she's not a he); she said she promoted on an off day from her norm because of the growing list size. Regardless of the day she promoted, your concerns were purely stylistic, and not an actionable Oppose, and the article met criteria. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Use of the USS prefix
Another very long conversation regarding the use of the USS prefix in article titles for ships that were never commissioned into US Navy service has arisen once again. After years of this issue being argued, it's high time some resolution was made. I've started a subthread in the hopes of gathering some consensus. Your comments are appreciated and needed. Thanks. --Brad (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Infobox for age of sail ship operating under a Flag of convenience
I'm starting to work on an article about the 18th century merchant vessel Imperial Eagle, which played a role in the exploration of the Pacific Northwest as well as hosting the first woman to "openly" circumnavigate the world" (Frances Barkley). Its captain, Charles William Barkley named a good number of places on the British Columbia coast, and a good number more were named for him or his ship. So it seems quite worthy of an article. But I am a little unsure about how to go about making the infobox. It was a British ship without question, but it operated "under the Austrian colours of the Austrian East Indian Company" in order to (illegally) evade paying for a license from the British East India Company monopoly. It's name was changed from Loundon to Imperial Eagle when it took up the Austrian flag. It operated in this manner until confiscated by the British East India Company (I'm not sure what became of it yet). Other than the flag, the ship was fully British and had no connection to Austria. So my question is, in the ship infobox, should I say the "Ship country" is Austria or Britain? Should I include a flag, and if so, what? Or should I just leave out the Ship country and Ship flag fields altogether? It was a private vessel, not naval, and I think I read somewhere that the flag fields should be left out for civil vessels, correct? I had thought it might be fun to show the Austrian flag, but was left unsure just what the Austrian flag of 1792 would be, let alone the flag of the Austrian East Indian Company. I suppose I've basically answered my question (leave those fields out), but wondered if anyone had alternate ideas. Also, I linked to the page Flag of convenience, but if I understand it right, the term is fairly modern and does not really apply to the 18th century. Apparently the practice is legal today, but it certainly was not for Barkley's Imperial Eagle. I wonder if there is some other term for age of sail ships deceptively and illegally flying false colors? Thanks. Pfly (talk) 08:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rereading your post, and the quote in particular, I'm not sure whether the ship was actually registered in Austria or whether they just physically flew a deceptive flag. If it is the latter, than I don't think there's a precedent for making a note of it in the infobox.  If it is the former, then take a look at Exxon Valdez.  Here's a snippet:

... {{Infobox ship career ...
 * Hide header=
 * Ship country=USA
 * Ship flag=[[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|60px|Flag of the United States]]

Now, showing the image of the flag is frowned on. However, stating the ship's nation of registry is a good thing. So, something like |Ship flag=Austria would work. The Valdez article also demonstrates how to handle when a ship is renamed. Of course I just got back, so everything probably changed. :) Cheers.   H aus {{sup|  Talk  }} 21:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I eventually decided to just not put a flag in the infobox--especially because over its career the ship flew under British, Austrian, and Portuguese flags, at least. Also, as far as I can tell they just flew a deceptive flag without registering the ship as Austrian (but apparently no one really knows--primary sources are lacking). Anyway I finished--it's at Imperial Eagle (ship) now. The infobox is sadly empty--not a lot of info about the ship's details. Even the tonnage seems to always be stated as "400 tons", without further clarification. Since it dates to 1780s England, I assumed it refers to builder's old measurement tonnage. Sources all say it was a "big ship", but none seem to provide a length, beam, etc. Oh well. Pfly (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Multiple flags are easy to deal with. The barque Ponape operated under five different flags in a career spanning 33 years. Mjroots (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)