Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 19

Featured article candidacy for USS Triton (SSRN-586) now open
The featured article candidacy for USS Triton (SSRN-586) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 21:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Sandblast now open
The A-Class review for Operation Sandblast is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 21:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Livingships
Template:Livingships has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Brad (talk) 06:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject notice of AfD discussion
An AfD discussion has been started for an article which may interest this group. Please see Articles for deletion/Carnival Glory (2nd nomination). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yikes, the nominator wants to delete the articles for every ship of Carnival Cruise Lines. Yuck... -MBK004 18:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Result was snowball keep. Can't wait for the third nomination. --Brad (talk) 06:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See below, different ship but same type of argument. -MBK004 04:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you identify this silhouette?
Ths U.S. Navy and commons identify the ship to the left as USS Reuben James (FFG-57). Looking at the stack, the place where the forward missile launcher should be (I think that's a gun), and the location of the after radar mast I disagree. There's no discernible 76mm gun on the 0-2 level, and the stern doesn't seem to have a flight-deck area. So, I started looking at varoius cruiser/destroyer silhouettes and am left scratching my head. Even if it's two ships steaming side-by-side, I can't imagine that the forward one is a FFG. Any ideas? Thanks. H aus Talk 09:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be one of the many variants of the British Type 12 frigate design, and probably a Leander class frigate. It definitely isn't Reuben James! Nick-D (talk) 09:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Though I don't see an exact silhouette match, I think you're right. I think it's a South American (Chilean, Peruvian?) Type-12 circa 1999.  Thanks for the spot-on response!   H aus Talk 10:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hah, there is a Chilean Condell class frigate, which was a spin-off of the Leander class. I think that's the beast. Thanks again. H aus Talk 11:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't why anyone might identify that as Reuben James - the line of the deck at the bow is wrong and the image shows a prominent central funnel while the RJ has its barely poking out the boxy structure at the rear. Teamwork South 99 took place off Chile which makes it likely to be a Chilean ship if not USN.GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Navy fixed the caption. Interestingly, they identified it as the Almirante Lynch, the ship shown to the left. Thanks for the help.   H aus Talk 01:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

DANFS translation
I'm currently researching an Empire ship which started out as a USN ship, and therefore has an entry on DANFS. The figures disagree with Lloyd's Register in some instances. DANFS entry is:- (Freighter: dp. 12,175; l. 423'9"; b. 54'0"; dph. 29'9"; dr. 23'11¼"; s. 9.5 k.; cpl. 75; a. 13")

What do "dp", "cpl" and "a" stand for? Is "l" length overall? I have a lower figure which I believe is lpp. "b" and "dph" are both different to Lloyd's figures. "dr" = draught/draft?, "s" = speed (9½kn)? Mjroots (talk) 08:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's the rosetta stone. So, my read is dp=displacement, l=LOA, b=molded beam, dph=hold depth, dr=draft, s=speed, cpl=complement (i.e. number of people).  What kind of guns did the ship have?  Any chance it had a 13-inch gun?   H aus Talk 10:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think that USS West Mount (ID-3202) had a 13" gun. Maybe 1 x 3" gun would be a possibility. Mjroots (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * it's probably a typo for 1 3", looking at the other small ships, so perhaps the DANFS data isn't 100% reliable. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * DANFS was placed online by Optical Character Recognition which isn't a perfect method. Sometimes things like 1 x 3" becomes 13" after scanning. Some articles have been corrected while others await correcting. --Brad (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 1 x 3" gun confirmed. Mjroots (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * USS West Mount (ID-3202) now live. Do I need to add the DANFS template or not? Mjroots (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If the article contains text of the danfs article then you need to use to state so. If you used it as a reference and put it into your own words then it's fine as is pointing out danfs was used as a source. --Brad (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I used DANFS as a ref so it should be OK as it is. Mjroots (talk) 06:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Dokdo class amphibious assault ship
This article covers a fascinating subject (I didn't know the RoK Navy had a flattop!), but the article, while intriguing, is clearly suffering from grammar and formatting issues. I'd suggest that the article be given attention for improvement. :-) - The Bushranger (talk) 05:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Cruise ship AFD
Articles for deletion/AIDAsol, just on the heels of Articles for deletion/Carnival Glory (2nd nomination). The nominator also prodded a few others which I have de-prodded. -MBK004 04:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The nominator isn't exactly alone in his thoughts on some of these ships. A couple of months ago I prodded O'Mega and some others created by because at the time they were thinly disguised excuses for advertising. Some of the references given pointed to a site that is written in the same poor English grammar that the article was when I found it. The prods were removed by the same interest group that maintains the articles. If these articles can't be cleaned up to remove the advertising then they need to go. --Brad (talk) 07:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There shouldn't be any problem in removing advertising and promotional tone from articles about cruise ships. Sources for ships under constructions are likely to include the website of the builder, for example. If a ship is registered with DNV then there is usually a wealth of factal info about the ship on a DNV webpage. Mjroots (talk) 08:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheonan (corvette)
This South Korean Navy corvette sank today after an onboard explosion. The article may need an eye kept on it to keep out unverified statements of a North Korean torpedo being responsible for the explosion. This is not confirmed at the moment. Also, would the article sit better at South Korean corvette Cheonan (PCC-772) per WP:NC-S? Mjroots (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Scrub that, per ship prefix it should be at ROKS Cheonan (PCC-772). Mjroots (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot
Okip  23:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Granularity of "ships by year/decade" categories
I set up a series of categories for bridges by date, and have found that in the intervening 5 years, a lot of articles have been added... so times when in the past there were categories for bridges by decade without being further subdivided (that level of granularity seemed pointlessly small, since beyond a certain point in the past, most bridges by year categories would be empty and few would have more than a couple of entries), it now made sense to split up decade categories into year categories. Since ships by date categories are also subcategories of transport by date categories, I wondered how this project determined the appropriate level of granularity for year/decade, and whether it ought to be re-assessed now that more articles exist? For instance, Category:1840s ships now has 125 members, and could probably do with being split up. TheGrappler (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that the categorisation of ships by build year was mainly down to user:Bellhalla and that he decided where the split would be by decade and where by year. Unfortunately Bellhalla is no longer active on Wikipedia. Looking at the cats, 1800s ships has 274 articles, 1810s ships has 200 articles, 1820s ships has 58 articles, 1830s ships has 71 articles and the aforementioned 1840s ships has 125 articles. I'd say that 1800s, 1810s and 1840s could probably be split by year now. 1820s and 1830s are probably better left as they are at the moment.
 * Maybe a guide of 100 articles = split by year would be reasonable. Mjroots (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Link to previous conversation on this  H aus Talk 01:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A problem with splitting the 1810s but not the 1820s to 1830s, and then splitting the 1840s... is that it becomes quite unpredictable, which categories have been split. So when people create a ship article, or do some "drive-by" categorizing, they'll tend to create these new subcategories anyway. That seems to be what happens even on some of the more logically-split decade categories in other areas of Wikipedia, but I think it would be worse if remembering the rule for when to categorize by year and when by decade is so fiddly. For what its worth, if there is a suitable navigation template on the category page, I don't think the purported main disadvantage of having year as opposed to decade categories (that is: it's overly specific, so to compare to similar ships being launched in that period, you have to check other nearby years rather than have them all on one handy decade page) is a big problem. Indeed, you can easily click from one year category to the adjacent ones, to get a much more nuanced view of which ships were being launched at a similar time (if you were looking at ships launched in 1811, it seems sensible to be able to easily compare to ships being launched in 1810 and 1809, rather than being faced with a big mass of ships launched anywhere between 1810 and 1819 on one page, and having to go back to a page including 1800 ships to see how the 1809 ones compared). So I think you can afford to be brave with the by-year categories, so long as there are at least a couple of entries in each subcategory :) TheGrappler (talk) 03:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * An alternative would be to put a note on the 1820s and 1830s cats saying that they are not to be split per year until they reach 100 articles. For the moment, it would seem uncontroversial to split the 1840s ships by year, thus moving back the threshold of decade/year split to 1840. Mjroots (talk) 06:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what people have tried to do on other "decade" categories in other areas of Wikipedia, although the instruction seems to rarely get followed consistently! I think it's because when people add a category to an article, they don't have to check the decadal category first, although they may choose to. It depends whether the categories of articles are being manipulated by somebody who is working systematically in the category system (looks at a big mass of ships and decides which granularity of "by date" category to add them to in a very consistent way, like the "split at 100" rule), or whether it is done by people editing piecemeal in the individual articles (and who won't necessarily be aware which decades to split, and which not to). I'm not saying that what you proposed is deeply unreasonable (although for consistency's sake, there would be advantages to just breaking up all the decade categories after a certain date, so the rule would be more simple to remember e.g. "categorize by year for 1800/1840/whatever and beyond, by decade for anything earlier") - but that you'll probably find that "by year" categories start to naturally get created without much forward planning, due to the actions of page-by-page editors who don't spend much time looking at the categories. TheGrappler (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

All the 1800s cats will end up with plenty of ships in them, so might as well split them now as later IMO. While we're on the topic, I'm also thinking it might be worthwhile to subcategorize the individual year cats, into at least "warship" and "merchant ship" cats if not further subcats like "US warships", "British warships" etc. Gatoclass (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Splitting into "warship" and "merchant ships" is getting into minefield territory. Many ships had dual careers. Some were laid down as merchant ships and requisitioned while under construction. Others went the other way. Split by year is about as far as we need to go. It's easy to categorize and not unnecessarily complicated. Mjroots (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well those ships could go into both categories, just as some ships are in categories for more than one war and so on. Gatoclass (talk) 12:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Another reason not to split to that level (either nationality or use), would be that those categories would be very thinly populated. But I do think there's some rationale to at least split by year from the 1800s upwards. TheGrappler (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, consensus seems to be to go back to 1800 for cats by year of launch. I've edited the two cathead notices, and created all the 1840s cats. Category:1840s ships needs to be sorted through and articles split into the relevant category. 1830s, 1820s, 1810s and 1800s cats still to do. Mjroots (talk) 10:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 1840s is pretty much done; there are a couple of ship-classes there for which obviously there isn't a single launch date, and some ships for whom the year of launch is unknown (and may even not be in the 1840s, confusingly). TheGrappler (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Japanese battleship Yamato now open
The featured article candidacy for Japanese battleship Yamato 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 22:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Arrest of ships
Following my nom of the SS Dumbo article for an April Fool's Day DYK with the hook "Did you know... that in October 1968, SS Dumbo was arrested in Las Palmas, Spain?" the subject of ships being arrested was brought up as an editor had not been aware that ships could be arrested. The arrest article says nothing on the subject, and on the non-criminal arrest section states "Only human beings can be arrested; objects may be confiscated or forfeited", which is not the case. Maybe a section is required for the arrest of ships. I believe aircraft can also be arrested, but I'm not 100% sure of this as a fact. Mjroots (talk) 06:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure where it should go: I think an Arrest (shipping) article would languish as a stub for 75 years. I put some links up at Talk:Arrest.   H aus Talk 07:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

15 April 2012
The 100th anniversary of the RMS Titanic sinking. Wouldn't it be nice to have that article at featured status by then? I'm dropping a hint without any plans to improve the article but working on it a little at a time is usually the best way to go.

I should also point out that Titanic is the number 1 most popular ship article according to the statistics. It gets over 300,000 hits per month average which is about 3 times more than the usual 100,000 hits of the number 2 article. (Earthrace and Comfort were big news items last month hence aircraft carrier is the normal second). --Brad (talk) 02:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ships of the Old Navy - Reliable source ?
Has it ever been determined whether http://www.ageofnelson.org/MichaelPhillips/index.html is a reliable source? Apparently the original author of the site Michael Phillips abandoned his site in 2007 and it's been resurrected and hosted at Age of Nelson. --Brad (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Type N3-S ships
It's up for TFD here. While it seems to meet the criteria for deletion, I would rather not force a poor soul make all that up again; can we userfy it to the SHIPS namespace for now? — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  18:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've put it in my user space in case the ax falls anyway. Ever notice it's usually the same 5 people who go around looking for things to delete? --Brad (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Type N3-S ship is now created as a stub. Anyone have anything they can add to it? — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  19:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It would be useful if the Type N3 could be tied into other standardised designs such as the Type C2 ship, Type C4 class ship etc. perhaps a template to join the ship types together. At the same time, the template for the Type N3-S could be reworked as List of Type N3-S ships.GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Just needs an article on one ship in each sub-type now. I'll add it to the "to do" list for action once I've finished the Empire ships, Park Ships, Fort ships, Victory ships and Liberty ships.  Mjroots2 (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The Nashira (AK-85) article states that she was a N3-M-A1 ship, but this source states that she was a N3-S-A1 ship per template (Josiah Paul). Mjroots2 (talk) 07:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Irish Mercantile Marine during World War II now open
The peer review for Irish Mercantile Marine during World War II is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 05:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

SMS Novara (1850)
Hi, left a few notes on its talk page, yesterday. Could someone (possibly someone speaking some German) care? TX, [w.] 07:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Japanese warship Yamato
Well, I tried to create a shipindex for Yamato, but it was refused. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Japanese warship Yamato

Does anyone think it should exist?

65.94.253.16 (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * We tend to disambigate these by type, not the generic "warship". Already adequately covered at Yamato. Mjroots (talk) 05:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for HMAS Australia (1911) now open
The A-Class review for HMAS Australia (1911) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 05:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

USS Union (1841)
Given that this ship was only launched in 1842, should the title of the page be USS Union (1842)? Or sometimes is the year of being laid down used instead? TheGrappler (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In the articles that I am most familiar with, it is the date of first commissioning, not either date of launch or of keel-laying, that counts. That would make the correct title USS Union (1843). But come to think of it, I do not recall ever seeing a policy spelled out. I suppose it isn't a really big deal anyway, since the date is included mostly for disambiguation. I think. PKKloeppel (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately PKKloppel, that is wrong. Per WP:NC-SHIPS at NC-SHIPS, the correct disambig is the year of launch. -MBK004 23:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, MBK, for pointing out the policy. Unfortunately, that means that several articles that I know of should be renamed. Is this serious enough that we should worry about it? PKKloeppel (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A couple of others that I have come across today that don't use date of launch are: USS Stromboli (1846) (the date of launch isn't in the article or sole source; 1846 is date of acquisition by US Navy, but 1847 is date of commissioning), USS Morris (1846b) (captured from Mexico and commissioned in 1846, was previously called Laura Virginia, year of launch not stated in article or source), USS Morris (1846a) (started service in 1846 but no details on either acquisition or launch), USS Advance (1850) (launched 1847, loaned to US Navy in 1850). There are plenty of US Navy vessels where the year given is commissioning and/or acquisition but not launch; and of course some vessels for which the year of launch is not stated in article or source, or possibly even known. So for some ships e.g. USS Morris (1846a) and maybe USS Stromboli (1846), I can see that the most reasonable date has been used, but for others such as USS Advance (1850), the choice of date is rather mystifying. TheGrappler (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like adherence to the stated rule would require a fair amount of work that in my view could be better spent elsewhere. I suggest a modification of the style manual, which would be a lot easier than digging up records such as those in TheGrappler's examples. PKKloeppel (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure we can fix these as we become aware of them. Lots of hands make for light work. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Launch date is used to dab ships when launch date is available. If not, then date of completion or some other date likely to be close to launch date is used. Gatoclass (talk) 03:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind the naming convention was to disambiguate ships that carry the same name. If a particular article isn't named exactly to the conventions but otherwise isn't causing a disambiguation problem there isn't much of a reason for a large renaming campaign. --Brad (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I fear in the vast majority of the cases I found, disambiguation was at issue. The USS Morris (1846a) and USS Morris (1846b) being the worst examples! TheGrappler (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Those two articles are the best that can be done disambiguation wise. The earliest date on either is 1846 so 1846a was the third Morris and 1846b was the fourth Morris according to the danfs info. --Brad (talk) 04:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we can do better at disambiguating than a or b stuck after a year. How about USS xxxx (first ship of 18xx) and (second ship of 18xx) on these occasions; or USS xxxx (formerly yyyyy); or USS xxx (18xx I) and (18xx II)? GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not necessarily a solution because many of these old ships only have a year date so there is no way of knowing which one was first or second etc. Gatoclass (talk) 08:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We had a conversation on this subject maybe two years ago; I can't find the discussion. Anyway, disambiguation should be simple. Using the Roman Numerals I or II could be confusing to readers. Descriptions like USS xxxx (first ship of 18xx) can only lead to other titles like USS xxxx (first ship of 18xx with a barq rig) etc. Using a or b is simple, short and sweet. --Brad (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Another way of dabbing could be by year and rig - USS Foo (1841 bark) / USS Foo (1841 brigantine). Mjroots2 (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, now that you mention it, that does seem like a sensible approach - at least where that kind of differentiation is available. Gatoclass (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds very sensible to me too. I can see why Roman numerals are unhelpful, and the "1846a/b" wasn't the worst option. TheGrappler (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No that's a bad idea. Descriptions in the article title in this case would not help. "Brig" or "sloop" etc was decided based upon a ships rigging. Rigging changed and ships were razeed in the mid-1800s. Staying with a b etc removes another potential problem. --Brad (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a sensible point. But "by date and never by type" as disambiguator has disadvantages. To project members, "a" or "b" may clearly refer to the order of commissioning, but that will definitely not be obvious to readers... the more verbiose "first/second ship of 18xx" would at least be intelligible. In the rare case of two ships with identical names and launch dates, no pennant numbers, and no other obvious disambiguator, and if in this particular case they didn't undergo such a change to their rigging (at least while under their USN commissioned name), doesn't the "by type also if dates identical" rule have some merit? TheGrappler (talk) 01:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Can I just confirm with people that it makes sense to rename USS Union (1841) to USS Union (1842) and USS Advance (1850) to USS Advance (1847) to match the year of launch in both cases? TheGrappler (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I did Advance on the 29th. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Union yes, Advance is debatable. She wasn't acquired by the navy, and hence commissioned and renamed USS Advance until 1850. In 1847 she had been a civilian vessel under a different name. Suppose you had USS xxx (1848), launched in 1848 and sold in 1849. Then in 1850 the navy acquired a civilian vessel launched in 1847. Sometimes the navy has a ship captured, builds or buys a new one with the same name, and then the other is recaptured. I don't think that stating the launch date is always the most appropriate date holds for all cases, when some vessels were not navy vessels for many years prior to the date afixed to the disambiguation. Benea (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I must disagree with that. We need a consistent approach to disambiguation, and launch date is the one that has been selected after much discussion. We can't have one convention for one type of ship and another for some other type. And I can't see why it should make any difference how much earlier an eventually-commissioned ship was launched - that information is provided by the commission date, not the launch date. Gatoclass (talk) 02:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose this is a wider point, but in the vast majority of cases, we wish readers to look at a title like USS Foobar (18xx) and read it as "USS Foobar, launched 18xx". In the rare cases where the date disambiguator is not the launch date because it is unavailable (or felt inappropriate for some other reason, as GraemeLeggett appears to be arguing for), shouldn't it be made clear that the date is not the date of launch? For instance, USS Foobar (commissioned 18xx) would be a title that will be clearly understood by a reader, without confusion with the names disambiguated by launch date. TheGrappler (talk) 01:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe so, but we should not be using commission dates where there are alternatives. We use launch date where available and if not available, date of completion. If neither of those are available, then I guess we can start looking at other options. Gatoclass (talk) 11:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

This argument is starting to get religious. Look at the actual statement in the instructions (NC-SHIPS): If no hull number is available, or if it is not well-known, use the ship's year of launching if known — like human birthdays, every ship has one — otherwise some other appropriate initial date, such as commissioning, or the date she is first mentioned in the historical record. (The italics are mine.) (Note that launch date itself is already only a backup identifier, as hull or pennant number is preferred.) That implies pretty clearly that the date is used only for disambiguation, and it does not imply anything else. Since one unique disambiguator is as good as another, there is no basis upon which to insist that one "should" use only one. Despite the assertion that "every ship has one", in a large number of cases the launch date is not mentioned in the sources that tell why the ship may have been important. I suppose that further digging could be used for many if not most of these, but that can be close enough to Original Research that it would run afoul of other strictures. PKKloeppel (talk) 13:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes there is a basis for "using only one" - consistency. We don't want to be adopting a whole bunch of different disambiguators because it will only create confusion. In most cases, a ship has a launch date, where there is no launch date there is almost always at least a "built" date, which to all intents and purposes is the same thing since the overwhelming majority of ships will be completed, ie "built", in the same year as they were launched. Where there is neither a launch nor build date, then we can use a different ambiguator, perhaps as grappler suggested with something like "commissioned xxxx", but I would think the number of ships we needed to do that for would be very few. Gatoclass (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We are not adopting anything. The style manual permits any significant date when the launch date is not known, and we cannot unilaterally overrule the style manual. We can disregard it (at the editor's peril), but we cannot impose another requirement on future editors without going through whatever procedure is needed to change the MOS.
 * The number of ships that is affected is not small. I work mostly with the Civil War, and a large fraction of the Confederate ships have no known launch date, being conversions of unknown or irrelevant pedigree. I can think of 15 right now, off the top of my head, without doing any digging.
 * The point to be emphasized is that we are concerned with merely a disambiguation; it is not intended to convey information. If someone wants information, let him or her read the article. PKKloeppel (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair comment - to make it clear, I was wondering why the nature of the date being used to disambiguate wasn't clarified if it was other than the launch date, rather than why an alternative date was being used at all. There are obviously very many ships for which the launch or construction dates are not clear, but alternatives (e.g. commissioning dates) are available. I can understand what you're saying - that more detailed information should really be presented in the article text, rather than the page title - but it still appears to me that (1) even the disambiguation component of page titles should be somewhat informative (indeed, the date disambiguator used is never random, and is related in some unspecified way to the particular ship covered by the article - as a consequence it must convey a certain amount of information, even if the nature of that relationship is not made clear) and (2) page titles are actively misleading to readers in that substantial minority of cases where they are disambiguated by a rather later commissioning date. If 90% of the time readers see a page called "USS Shipname (18xx)", the "18xx" refers to launch or construction, then the natural tendency when they see any article titled by that formulation would be to conclude that it was a ship built in 18xx. It's fine if they read the article and learn that the date is actually the commissioning date, but not so helpful if they only see the page title (because they are browsing category listings for instance). If there is a ship with a late commissioning date and unknown launch or construction date, the formulation "USS Shipname (commissioned 18xx)" has some advantages, particularly when browsing articles in a way where only the page title is visible. TheGrappler (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't have any great objection in principle to the "Commissioned XXXX" disambiguator where there is no launch, build or perhaps other earlier date. What I would object to is having a "Built XXXX" disambiguator where no launch date is available, because such a disambiguator would affect a lot of ships and it would be quite untidy. In other words, I think we can reasonably treat year of completion as year of launch where year of launch is not available, because in the overwhelming majority of cases, year of completion will be the same as year of launch or else very close to it in any case. Gatoclass (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

HMS Chesapeake info needed
After USS Chesapeake (1799) was captured in 1813 the ship served in the Royal Navy until 1820 or so. Anyone have some info on the Royal Navy career? --Brad (talk) 03:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as her career goes, she was commissioned under Commander Alexander Gordon in 1813, Gordon being promoted to captain on 10 February the following year. Captain George Burdett took over after Gordon, and sailed her back to Plymouth for some repairs, where she arrived on 9 October 1814. She was laid up at Plymouth in September 1815, and presumably never returned to active service. She was finally sold to Joshua Holmes for £3,450 on 18 August 1819. Benea (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow what quick service! May I have your source for that w/ page number if applicable? --Brad (talk) 03:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * . There's some details from the survey and sea trials the navy carried out on her while she was in England in December 1814 in Gardiner's Frigates of the Napoleonic Wars, but it's probably nothing you don't already know. Suffice to say the survey came up with a number of criticisms, including that she was 'overbuilt', and therefore she wasn't used as a model for future frigate design. Benea (talk) 03:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Her timbers finally ended up in Chesapeake Mill, Wickham. Mjroots (talk) 05:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually some opine on the design from the Royal Navy POV would be appreciated. The controversy over Josiah Fox altering the design from the one intended by Joshua Humphreys has always been a point with this ship. Interesting that the RN would discard the design of this ship but use the one from President that retained Humphreys' design. --Brad (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well interestingly the American designs in general were poorly received. Quoting from Gardiner: "'...while the ex-American prizes were inspected closely there was no great desire to copy Chesapeake, Essex, or the sloop Frolic for that matter. The President might be regarded as an exception since an exact copy was ordered in 1818, but this was largely a political move: the old ship was in a poor state when captured in 1815 and eventually had to be broken up, but the Admiralty wished to retain the propaganda value of a President on the Navy List to celebrate its one great success over the American super-frigates.' (pp. 140-1)" and "'When it was intended to repair the ship in 1818 ... The poor state of the hull led the shipwrights to recommend breaking up the ship, but the Admiralty was so keen to retain the most important prize of the American war that the First Lord invited the Comptroller of the Navy Board to a private interview to impress on him the value of the President as a propaganda tool. As a result of this pressure the ship was surveyed again, but despite claims made for the superiority of live oak, it was found that the only sound timber in the whole ship comprised fifty-six floors, thirty-nine first futtocks and twelve second futtocks; all the rest was defective, decayed or rotten. The ship was reluctantly taken to pieces and replaced with a replica.' (p. 97.)" and "The ship herself was thought worthy of imitation, but this was purely a political decision. It had been hoped to retain the prize in service, but she would have required too much to be spent on her to guarantee an long life, so it was decided to break her up and build a replica instead. The new President was little more than a trophy, designed to remind the Royal Navy's rivals that dominion of the seas could not be won by a handful of individually superior ships. (p. 97)"This conflicts with our current article on President, which ascribes the decision to build her namesake to her design to, well, her design. I don't have access to Beach, but I can't see where Toll makes this claim. As to Chesapeake herself her survey reported that "'The excessive overhang of the stern was prone to damage in a following sea, and despite the obviously fine lines, the ship's performance under sail was not regarded as exceptional. The survey was complimentary about the build-quality of the ship, but thought the scantlings over-size: she had originally been intended as another 44, and it is possible that the timbers collected for the original design were not reduced in siding for the smaller revised dimensions. (p. 96.)" and "American prizes were closely scrutinised, and in the case of the Chesapeake and the sloop Florida were subject to commissioned sea trials, to see if anything could be learned from them. Far from being impressed, British officers regarded neither as a worthwhile prototype, and criticised the construction of the former, and the hull design of the latter ... in fact they considered her [Chesepeake] overbuilt.' (p. 96.)" and finally "The report on the Chesapeake ... was more critical. Because the main magazine was aft, stowage of provisions was a problem, less than 4 months' fitting under hatches. She was stiff, handled well, and was generally a good sea-boat, except that the excessive overhang of the stern caused the sea to strike very heavily under the counter; the captain felt the overhang would cause the ship to be damaged if taken aback. She was strongly constructed - indeed her captain thought her 'overbuilt' - but was very weatherly. She was better to windward that the fir-built Niger, but the latter ship could outrun Chesapeake off the wind or before it; indeed her recorded speeds are not very impressive at 9kts close-hauled and 11kts large. The report concluded with the captain's opinion that the ship was not a suitable model for copying (perhaps the real reason for commissioning the ship at the end of the war). (p. 147.)" Hope this helps, Benea (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much. This will really round out the perspective on the designs. Some random copyeditor inserted the "As a testament" line; neither Beach nor Toll support that perspective; simply stating the design was copied. --Brad (talk) 23:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Notification regarding Wikipedia-Books
As detailed in last week's Signpost, WildBot has been patrolling Wikipedia-Books and searched for various problems in them, such as books having duplicate articles or containing redirects. WikiProject Wikipedia-Books is in the process of cleaning them up, but help would be appreciated. For this project, the following books have problems:


 * Book:Admiralty Ships and Submarines Lost from 1939 to 1946 (problems)
 * Book:Nimitz class aircraft carriers (problems)
 * Book:North Carolina class battleships (problems)

The problem reports explain in details what exactly are the problems, why they are problems, and how to fix them. This way anyone can fix them even if they aren't familiar with books. If you don't see something that looks like this, then all problems have been fixed. (Please strike articles from this list as the problems get fixed.)

Also, the saved book template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of books (title, subtitle, cover-image, cover-color), and gives are preview of the default cover on the book's page. An example of such a cover is found on the right. Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class Ships articles should have covers.

If you need help with cleaning up a book, help with the saved book template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Books, and WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.

This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 22:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. Earwig Bot ( owner •  talk ) 22:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Missing watercraft topics
I've update my list of missing vehicle-related topics, including the section of watercraft - Skysmith (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of battleships of Germany now open
The A-Class review for List of battleships of Germany is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Kongō class battlecruiser now open
The A-Class review for Kongō class battlecruiser is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 05:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

RMS Titanic
Article is currently semi-protected indefinitely due to vandalism. A possible alternative is to have a warning notice that appears when trying to edit the article, as has been done with the Lewis Hamilton article. Having the notice allows IPs to make constructive edits, and warns potential vandals that their actions will have consequences. Is this worth a try? Mjroots (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a very good idea to me. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  17:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Edit warning notice now in place. Article unprotected. Banhammer ready and waiting to be used . Mjroots (talk) 07:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye, it's been on my watchlist since 2007, and I've got a block button that does not get used that frequently. -MBK004 07:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

List of Japanese steam battleships
The "mergist" who "merged" List of Japanese steam battleships to List of Japanese battleships only left an edit summary of "merge" without actually doing anything, and leaving all the information behind. Admittedly, some of the info had been merged earlier by other people, but alot was not, and none of the bluelinks were transferred on top of the black non-linked text.

Someone might actually want to complete the merge.

65.94.253.16 (talk) 05:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Biggest loss on a ship sunk by a German raider in WW II
In the article of HMHS Gloucester Castle the text says, that “the Gloucester Castle had the largest loss of life of any ship sunk by German surface raiders during the war.”

Have you heard about passenger steamer SS Britannia (built in 1926 by Alexander Stephens and Sons for the Anchor Line), which was sunk by German raider Thor west of Dakar on March 25, 1941? 127 passengers and 122 crew members were killed in this incident. I just want you to know. There is no article about this ship on the English-language Wikipedia, but for the German-language version I have been writing one in 2009. Maybe someone is interested enough to create an English version.

Best regards and greetings from Germany, OfficeBoy (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (Copied from Portal_talk:Nautical.)  H aus Talk 00:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I spotted this on the talkpage of the Gloucester Castle article as well. I'm not entirely sure about OfficeBoys figures, Duffy's Hitler's Secret Pirate Fleet records that Britannia had 527 people aboard. One was picked up by the Thor, the remainder were left in the water. 195 died and 331 were later rescued, as opposed to OfficeBoy's figures of 249 deaths. But even so this is enough to challenge the uncited statement on Gloucester Castle, as the claimed total for her sinking is 93 deaths. I'll do that now Benea (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll see your 195 and raise you another 450 for the 645-strong ship's company of HMAS Sydney (D48), who all died after the cruiser encountered the raider Kormoran. On a related note, when working on these three articles, I found Duffy's material to be less than reliable, so you may also want to treat the Britannia figures with a pinch of salt. -- saberwyn 11:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed; I've pulled Hitler's Secret Pirate Fleet off library shelves only to leaf through it and put it back in favour of something more sober. The fact that the book's title is manifestly wrong (the raiders were commissioned warships, not pirates) undermines its reliability from the get go. Nick-D (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * According to this source, “Of the 203 crew and 281 passengers, 122 of the crew and 127 passengers lost their lives”. It was very interesting and fascinating to look for information on that ship and to create an article out of it. Maybe someone is interested in writing an English-language euquivalent? I have never heard of a book entitled Hitler's Secret Pirate Fleet. That does't sound very scientific or reliable, I habe to say. OfficeBoy (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OfficeBoy, wo ist der Artikel auf der deutschen Wikipedia, bitte? Ich sehe keine Artikel mit dem Titel SS Britannia.    H aus Talk 14:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Der heißt Britannia (1926). MfG OfficeBoy (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

SS Utopia and HMS Anson collision in 1891
Hello. I've got a question regarding HMS Anson (1886). Was it this HMS Anson that ran down and sank the British passenger steamer SS Utopia (Anchor Line) off Gibraltar on March 3, 1891, causing a loss of 535 passengers and crew? There are several vessels of that name and I'd like to know which one it was. Thanks... OfficeBoy (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the HMS Anson dab page, it would have been that one. Mjroots (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your quick response! I was just a bit curious about HMS Anson. OfficeBoy (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for USS President (1800) now open
The featured article candidacy for USS President (1800) 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 20:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

More cruise ships
I just stubmled across another newbie creating articles on cruise ships that are only proposed and not yet under construction or even named! Carnival Dream 3 has now been PRODed, but I'll bet the newbie will force us to take this to AFD. Would someone with a bit more tact mind leaving them a note about when a cruise ship is deemed notable enough for an article (i.e. under construction). Thanks, -MBK004 20:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He removed the PROD, so I have taken this to AFD: Articles for deletion/Carnival Dream 3 -MBK004 04:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge request
A request has been made to merge MV Liberty Star and MV Freedom Star into NASA recovery ship. The discussion is here, members of this project may wish to comment. Benea (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * After some time in which there have been several opposes and no arguments put forward in favour of the merge, it seems that this proposal should be closed and archived, and the tags removed. Barring any further input, would someone like to do this, since I commented in the discussion? Benea (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation of ships
It had to happen, two ships built in the same year, each carrying the same name at different stages in their careers. I think I've found the solution. Mjroots (talk) 06:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Since one of them was only renamed Harmodius, why not just list the ship under its existing title with an explanation to that effect? Gatoclass (talk) 06:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Both ships carried the name Harmodius at some point in their careers, both were built in 1919. Therefore SS Harmodius (1919) (the usual method of disambiguation for ships with the same name) could refer to either ship. Hence the need for further disambiguation in this rare case. Mjroots (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't need the disambiguation because the second ship article lists the ship under a different name. That is the name you should be using in the dab page, because you are not supposed to use redirects on dab pages. Gatoclass (talk) 09:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ships articles with incomplete B-Class checklists
I noticed there are over 8,700 articles that have incomplete B-Class checklists. The full list: Category:Ships articles with incomplete B-Class checklists shows all the gory details. I've been doing a few a day but at that rate I might finish by 2053. If you have a few spare minutes to help out and reduce the backlog then please do. I have been finding a few articles that aren't in our scope or actually need downgrading to a stub. --Brad (talk) 10:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

2011 April Fools day DYK opportunity
Create the USCGC Chincoteague (WPB-1320) article and you can get a 2011 April Fools day DYK on the back of the MY Titanic hook. Mjroots (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Below is a tiny subset of the least offensive of the funny ship name list I used to keep. I think my pick would be HMS Happy Entrance.


 * HMAS Snipe
 * HMAS Waterhen
 * HMCS Asbestos
 * HMS Biter
 * HMS Blanche
 * HMS Broke
 * HMS Bury
 * HMS Cockatrice
 * HMS Handy (1895)
 * HMS Happy Entrance
 * HMS Happy Return (1654)
 * HMS Hasty (1894)
 * Cheers  H aus Talk 11:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * USCGC Chincoteague is done! :-) - The Bushranger (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What, no HMS Happy Ending ? --Brad (talk) 12:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You may want to add HMS Puke (19) to your list of funny names... JonEastham (talk) 11:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Clearly you were unaware that Bury is a major town in Lancashire, and that Philip Broke was one of Britain's naval heroes! As for Happy Return, which celebrates the Restoration of King Charles II in 1660, this title demonstrated wiki-authors' unfortunate mis-titling of ships, where the ship's article is reference under the renamed ship rather than under its original name. The ship is question was built as the Winsby in 1654, and retained this named throughout the (English) Commonwealth Era, only receiving the name Happy Return in 1660. Perhaps a more humourous name would be the Sixth Rate HMS Fanfan (1666), which was encumbered with the pet-name which Prince Rupert (for whose use the vessel was expressly built) used in addressing one of his favourite mistresses. Rif Winfield (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Indiana class battleship now open
The peer review for Indiana class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 05:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand now open
The peer review for SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 05:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Using “no photo available” with ship infoboxes.
An idea has been suggested to replace the current "no photo available" and change things so that using the photo request template on the talk page would no longer be needed. I think it's high time we found an alternative. Comments welcome at the infobox talk page. --Brad (talk) 10:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added a proposed code change to that discussion - if consensus exists for the change. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"Most powerful" ship
There is a dspute on the Kirov class battlecruiser over the use of the wording "most powereful". Please see Talk:Kirov class battlecruiser. The user supporting the claim refuses to provide sources supporting such claims, and is demanding objectors provide source refuting the claim. Any help upholding wp policies and guidelines would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipolicy is that the provider of the claim is responsible for referencing said claim. It is not for the objectors to prove that the claim is unsupported. See WP:CITE Mjroots (talk) 09:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon
There is a discussion about merging Deepwater Horizon and 2010 Explosion on Deepwater Horizon drilling rig articles. Beagel (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Deutschland class battleship now open
The A-Class review for Deutschland class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 23:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Russian battleship Slava now open
The A-Class review for Russian battleship Slava is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 21:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Japanese battleship Tosa now open
The featured article candidacy for Japanese battleship Tosa is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 21:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

New article: Frame (nautical)
Can anyone take a look at this and see if I'm missing something here? I'm not going for anything above stub, but it was a missing article, and I need it for JAPANESE BATTLESHIP Tosa's FAC. Thanks, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  07:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good, although I wonder if it wouldn't be better off at Wiktionary? Also regarding Tosa, I stared at it for a long while pondering how to mention blowout panels in the section talking about the magazine explosion test... - The Bushranger (talk) 07:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it can be expanded (I think), so it would be better-off here. I've added that link, thanks :) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  07:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. And now I'll see about creating that article! - The Bushranger (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Wreck of the trawler Ben Asdale
While housekeeping articles on places in Cornwall, UK, I have created a new article about the wreck of the trawler Ben Asdale from material removed from the article about Maenporth (a village in Cornwall).

The new article consists of the verbatim text removed from Maenporth. I've tagged the new article for clean-up and refimprove – it needs attention from an editor familiar with ships and shipwrecks. Andy F (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

RFA Maine
See my comment at Talk:Ship prefix (which may not be totally correct). There is some confusion over whether these were Royal Fleet Auxiliary or British Army ships. Assistance in clearing this up would be appreciated. Mjroots (talk) 09:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Cruise ship proposed move
It appears that there is a request to move MS Caribbean Princess to a new title without the prefix because all of the other Princess Cruises ships don't have a prefix. Discussion is here. -MBK004 18:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Naming/general question
I hope this is the right place to ask this. I came across a ship in an encyclopedia I have called "Truelove". looks like the same ship, and I was going to create a new article about it, as I don't think one exists. However, I don't know what to call it - I've noticed some articles have "Dutch ship ... (1777)" etc style naming, but this one seems to have been built in the US but soon captured by the British. The ship is also merchant, rather than naval, so I don't know what naming policy applies. Cortical (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If it was a full rigged ship, then Truelove (ship) would probably be a good title in accordance with naming conventions. If the vessel had a different rig the use that instead of ship - e.g. Truelove (barque) or Truelove (barquentine). Mjroots (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The picture looks like a full rig. Thanks. Cortical (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, one more question: what should I do about some sort of infobox? Cortical (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Infobox ship begin - click the show button for "Age of Sail" and copy & paste the code. Mjroots (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I think I'm finished now. Cortical (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I have written this article (Truelove (ship)), but in finding sources for it, I've come across some conflicting information and I don't know what to do about it. The encyclopedia I have states the ship was broken up "around 1888", and this is supported by "Ship models‎ - Page 64" and a couple of other sources. However, other places, such as   state around 1895, but  "Merchant sail vol 4", gives it as 1874. I don't really know which one is most accurate based on this, as most of the information I've given here seems trustworthy. Cortical (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi! I'm concerned at the title you give the article. There have been quite a few ships named Truelove, including quite a number of small English/British warships from the 17th century onwards. There is also the fictional ship which Patrick O'Brien featured in one of his books (Clarissa Oakes, which book I gather was actually re-entitled "The Truelove" in US publication). To avoid confusion, may I suggest that you follow Wikipedia standards by appending the date (in parenthesis) in the title of your article? Rif Winfield (talk) 03:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually have the same concern. Almost a year ago I was involved in a discussion about the naming of ships, and as I remember, everybody said, that it would be best to append the launching-date to the ships name (if there are several ships with the same name), to avoid any confusion. Or is there a new order/policy now?  Rectilinium  '♥' 02:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not a big problem. The article can be moved, and the title turned into a dab page if necessary. The name suggested above was fine given that no other full-rigged ships named Truelove have an article on Wikipedia. Many sailing ships are disambiguated by their rig. If necessary, they can be disambiguated by rig and year of launch - Foo (1897 barque) / Foo (1919 barque). The British warships would be HMS Truelove, would they not? Mjroots (talk) 07:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is almost no unique ship-name. The point, that there is no article about another ship with an identical name YET, should not be a reason to name it "XXX (ship)". It doubles the effort, when finally someone writes an article about a ship with an equal name. Then you first have to change the name of the first article. Thats exactly why there are naming conventions. Why not name an article correctly straightaway?  Rectilinium  '♥' 15:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There are certainly several articles pending on warships named Truelove. The most interesting career is that of the Truelove of 1647, which served in the Navy from 1647 to 1673, and I intend to add this article when time permits. And NO, Myroots, she would not have been named HMS Truelove until 1660, as like every English Navy vessel of that 1647-1660 era she was part of the Navy of the Commonwealth of England and so "HMS" was absolutely not applicable! Rif Winfield (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Mass removal of placeholder images
User:Plasticspork is making mass removals of the placeholder image for ships, ie the "No Photo Available" image. Does he have a consensus to do this? I haven't seen a discussion here, and I can't see one at the BOTREQ page that he cites. Gatoclass (talk) 07:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed he does. :) The discussion can be found here. - The Bushranger (talk) 07:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) The thread above for points to the discussion at Template talk:Infobox ship begin/doc.  Although, granted, not many here followed the link to join the conversation.
 * The template was modified so that all infoboxes without images now automatically get added to Category:Ship infoboxes without an image. With that, the manually maintained template on the talk page will no longer be needed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, you may think they are no longer needed but I beg to differ. There are probably very few people who ever look at Category:Ship infoboxes without an image. I can't recall doing so, and I've been a member of wikiships for a long time. For people who are not familiar with the workings of wikipedia, the placeholder is obviously still an effective prompt.


 * Apart from which, there is an aesthetic issue here. I think that where there is no image available, the infobox with placeholder looks a lot neater than it does without. In any case, changes that affect thousands of ship articles should be discussed at this page, not at obscure pages that few users may have watchlisted. Gatoclass (talk) 08:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, the botreq jumped the gun a bit, but I went along with it and even added to it once it was made - so I'm equally to blame. But, a link to the other discussion was posted to this page, and an update was made on this page to show that a proposal had been made over there - it's not like the discussion was hidden or concealed.
 * The category is a new one, and needs to be documented on this project page yet. That should have also been done prior to the botreq.
 * I disagree on the aesthetic issue ... to me it's more a question of what you are accustomed to seeing. They looked odd to me at first as well; but once I became accustomed to articles without the place-holders, they appear quite natural without the image.
 * There were a few drivers for the change ... one being that having the new category being auto-maintained eliminates the need for a manually maintained tag on the talk page (which was frequently missing, and used a different category). Another being Centralized discussion/Image placeholders, which was brought up by someone at the template's talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 08:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As I recall, the centralized discussion was mainly about people placeholders, which have always been somewhat controversial as they are quite large. All the same, a lot of people still ignore the recommendations coming out of that discussion.


 * We don't have the same issue at Wikiships because the ship placeholder is quite small. But I think it serves the purpose, because I have seen IP's who never otherwise edit the 'pedia adding images to ship articles. Those people are never going to look at an image category. As for the aesthetic issue, it's largely a matter of personal preference, but I've always felt the infobox without placeholder has a somewhat awkward look and that the placeholder gives it a more polished and professional look. Gatoclass (talk) 08:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The place-holder discussion was brought up by someone else; from reading it, the comments were mainly on BIO page ones, but did reference all place-holder images. However, it is unclear if the consensus at the end applied to all since not everyone seemed to be addressing all of them.  Regardless, the way I read the consensus was that they shouldn't be used for new entries, but no consensus seems to have existed to remove them where they were already in use - that part seems to have been left to the projects or individual articles.
 * As for their usage, I've always believed that if a user sees there is no image, they will realize one's missing - they don't need a blocky graphic to literally spell it out for them. While I'm not entirely opposed to a place-holder, I've always found the ship ones to be downright ugly.  But I was accustomed to seeing them at the top of pages and initially, their absence looked awkward to me.  Now that I've been seeing several without the image, I really believe the articles look cleaner without them.
 * I also believe that the auto-populated category is far more useful for tracking the missing images than is the manually maintained talk page tag - so if consensus exists not to eliminate the image, I would still like to see if we can find a way to get the category to auto-populate appropriately. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 08:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want all infoboxes without images to contain placeholder images, you could easily put that in the code for the infobox itself, if that image field is blank. This would be far easier than inserting it in every single infobox on every single page.  I really don't care one way or another, but let me know if you want me to resume removal.  Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  16:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, if consensus here decides that place-holder images are to be used, it would be better to still remove them from each article, and add an over-ride field for "no image =" in the template. The way it functions then: if no image is provided in the article, and "no image=" is left blank, then the article would show the place-holder and the page is automatically added to the category. Alternately, if no image is provided and "no image=any value", then no image is shown and the page is still added to the image needed category.  And, finally, if an image is provided in the article, then that one is shown and the article is not loaded to the category.
 * This way, place-holders can be used, the category gets auto-populated, place-holders can be overridden for articles where they are not appropriate (mainly very old ships where images are never likely to be found), and places the place-holder in the template so if they ever need to be updated/changed/removed down the road, it can be managed in one place. But, this still requires the place-holder be removed from each individual article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Its stupid to have this 'placeholder' image on every article because there are a number of articles within the Ships category that will never have images because the ships are 400+ yrs old and obviously pre-date the days when every ship was meticulously recorded in imagery. As such it will never make sense to have a placeholder image on these articles and so having a template that automatically adds a place holder image to these articles will not make any sense. Somebody said above about IP users replacing the placeholder with an image, I do not believe IP users are replacing images just because there is an image there already saying replace me. It is more than likley that they've come to the article for whatever reason, discovered there is no image and so gone and found one to add. Also, there is nothing encyclopaedic about maintaining a blank image in an article, you don't see printed encylopaedias saying 'we've not got an image for this yet so we've left a blank space until we do' The new category has been added to the WPShips sidebar template so users will be able to find it. JonEastham (talk) 08:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Certainly it's true that the text "No Photo Available" is not always appropriate, it should have been replaced with "No Image Available" long ago but nobody ever got around to it. But that's not an argument to dump a placeholder, only to dump this particular one.


 * Having had some time to think about this, I'm not that fussy about whether the placeholder is retained or not, if there's a consensus to drop it. The most important thing is that there should be consistency: what we don't want is to end up with placeholders on some articles but not on others. Gatoclass (talk) 11:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Consistency would certainly be achieved by removing placeholders and allowing the automation of the template to decide which articles need to be listed as needing an image, rather than leaving it to human intervention to sporadically and hap-hazardly apply it to some articles and not others. JonEastham (talk) 11:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we proceed then? JonEastham (talk) 12:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I guess if there's consensus for it ... Gatoclass (talk) 22:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just ping me and I will start again. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Niagara merger
I started a discussion on whether or not it would be more beneficial to merge USS Niagara (1813) and US Brig Niagara (museum ship) at WP:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. As it is relevant, comments/opinions from participants here would be welcomed. See WT:NRHP. ​​​​​​ ​​ Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 22:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a distinct sense of deja vu, (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 11). The discussion is still (after two years) open here. Benea (talk) 23:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga now open
The A-Class review for Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 03:21, 2 May 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!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding lat/long fields to ship infobox
A discussion has been started proposing the addition of lat/long fields to the ship infobox. Please feel free to add your comments and opinions at Template talk:Infobox ship begin/doc. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Indiana class battleship now open
The A-Class review for Indiana class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 04:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible problem
I've still got 1 foot on the ship and one ashore, but I saw what appeared to be some bold edits by User:DePiep to a number of rather technical articles/templates on May 3. One example: the Gross Register Tonnage and draft (hull) articles seem to have a number of skype control codes in them. I may be jumping at shadows, but could someone look into it? I can't properly get into it until I get home in a few days. H aus Talk 18:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed the codes - look like they were possibly artifacts from a copy/paste. I haven't reviewed the rest of the edits, just cleaned up the extra codes. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Images, Thai to Commons
Is there any way somebody could have this image moved to Commons? I can't read Thai, but the "no copyright" symbol on it says enough, and I might try to expand the shamefully sub-stub page on this ship using the information there, online translators, and a massive shaker of salt for the output of said translators... - The Bushranger (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the best plan would be to ask at commons. The copyright may only apply in Thailand but we can't determine that without being able to read it. There are too many open questions on the status of the photo since it's not in English presently. --Brad (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll post there when I get a chance. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 02:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand now open
The A-Class review for SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 02:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

A-class symbol on articles?
There is a discussion and !vote regarding the placement of A and GA symbols on corresponding mainspace articles (similar to the FA stars) here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles As we are one of the few projects that maintains a formal A-class review system, participation from this project would be helpful. Thank you, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  03:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Name of Tank ship page
Should it be tank ship or tanker (ship)? This is being discussed at Talk:Tank ship. (Msrasnw (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC))

Making the same change multiple times
From ( HMS Hood) I clicked on the link for freeboard and was taken to what is essentially a dab page.

Clearly the Hood article should point to Freeboard_(nautical) and I was about to fix it but then it occurred to me that there might be other pages where the same change needs to be made.

There are currently 83 pages that link to the dab page, most of which seem ship related. It would be tedious to change all of them one at a time.

I have been working on WP for some time but have most made small edits, fixing broken links, reverting vandalism etc. I have never done anything like this.

Is there any clever tool that would make applying this change to most of these pages easier?

FerdinandFrog (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A bot could do this but a bot can't determine what should or should not be linked. In this case doing it manually is the best way to ensure accuracy. --Brad (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, I'd think that "freeboard" referring to a ship would be much more widely known than the stateboard, and that "freeboard" should = "freeboard (nautical)", with a hatnote pointing skateboarders to "freeboard (skateboard)". That's not likely to happen though, so a manual search-and-destroy mission on the dabs is proably the best option, like Brad said. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 21:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Should seperate articles on sub-classes exist?
I'm asking for consensus to allow seperate articles on sub-classes for ships to be created. You see, I've promoted to GA all but 2 (there are at GAN) of the German Type IXA submarines (A sub-class of the German Type IX submarine). In order to get it to GTC, I need to make the main article a GA so I created User:White Shadows/German Type IXA submarine. User:Sturmvogel 66 stated that he disagees with such an idea so I brough it up here.-- White Shadows you're breaking up 19:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For the full comverstion, see User talk:Buggie111.-- White Shadows you're breaking up 19:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon
There is a discussion if WP:NC-SHIP applies also in case of semi-submersibles such as Deepwater Horizon. Beagel (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS Habsburg now open
The A-Class review for SMS Habsburg is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 21:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS Árpád now open
The A-Class review for SMS Árpád is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 21:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ariel class destroyer - did it really exist?
Need some help with this. I was going to do the Infobox for it but the article is a very stubby stub, lists itself as an altered design of 3 ships of the the Ardent class destroyer which itself is a subclass of the A class destroyer (1913)'s. However, other than one page List of destroyer classes on wikipedia, a search of the internet via google returns no information or even references to this class at all about this class having existed. It seems the only reference to this class is within the book Captain T.D. Manning, The British Destroyer listed on the pages references, this book seems to date from 1961 so it's very difficult to verify. Given naming of classes usually was done by the first in class, I would expect an HMS Ariel to have been at least within the class. However, the only HMS Ariel that could fit in with this class is already listed under the Angler group of 2 destroyers of the D class destroyer (1913). As such, I'm totally stuck. I would propose listing it for deletion until the class can be substantiated as having existed as I'm not willing to accept that a 50yr old book is the only reference in existence when everything else is so readily documented. Anybody have any leads or thoughts on this? JonEastham (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Conway's 1906-1921 lists them as a subclass of the Acheron class (which would be this Ariel. It lists them as "Thornycroft 'Specials'," which includes only Ariel and Acheron. Parsecboy (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a later class. Confusingly this Ariel was also built by Thorneycroft but was launched in 1897. They certainly existed, but the problem is probably when different names were assigned to classes or groups like this, and sometimes which ships were grouped together. I'm away from easy access to books which could confirm this. But I wouldn't recommend deleting it until it can be determined which ships are being grouped this way, and what was their common name (if not Ariel). It would make more sense to redirect it if it's later determined that this is merely a subtype that doesn't need a separate article. Benea (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ahh, looking at Conway's 1860-1905, these were a pair of destroyers, Angler and Ariel, and yes, built by Thornycroft. They were a subclass of the D class destroyer (1913). Conway's doesn't refer to the group by a name, just "1895–6 Orders: Thornycroft 30-knoters." Parsecboy (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Grouped under Desparate here, also named as "Angler class". The D grouping is a 1913 creation for lumping together a load of ships of similar performance but different designs from Thornycroft and Ariel was wrecked 6 years earlier. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There are several misunderstandings here. Firstly, let me remove the name "HMS Acheron" which is simply a mistake here - it has nothing whatsoever to do with any of the early (pre-1900) destroyer classes; the Acheron was a much later destroyer built under the 1911 Programme (later renamed the "I" class in 1913); I think that whoever entered the name Acheron is misreading the reference to HMS Angler which was the (Thornycroft-built) sister to the Ariel. Also please note that the term "D class" was a late "catch-all" title introduced in 1913 by the Admiralty - as Graeme correctly states - to cover all the surviving 2-funnel 30-knot TBDs (torpedo-boat destroyers) which had been built under the 1894-95 through 1900-01 Annual Construction Programmes. Please therefore note that the term "D class" (and indeed the "A class", "B class" and "C class") was not in use before 1913, when all of the early TBDs were known by class names of the lead ship of each design, according to their design - and of course that was different for every builder as the Admiralty left the design entirely up to the builder. I would strongly recommend that the article headed Ariel class destroyer should be entirely deleted because it is factually incorrect as well as misleading.


 * All of these TBDs of course had been in service for twelve years or more, so it was simply a belated administrative convenience for the Admiralty. Coincidentally, all of the ten 2-funnel TBDs were designed and built by Thornycroft (the only destroyer supplier who were designing two-funneled TBDs at this date) so all ten of these were simply annual incremented variations on one design. There were a number of different designer/builders involved in the 3-funneled 30-knot TBDs built under the same annual programmes (the survivors of which were collected together similarly in 1913 as the "C class") or the 4-funneled 30-knot TBDs built under the same annual programmes (the survivors of which were collected together similarly in 1913 as the "B class"), so each of these two groups comprised a number of different 'classes' until grouped together in 1913. The Thornycroft 30-knotters therefore comprised a number of "sub-classes" of the same basic design.


 * The first were the Desperate (note the correct spelling, Graeme!), Fame, Foam and Mallard ordered under the 1894-95 Programme; the first three of these were ordered from Thornycroft on 10 May 1895 - Yard numbers 305, 306 and 307; the fourth was ordered 20 days later on 30 May to the identical design - Yard number 308. By all the usual categorisation of the Admiralty, these should clearly be described as the "Desperate class". Two more were ordered under the 1895-96 Programme from Thornycroft on 23 January 1895; these were the Angler (Yard number 313) and Ariel (Yard number 314), and were contracted to be "similar in all respects to the last order" - so much so that they should probably be classed as part of the same sub-class rather than a separate sub-class.


 * Three more were ordered on 21 April 1896 under the 1896-97 Programme - these were the Coquette (Yard number 319), Cygnet (Yard number 320) and Cynthia (Yard number 321); in this sub-class the Thornycroft design was widened from the original design (the contract specified vessels "from the same specification and design as those now building but embodying all improvements which have been communicated to you (i.e. to Thornycroft) to date". This more affected the fittings than the design, but the hull was widened about 3 inches from the original design. Under the 1897-98 Programme a final (tenth) vessel of this class was ordered - the Stag (Yard number 334) on 7 September 1897; in this vessel the engine power was slightly raised from the 5,700 ihp of the first 9 vessels to 5,800 ihp.


 * There is an excellent summary of these developments in the late David Lyon's 1996 book on "The First Destroyers". I might add that I'm also completing (mainly from David's research, with more detail and a few minor corrections) a new book on "The Thornycroft List", probably for some time next year. Some Wiki-readers might have attended the presentation on the topic of Thornycroft's Chiswick shipbuilding output which I gave at the Museum of Docklands to the February 2009 Symposium on Shipbuilding and Ships on the Thames. Rif Winfield (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clearing it up Rif Winfield, I have tagged the article with the Proposed deletion tag. If there are no objections by 18 May 2010 then an admin can delete it. JonEastham (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)