Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 26

Requested move
A user has requested a move from corvette to 'corvette (ship)' in order to move Chevrolet Corvette to corvette in its place as the new primary topic. Discussion is here. Benea (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, a slight misunderstanding, corvette would then be a redirect to Chevrolet Corvette. Benea (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Corvette (ship) falls foul of WP:MOSSHIP. That title would suggest a full-rigged ship name Corvette. Mjroots (talk) 10:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Crowsnest
I haven't come across this as a ref anywhere yet, so IDK if anybody knows about it. I found an RCN magazine, Crowsnest, available on the DND website. It covers 1948-65, apparently, with current events, officer & enlisted promotions, & suchlike. For bios of sailors, it occurs to me it might be of use; not sure if it would be anywhere else. (It's a bit thin on detail from the issues I've looked at.) Just FYI.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  13:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think the source is useful, then add it to our resources page. Mjroots (talk) 07:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

HMS Agamemnon
It's amazing what you find out by clicking on random article. The George Adlam & Sons article states that two brewery ships were operated. The former HMS Agamemnon and HMS Menestheus. The former is a dab page, but no ship there fits the description of a WWII minesweeper/minelayer. Is there one missing? Mjroots (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Conway's 1922–1946 has Agamemnon (built 1929, 7593 tons) and Menesthesus (1929, 7493 tons) as auxiliary minesweepers, taken up in 1939-40, with the common fate "Amenities ship 1944".Nigel Ish (talk) 11:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose a brewery is an amenity, isn't it? Cheers, mine's a pint! Mjroots (talk) 11:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * HMS Agamemnon (1929) added to the shipindex page. Mjroots (talk) 11:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Bot request
FYI - A bot request was recently made which is relevant to this wikiproject. You may want to see Bot requests/Archive 41/Archives/ 23 and comment there. &mdash;SW&mdash; gossip 21:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * At ship class, links are encoded e.g. " County-class cruiser " to work around the lack of hyphens in the article names. The hyphenated forms aren't even redirects. Per the external link on that article, normal English hyphenation is used, with hyphens in all phrases "X class Y", where X is the class and Y is the type of ship. These would be easy to move with a bot, leaving the unhyphenated forms as rd's. — kwami (talk) 07:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We may have not moved articles to titles with a hyphen because of the way that links are sometimes broken by hyphens or odd characters in titles. We can't allow M/V in an article title as one example. This needs discussion before making mass changes. Brad (talk) 10:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A hyphen isn't an odd character. It has no effect on links. See Naming conventions (technical restrictions). (We can have M/V, actually, but it can cause complications when moving an article if there are page archives. We can also fix it so it displays M/V without actually being named that.) — kwami (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with having articles at M/V Foo or M/S Foo is that these pages become sub-pages of the M article. It is possible to display the MV Foo article's title as M/V Foo, but that is not the same as housing it at M/V Foo. Mjroots (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, they don't. There are no subpages in WP mainspace, only in non-mainspace. That's where the complication comes in: talk space does allow subpages, and they'd have the same name. There's no problem though unless there are archives and you move the page. — kwami (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, but the talk pages would then be sup-pages of Talk:M, which, as you noted, can cause problems with page moves. It'd be a much better solution to just use the display name template to address this. Parsecboy (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of the issues I've raised there:
 * Perhaps as long as we italicize the class name, there is no need for an en dash to disambiguate? With a "Commerce de Paris-class ships of the line", it should be pretty obvious that it isn't a Paris-class ship.
 * We accept double hyphenation in Category:Achelous class repair ships converted from LST-491-class ships. That suggests that LST-1 class tank landing ships should be LST-1-class tank-landing ships (hyphenating tank-landing as well, assuming that's what the phrase is supposed to mean).
 * But many of the phrases in the article names, such as 'landing platform dock ship', should probably be removed altogether, per the naming guideline, rather than hyphenated. (Round Table class landing ship logistics ship? Round Table-class landing-ship-logistics ship?) But that's too much to consider in a mass move.
 * There are also a few names such as "Type C escort ship" which should be hyphenated.
 * Occasionally "Class" is capitalized, and probably shouldn't be. But what in the world do we do with Passenger-Only Fast Ferry Class ferry? Passenger-Only Fast Ferry-class ferry?
 * User:Snottywong added: I think the endashes are important. For instance, it would really be confusing if we used hyphens in Chungmugong Yi Sun-shin class destroyer.  Compare Chungmugong Yi Sun-shin-class destroyer with Chungmugong Yi Sun-shin–class destroyer.
 * — kwami (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

For a list of pages to be renamed and their proposed names, see Special:PrefixIndex/User:Snottywong/Ship_classes. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 12:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There are some dashes involved as well, the discussion at BotReq shows that. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

So to confirm, has the recent move of Trafalgar class submarine to Trafalgar-class submarine been against consensus or in keeping with it? Benea (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Against, in my view; most of the ship names have long been uncontroversially nonhyphenated and there only really seems to be one editor keen to change this state of affairs. The Land (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Have a look at User talk:Kwamikagami; it's littered with previous cases where Kwami has taken it upon himself to change article names without bothering to discuss the matter. The Land (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's sort of like changing the naming conventions without bothering to discuss the matter. Weird huh? Brad (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's obviously with consensus. The consensus has stood for eight years. This is merely a matter of moving the article to the name already used in the article. — kwami (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'd put "changing a name guideline to reflect what's actually happening" in a rather different category to "moving lots of articles without involving the people who are editing". Your mileage may vary, but let's go over to the relevant guideline and discuss things there... The Land (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Erm Brad, we had consensus for the changes here, but they were never implemented. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What's actually happening is that we use hyphens in all well-developed articles. — kwami (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Either way, somebody needs to fix sclass to support the hyphens. Right now, it can only link to the unhyphenated titles, meaning I'm seeing a lot of pointless redirects on the pages that are currently hyphenated. I tried to do it in December, but couldn't figure it out, and complained on the talk page, which hasn't generated any attention.  bahamut0013  words deeds 21:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect that we can't fix that until the pages are moved, because the hyphenated forms are not currently redirects. — kwami (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Bot mass-move proposal
Some people don't like the idea of en dashes, and I'm ambivalent about them myself. But we don't need to bother with them now: We'd need a redirect at the hyphenated form anyway, so it wouldn't hurt to move those articles to hyphenated forms regardless of what we decide after that.

So, should we: If we want to be consistent, those are the two choices I see. — kwami (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) follow WP:Naming conventions (ships), our consistent guideline for the past eight years, and the recent consensus here and move all of these articles to "X-class Y" to match the punctuation of the text of the articles and of our cited sources? Or,
 * 2) delete that section of SHIPNAME and remove hyphens from that convention and from the articles?


 * Well I wouldn't say those are the only two choices, we could keep doing what we do now. But yes, my personal preference would be that we use a bot if possible to add hyphens (I can go either way on the italics) to page titles if the same words are hyphenated in the text, because I believe people are copying the title (without the hyphen) into the text, making more work for me when I have to put the hyphen back in. - Dank (push to talk) 21:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer to be consistant, one way or another. Dank's point that the title should match the page name should match how it is formatted in articles should all be the same.  bahamut0013  words deeds 21:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Where the hyphen is correct in the text, it should be used in the article title. I'd leave the italics alone, though, since River-class destroyer should not have italics, while Fantome-class sloop should have them.  Hard to discriminate in a bot move.  So - strong support for a bot-move to include the hyphen in article names in accordance with our own naming guidelines. Shem (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong support over what I've been saying above and over at BOTREQ. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Rationale; It isn't broke, don't fix it. The hyphen is desirable in text, as is italicisation (where appropriate) but neither is necessary in article titles. All the existing links go to the existing forms, including the rather important ship class templates. Moving on to talk about any existing consensus, I would definitely prefer to see once centralised discussion on this rather than the current fragmented discussion. The most recent turn around the issue was at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(ships)/Archive_3 which produced 3 editors in favour of hyphens and 1 against. The articles have been happily sitting at their current names since the dawn of time which is in itself quite a strong indication of a consensus about their titling. Regards, The Land (talk) 09:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirects are cheap if we decide to move them all. I think the discussion is meant to be here now so we can find consensus. Also note that we will need to change SHIPNAME if there is not consensus for this... technically most of our articles are violating our own name guidelines right now. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well we've got people opposing on the bot request page who haven't posted here, and another conversation on the shipname talk page... can we at least have one discussion not 3! The Land (talk) 10:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I know, I think it is supposed to be here now, so let's direct people posting elsewhere to here. From the BOTREQ page, obviously kwami supports hyphens, as do Headbomb and Toddy . Yoenit is opposed. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)::::: No I don't.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC) My bad, struck. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Undecided. I posted over at the old discussion as I didn't see this was going on here until now. I can't speak for all ship articles, as I don't have familiarity with all naming conventions, but I can say that the Royal Naval submarines classes are generally not hyphenated in most literature. I have read the wikipedia ship guidelines, but can someone explain to me what the rationale is for adding hyphens a little more clearly? Which would be more grammatically correct? Antarctic-adventurer  (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion here isn't whether the hyphen is correct or not (that has already been discussed ad infinitum, most recently at this archive, and the simple grammatical answer is that "Trafalgar-class" is an adjectival modifier of "submarine", and as such needs to be hyphenated). Here the discussion is whether a bot should move all class articles to titles that include the hyphen (which should already be correctly used within the text). Shem (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks for the explanation. Well if that is the correct grammatical form, and it is the wikipedia established policy here over at the ships project, then if someone can get a bot to work with few/no problems then I support the proposal. Antarctic-adventurer  (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Trafalgar-class" is incorrect, but "Trafalgar-class submarine" is. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't that depend on placement in the sentence? "HMS Tuckshop is a Teatime-class submarine" but "HMS Tuckshop was the last submarine to be built in the Teatime class" (cf "his grandson is a pupil in Blue class") GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Or, more precisely, it depends on whether it's part of a larger noun phrase: a Teatime-class submarine should be hyphenated per normal English punctuation rules, because it's not a Teatime submarine or a class submarine but the Teatime class (one unit) of submarine. — kwami (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. "Teatime class" should never get a hyphen, but "Teatime-class submarine" should (in my view) always get a hyphen (albeit in others' view, only in-text!) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To my grammatical sensibilities, "Teatime-class submarine" makes sense in text, when the purpose of "Teatime-class" is to tell the reader what kind of submarine it is. "Teatime class submarine" makes sense in a title when the purpose of the word "submarine" is to explain to the reader the meaning of the category "Teatime class". In a sense it is "submarine" which is the adjective in the title, though in most cases in the text the class name is the adjective. Hopefully that makes some kind of sense. :-) The Land (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've never seen such a distinction. I'd be interested if you could dig one up. My reading of Teatime class submarine would be that there's a category of objects called "class submarines", and that this is the Teatime variety of those class submarines. I'd format your distinction as "Teatime-class submarine" vs. "Teatime class (submarine)". — kwami (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying, but I'm inclined to agree with Kwami here, Land. I'd read it as the Teatime variety of "class submarines". I'm open to being proved wrong, though, if there are distinctions made in RS'. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Speaking of reliable sources I just had a look at my bookshelf, and couldn't find any instances of the use of hyphens. Parkes, Breyer, the 1919 Jane's, "Steam, steel and shellfire", Lambert's "Sir John Fisher's Naval Revolution" - all non-hyphenated. The Land (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose XXXX-Class in article names and headings.  The practice in the publications of the US Naval Institute is to hyphenate in text but not in headings.  Jane's Fighting Ships does not hyphenate in headings.  Brassey's Naval Annual did not hyphenate in text either.  I have consulted various other books and the practice is to not hyphenate this in headings.
 * In English grammar, rules on hyphens have exceptions. "Admiral class ship" is correct.  "Admiral class" is correct.  "Admiral-class ship" is correct.  But "Admiral-class" is incorrect because the word "class" now stands alone.  "Admiral Smith class ship" is correct, but "Admiral Smith-class ship" is wrong because the hyphen is leaving "Admiral" on its own.
 * There is also a practical problem, which I raised in another forum. In type-setting there are distinctions between hyphens, en-dashes, and em-dashes.  For the most part these distinctions do not exist in normal English (though the Guide to Naval Writing distinguishes between dashes and hyphens).  If article or heading names have hyphens (or dashes), we are exposing ourselves to having utterly lame edit wars and disputes (see for example Talk:Mexican-American War.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * To respond to the last point, I think we've dropped the discussion on dashes (I hope, at least, because if this happens, I have your same concerns re dash edit-wars). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Toddy, whether to hyphenate a heading is a stylistic issue, and TITLE is clear that our titles are meant to be consistent across WP rather than to reflect specific sources. And we do use hyphens in WP article titles. — kwami (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Frankly I can't believe that I am taking part in a lengthy discussion on the minutiae of hyphens. Whatever the merits or otherwise, I certainly think that having a non-hyphenated title looks better to the eye, (as in "Trafalgar class submarine" rather than "Trafalgar-class submarine). Jane's FS, the Royal Navy and others certainly don't hyphenate so surely that is enough for us not to worry too much about it here? Unless there is a clear consensus with definable and logical reasons given for a change, I think we should just maintain the current status quo. There are bigger fish to fry frankly. Antarctic-adventurer  (talk) 08:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Says who the RN doesn't hyphenate class names? JSP 101, the guide to writing followed by all three services in the UK, and the MoD, says at Chapter 1, para 2 "The normal rules of English usage are to be followed", and if individuals within the services do not follow this convention, they are departing from Defence Writing house style, not laying down a pattern of usage.  Shem (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the DWG is no more specific on hyphens (or dashes) than that single line. I wondered if Hansard hyphenated, but apparently they don't and that includes written answers. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good find Shem. It does indeed say that "the normal rules of English usage are to be followed." However, the RN and the MOD themselves don't hyphenate classes as far as I have seen. Does this then mean that they are all disregarding their own guidelines, or that the normal rules of English don't call for a hyphen in this case? Antarctic-adventurer  (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In cases where you can find unhyphenated "X-class ship" (but not "X class") it means the RN & MOD are not following their own rules (perhaps they have more important things to do than agonise about hyphens? You'd hope so). Shem (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose XXXX-Class in article names and headings. I've not seen Iowa-Class Battleships and I am sure not convinced that the USN has ever used that.Tirronan (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Bassackwards
It's becoming apparent that some people don't agree there should be hyphens in these class articles let alone if a bot should move them there. Time to back up and decide on the hyphens first despite what the naming convention might say at present. After that then we can caterwaul over bot runs. Brad (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Concur, as there was not much participation in the last discussion at the naming conventions page. - BilCat (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I make no pretense of knowing the niceties of usage of hyphens some seem to have, as displayed above. However, IMO, there's a simple rule that seems to have been followed in everything I've read. The class is "Foo class", while its members are "Foo-class ships" (hence "Koong Foo is Foo-class"). I see no reason WP should deviate from that. Per usual, however, I expect to be in a distinct minority. <font color="#21ABCD">Master Po  <font color="#E30022">gimme back my pebble, dammit!  07:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a minority of one, though, since I'm in complete agreement with you. Article titles should follow this form, which has been the consensus for eight years, and follows the rules of English grammar.  Shem (talk) 11:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I count myself relieved. :D <font color="#21ABCD">George Hammond  <font color="#E30022">open the gate, Radar  03:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Evidently some people aren't waiting for the outcome of the discussion... The Land (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In Kwamikagami's defence, there was a consensus here, and he's been implementing it. Just because this discussion has decided to go back over old ground doesn't make it fair to level accusations at him.  How about assuming good faith? Shem (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm note sure that saying "he's not waiting for the outcome of the discussion" is exactly an accusation. It's a pretty plain statement of fact. But I certainly do suggest you look at Kwami's editing pattern, his talk page, and things like this, you can make your own mind up about how much weight to put on his extensive contributions to this discussion. The Land (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's asking too much to wish that an editor would refrain from making contentious mass edits/moves while the subject is still under discussion (even if it is being discussed for the umpteenth time). The "accused" is treating this as a fait accompli. —Diiscool (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not here to defend anyone, but the discussion here is not about the pros and cons of various editors - I'd be interested to hear why a bot should not be used to move the articles to a name including a hyphen, in accordance with our guidelines laid down here (and they have been laid down this way since |as far back as I can go). Shem (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Right - here are the basics as I see them: Shem (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Article titles has a lot to say about titles, but in the lede it refers straight to the "box on the right", which includes our very own guidance on ship names, suggesting very clearly to me that the title should reflect the naming guidelines at Naming conventions (ships)
 * MOS:HYPHEN is very clear on compound modifiers (which is what the "Trafalgar-class" bit of "Trafalgar-class submarine" is).
 * Discussions on the appropriateness of the hyphen should be at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships). They regularly come up there, and the result is always the same - follow MOS:HYPHEN.
 * Sources are for facts, not usage.
 * Should we, or should we not, allow a bot to move articles to new titles including the hyphen?


 * No, and in fact Kwami should cease and desist from moving article to have hyphens until this discussion reaches a conclusion. Guidelines should follow usage, not the other way around, and one user, using his powers as an admin to make the moves, crusading to implement guidelines that aren't being followed by the bulk of the articles is not a good idea. Let the discussions here run their course first. - BilCat (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree that for Kwami to be moving articles while aware that the whole move-or-not-move-issue is contentious is not on. If we don't reach agreement to move, these will need shifting back. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

And isn't that just the point - his moves can always be reverted. We should be talking about the issue here, and if you want to talk to Kwami about his moves, do it at his talk page. Now, let the discussion run its course ... Shem (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I would support the use of hyphens only because the MOS seems to say that we should. I hate to see all of this wasted time arguing about this. To begin with the articles weren't hurting anything. I so dislike this type of wikidrama. Brad (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Just to note, I've seen sources use both formats. For example, the Conways All the World's Fighting Ships series does not use a hyphen, while Garzke & Dulin's Axis and Neutral Battleships of World War II does use a hyphen. Parsecboy (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I hope everyone realizes that once again there is no clear consensus in this matter so far. Likely it will die right here. Brad (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As there is no clear consensus for the move, please can User:Kwamikagami move back the articles he unilaterally changed the names of.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is pointless - because he is doing it anyway
This discussion is now pointless. User talk:Kwamikagami is doing a mass move of the articles. There is nothing we can do about it.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We currently have a tug of war taking place on these articles. I'm not coming down on either side of the debate on hyphens or not, but while the discussion is ongoing and the details are being thrashed out, the status quo should be maintained until we have a clear and current consensus. Can Kwamikagami (and anyone else) be asked to stop moving articles to hyphenated titles until this discussion is complete under threat of administrative action? Benea (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ''Copied from User talk:Kwamikagami
 * Stopped. Where is the new discussion? — kwami (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It started here and has several sub-sections. Parsecboy (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * doesn't look stopped to me. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not a move to hyphenate, but a move to bring the article into line with the rest. Of course, when I move an article, I'm going to follow our naming guidelines. — kwami (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have placed a notice on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents--Toddy1 (talk) 11:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * While technically the moves that Kwami has been undertaking are correcting minor capitalization and plural issues with article titles, the broad spread of the articles across several categories and types does look like he went out of his way to find and move them. Though I would quibble whether Yuch'in-class mechanized landing craft is an improvement over Yuch'in class landing craft mechanized because the latter is a type of Landing Craft Mechanized and not a "Mechanized" Landing craft. Anyhow it looks like an attempt to follow the "letter of the law" rather than the spirit. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Graeme - you are right about LCM - some of the name choices will need reviewing, after it has been decided what to do about hyphens.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * He's trying to slip his controversial changes in with legitimate edits - that kind of behavior would result in a block in an edit-war. Frankly, I would have been much more in favor of hyphenating titles, but Kwami's handling of the situation has left a very bad taste in my mouth. Parsecboy (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin, but I wish I had known about this discussion, I really do not agree with the hyphenating of titles, I just noted that an admin was doing it and I thought I didn't have a say so on it. I want to go on the record as disagreeing about this and am frankly resentful of having it forced down my throat.Tirronan (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In a sense he did get his own way because if we decided not to hyphen the articles we would have to move all of the articles back to the old title. I'm not sure how many articles are in the scope of this discussion but I'm sure he has moved many of them. Brad (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Admins have no more right to force changes than any other user if no consensus has been reached. Personally I can see merits both to hyphening and not-hyphening, but certainly nothing should be done until at least a consensus has actually been reached. Has Kwami actually really stopped moving articles yet? <font color="#009966">Antarctic-adventurer <font color="#009966"> (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be appropriate for kwami to list which ships articles they moved, so we can understand the scope of the problem and move from fait accompli to community discussion. bobrayner (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is normal operating procedure for user:kwami. Several other wikiprojects have had discussions on why he even has administrator status considering the number of edit and move wars he gets into against consensus discussions and their outcomes. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 09:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

List of ship class articles moved by User:Kwamikagami
Bobrayner asked for a list of the ship articles moved by User:Kwamikagami. Here it is; there were 147 articles moved. Where moves were made in several steps, I have only included one of the steps. Similarly where moves were made twice, I have only included them once.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

HMS Sainfoin (F183)
I'll shortly be expanding the HMS Sainfoin (F183) article as part of the Empire C series of ships. In the meantime, I'd appreciate it if someone with access to Ships of the Royal Navy would provide inline refs for the info currently in the article, which will make expansion easier for me. Mjroots (talk) 06:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You've caught me at a weak moment, done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Mjroots (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Article expanded, put up for DYK, needs reassessment. Mjroots (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move (again)
If you haven't already commented either way at Talk:Corvette on a proposal to turn Corvette into a redirect to Chevrolet Corvette, or you have commented and you were not aware that the discussion drags on and on, then you may wish to do so. Shem (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Redundant categories
Ahoy! I just noticed there is a category for 'World War II submarines of Germany' and one for 'Submarines of the Kriegsmarine'. Since the Kriegsmarine only existed during World War II, and they were the only ones operating u-boats I do not see the point in having two categories for the same thing. Could someone please enlighten me? --Bernd Orff (talk) 05:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A possible answer is that not all submarines built by Germany during WWII actually entered KM service. It is possible that some were destroyed in Allied bombing raids before entering service. The KM cat should be a sub-cat of the WWII submarines cat. Mjroots (talk) 06:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also the Kriegsmarine existed prior to the outbreak of war, conceivably pre-war Uboats could have been sold to other nations or lost in accidents before the war. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * While those explanations are both possible, the distinction is fine enough that I think in fact that one category is redundant. The Land (talk) 09:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Template help please
I've created Standard WWI ships, but there is a problem with the display. Any template experts want to try to stop it expanding too far? Mjroots (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm anything but an expert on template code, but I went through it by hand, breaking it up into separate lines, and it turns out you missed a number of the ((*w)) separators, specifically after War Jandoli, War Orestes, War Pibroch and War Plane. There might still be some errors in there somewhere though. I suggest next time you keep the entries on separate lines so you can easily spot a formatting error.


 * That's an insane number of ships for a single template though - you may want to consider breaking it up into smaller sub-templates or something. Gatoclass (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the fix. I may divide it by British, American and Foreign builders, with a fourth section for cancelled ships. The Standard ships of WWI appear to be a neglected topic. Apparently, Mitchell & Sawyer wrote a book on them though. All redlinks should be capable of being turned into articles (no, I'm not volunteering, will add to the "to do" list). Mjroots (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If theese were standardised, was there not a few distinct designs and the actual ships could for the most part be contained in a list with only the most notable examples in a navbox? GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you know?
A preview of a Did you know question leads to the recently expanded article on HMY Alexandra. New articles of Nordenfjeldske Dampskibsselskab, Fredrikstad Mekaniske Verksted, Kong Haakon, Captain Gunnar Hovdenak, Hurtigruten steamer SS Ariadne and Trondheim byleksikon would urgently be required, please, to reduce the number the red links in HMY Alexandra's' article.--NearEMPTiness (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The Norwegian article on Nordenfjeldske Dampskibsselskab is barely more than a stub. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As I stated earlier at T:TDYK, a number of redlinks is not a bar to an article appearing at DYK. Any redlinks that exist in the article should comply with WP:REDLINK, which is all that should concern us here. Mjroots (talk) 09:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

A challenge / Something different / Help
I've been writing about the POLYGON experiment, which was an landmark experiment of oceanography conducted by Leonid Brekhovskikh in the middle of the Atlantic during the 1970s. The experiment involved six Russian research vessels. Two of these were the Sergey Vavilov and the Pyotr Lebedev (links are to the people, not the ships), but I can't find much information on them. I've got no idea about the other four.

I figured I'd come here, since you'd know more about how to find out about these ships, plus it'd figure some of you would welcome something other than military ships to write about for a change. Ideally, I'd like to at least have the names of all the ships involved in the experiment (if possible), plus links to sources if you can find them. If you can get DYK for the ships involved, all the better, although I've no idea how obscure/notable they are. The request is a bit vague / open ended, but I'm so in the dark here that I don't really know what I'm looking for in the first place.

Any help would be appreciated. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I started a very basic stub on Pyotr Lebedev (research vessel) - there are several sources that mention the ship on Google Books, but only one is viewable (the rest are snippet views with not much usable information visible). Parsecboy (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That is from p. 1 of:  I happen to have access to the book but it looks like there is a snippet view on Google as well: http://books.google.com/books?id=Ok0QAQAAIAAJ. —Diiscool (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Ships participating in the expedition were: the research ships of the P.P. Shirshov Institute of Oceanology of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, the Akademik Kurchatov and the Dmitri Mendeleev; the expeditionary oceanographic ship of the Atlantic hydrographic expedition, the Andrei Vil'kitskii; the research ship of the Marine Hydrophysical Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR, the Akademik Vernadskii; and the research ships of the Acoustic Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, the Sergei Vavilov and the Petr Lebedeve."
 * According to Jane's Fighting Ships 1971–72, Akademik Kurchatov and Dimitri Mendeleev were Akademik-class reseach ship, of 6681 tons (full load), launched in 1965 and 1968 by Mathias Thesen Werft, East Germany, while it also has Petr Lebedev, a Lebedev class reserch vessel of 3561 Gross tons built in 1954.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. Shame that I don't have access to these books. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Certain organizations rendered as smallcaps
I've come across a series of templates that render certain initialisms used in Ships articles in smallcaps. Namely HAPAG, LASSCO, NDRF, NOTS, USMC, USNRF, USSB. The effect is such that you get " " and  (as opposed to "Ministry of War Transport (MoWT)".

From my reading of the Manual of Style and of the documentation of template providing a similar function - Smallcaps - this sort of reduced font formatting should not be used. Anyone give me some steer/comment as to whether I've understood this and the implications for the project. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've never much liked it myself, because it makes these acronyms look like logos, and that's not what they are. Gatoclass (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think those were used by when he was writing articles...? I know he preferred the small caps. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there any objection to "fixing" them to show text at normal size? GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I dunno. No one has complained in the years since he retired, and the smallcaps prevent four-letter acroyms from being a distraction in what are rather short articles, like SS Empire Miniver. In addition, some featured and A-class articles use them, so I don't think there is a strong push against their use (cf. FAs USS Princess Matoika (ID-2290), USS West Bridge (ID-2888); A-class SS American (1900)). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * - Not objections from me. The small caps seems non-standard and unnecessary. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge request
An editor has suggested a merge of Type 82 destroyer and HMS Bristol (D23)‎ at Talk:HMS Bristol (D23). Some thoughts from here would be great thanks, Woody (talk) 09:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Blog source Q
OK, I know that blog sources are generally unacceptable. However, whilst researching a ship article, I've found a source which gives sufficiently detailed history of a ship that I think it should be considered useable in the absence of other references for that info. The ship in question is the Ruth Nurminen (post #6 by "TD"). Thoughts please. Mjroots (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the silence on this issue, I propose to use the source, recognising that any reference from this source should be replaced with a better one should it become available. Mjroots (talk) 07:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:BLOGS says Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.. If this is the only source you have for any specific information then by WP standards the information might be unsuitable for inclusion. Are you proposing to use the "information" in this blog in an article, or more specifically do you propose actually citing the blog? If it is the former then it is like any other unverified information, you take your chances and will have to defend your contribution should the information be challenged. If it is the latter I would say emphatically "no". Citing blogs is almost never appropriate, and in this case certainly not appropriate, but if you feel the information is accurate then there is nothing to stop you adding it. Weakopedia (talk) 09:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There is an article on the ship you are researching that cites non-blog sources: fi:S/S Mercator (1920). Three of the sources that article cites are online sources.  The fourth is a book that might be available second-hand through the internet - or you might be able to persuade the person who added information from that book to look up the facts you want to know.


 * The blog could be very helpful to you, because you could use the sources cited to verify/falsify that information.


 * What information from the BLOG do you have no other source for?--Toddy1 (talk) 10:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Given the silence on the issue I would have to conclude that the answer to your question is none. Was I right?
 * That is the danger of posting a question on a noticeboard attended by a few volunteers, you won't always get a timely answer, and you can't necessarily presume anything by an absence of comment.
 * I would suggest that the silence is more to do with this being the wrong venue. This isn't a ships question, its a sourcing question, and you probably would have gotten a speedier answer (though perhaps not a favourable one) over at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Weakopedia (talk) 09:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

HMS Sansovino (F162)
I've expanded the HMS Sansovino (F162) article. I've marked a few items as needing a reference. Suspect that Colledge may well be the original source of these, but I don't have a copy. Would an editor with access to Colledge please check and reference as appropriate. Article could probably do with a reassessment for class. Mjroots (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge request for Lady of the Lake
We appear to have duplicate articles for Lady of the Lake, a brig that sunk in 1833: Lady of the Lake (ship), and Lady of the Lake (1833). Would someone please merge them? Djembayz (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A history merge would be best, the edit histories do not overlap. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It should be renamed Lady of the Lake (brig), and "ship" should be redirected to the disambiguation page, where several watercraft which the common man would call a ship are listed. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 04:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

NYT archives
Is anyone else having trouble accessing the New York Times archives? Their .pdf files are not opening for me - had the problem two days running now. Gatoclass (talk) 05:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I got several short PDFs to open quickly. One hung in the download but worked ok on the 2nd try. Dankarl (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC) Also some medium pdfs. 1 of 3 took several tries, others were very quick. Dankarl (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've managed to solve the problem by configuring the files to display in the Adobe app instead of my browser. Obviously, there is a problem somewhere in the latest version of Firefox that is preventing correct .pdf display, but I can't resolve it with Adobe's troubleshooting guide. But at least now I can display the files. Thanks for the feedback! Gatoclass (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, wonder if it's the problem I get sporadically. Go to Tools > Options > Applications and make sure that the Adobe acrobat is set to "Use Adobe Acrobat (in Firefox)". For some reason, mine occasionally resets to the default setting, causing problems in opening documents so that I don't get an url to copy when using as a source. Mjroots (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No, my browser has the correct settings there, but thanks for the suggestion. Gatoclass (talk) 06:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Natchez (boat)
This article states that the ship-whistle comes from a ship that sank in the Monagabola River...well the problem is that there doesn't seem to be any such river in the US...I couldn't find one *anywhere* (maybe it exists, but I just couldn't find it). I think that this has to be the Monongahela River, one of the two rivers that travel north from West Virginia and then come together to form the Ohio at Pittsburgh. One article(website?) I came across stated that the whistle came from near Pittsburgh... If someone from the Project is familiar with steamship whistles, please look into this and maybe fix (if possible) the provenance of the whistle. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 04:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

French destroyer Surcouf (D621)
Hi all, I've had a go at expanding and finding some citations for French destroyer Surcouf (D621), but the topic is really beyond my knowledge and I don't have access to any good sources as I'm not usually a ship's editor. I think the design and construction information is drawn from Conways (judging by the class article T 47 class destroyer), but I don't have access to it unfortunately. If anyone is keen to expand/correct my work, please feel free. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

AfD nomination of MV Portaferry II
The MV Portaferry II article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

US WWII era submarines
I recently acquired a book about US submarine losses in WWII. If anyone is working on any article that deals with that topic. Feel free to ping me about the book. I'll try to help out ;) All the best,--<font style="color:#191970">White Shadows <font style="color:#DC143C">Stuck in square one 00:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:MOSFLAG
I've just discovered that WP:MOSFLAG says not to use flags in infoboxes! As that seems to be aimed a biographies, I've added an exception to the guideline. Mjroots (talk) 11:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I'm not sure it's appropriate to change the guideline just like that ;-)
 * I disagree with you on some aspects of the flag thing but I support your point on infoboxes, in a sense. Flags have the potential to be problematic anywhere, so they should be used with caution (not completely eliminated) anywhere in an article, and strictly different treatment for infoboxes is a bit unhelpful. For a vessel in the navy of Country X it seems reasonable enough to have the flag of X in an infobox (less so if it's a commercial vessel; they're owned by shipping lines, not by countries).
 * The emphasis on BLPs may have sprung from some nationalist rivalries on BLPs which don't fit neatly into any one country - Nikola Tesla springs to mind. With shipping it's much more common for subjects to suffer from the Nikola Tesla problem by spanning more than one country - a ship could be built in Korea, operated under a Panamanian flag by a Greek business plying routes between two other countries, then sold to another business and working a different route... so, using any single flag has the potential to be misleading (and it could provoke plenty of petty nationalist disputes) so we should be very wary of that kind of thing. bobrayner (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The part where you added the exception was clearly not about biographies. It said:
 * Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. Flag icons are visually distracting in infoboxes and lead to unnecessary disputes when over-used. Examples of acceptable exceptions would be military battle infoboxes templates
 * Let's look at an example, the most popular ships article on WP, Titanic. It has four flag icons - two are the same, one is the British flag and appears next to the words "United Kingdom", and the last a different version of the British flag with no real explanation about what the difference might be. What extra information is imparted by the use of those flags that wasn't already obvious or contained in the text?
 * The flag icons in the Titanic article are visually distracting and in each case give undue prominence to one field among many. The guidelines on flag use aren't just for biographies, and the downside of flag use is illustrated in many ships-related articles. Weakopedia (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Following in Titanic's footsteps, look at MS Ulysses (the world's largest carferry). Built in Finland, sailing between Ireland and the UK, operated by an Irish business; but the infobox has a cypriot flagicon simply because one piece of the vessel's paperwork is in a registry in Cyprus (probably for tax reasons). You might as well give Stelios Haji-Ioannou a little Monaco flag. There's so much potential for flags in ship infoboxes to be misleading or distracting for readers; so I would oppose wider use (though in some cases they could be appropriate - a blanket ban wouldbe unhelpful). bobrayner (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Ulysses article should use a flagicon instead of a flag which would remove the superfluous wikilink to Cyprus. Personally, I think infoboxes look better with the flag first, then the port of registry, although I accept that some editors prefer the flag last. Mjroots (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a good example. In that case I am not sure that the flag assists the reader in any way at all, and in any case is superfluous given that it is right next to the wiki-word Cyprus. The guidelines do suggest that exceptions can be made, but the recently added exception for all ships is in my opinion much too broad. Weakopedia (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's the case at all. Every vessel flies the flag of her flag state; not to do so leaves her illegally stateless. Since the flag flown is often not the flag of the country, but rather the ensign (military or civil), there is an obvious advantage for Wikipedia in showing the appropriate flag.  In essence, people don't fly their flags when they walk about the streets, but every ship flies her ensign all the time; it is a fundamental part of her nature. Shem (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're going to be pedantic, not every vessel flies the flag of her registered state - most vessels do not (though most notable ones do). I just spent a week on an utterly flagless vessel, sailing around Scotland. As for "A fundamental part of their nature"? I thought they were ships, not national symbols. No doubt it's a regulatory requirement for many vessels to fly a flag; but that applies to the vessel itself, not to an infobox on wikipedia. Ships are primarily ships, not national tokens; no cypriot flag is visible on either Commons picture of Ulysses. Feel free to mention the registry, but if there's potential for the country of registry to be deceptive then a word will suffice, rather than a word plus a cute little picture of a flag. bobrayner (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Pedantry is an under-rated art! Actually every vessel, regardless of size or notability (and that includes yachts) is required by law to fly the flag of her flag state. Not to do so allows any warship or coastguard vessel of any nation to board her on the high seas, something that cannot be done to ships flying a flag (except with the permission of the flag state, or if she's engaged in piracy, slavery or illegal radio broadcasting). Ulysses will be flying a flag, probably from the mast above the bridge, but it will be too small to see in the low-res photo (in fact, you can just see it hanging limply in File:Ulysses (ferry) FLICKR.jpg, I believe). So, although ships are not national tokens, the flag is an important part of her identity, and since it's not always the national flag of the owner or the country which built the vessel, it is important. Shem (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, taking the RMS Titanic article, my opinion is that the White Star Line flag could be removed without detracting from the article. The other flag is valid, as it was the flag that Titanic flew. The use of flags in ship infoboxes is appropriate, and educational. Sometimes the country changes but the flag stays the same or 🇬🇧 (click on the flags to discover why), sometimes the country stays the same, but the flag changes 🇨🇦 or 🇨🇦 or 🇨🇦. The use of the correct flag can lead to a reader learning that the current flag of a country which they recognise was not always the flag for that country. Some countries have civil flags that are vastly different in appearance to the national flag of that country, such as 🇲🇹 and 🇸🇬 instead of 🇲🇹 or 🇸🇬. Again, proper use of the correct flag can lead the reader to learn something new. Something not touched upon here, but which could fall under MOSFLAG is the use of signal flags for Code Letter of a ship. Again, these were flown by ships as a means of identification, as shown on File:Jensen Hamburger Viermaster Pisagua 1893.jpg, in which the barque Pisagua is flying the signal flags, as well as her national ensign 🇩🇪. It may be that the issue of flags in infoboxes of ship articles needs to be discussed by a RFC. Mjroots (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * An RFC could only establish that flags were universally permitted or not, and for the finer points of exactly how to use them it would fall to the likes of this workgroup. The RFC won't establish if we use ensigns or flags and in whar quantity, that question will be deferred back here. MOSFLAG already says exceptions can be made, and if they can be made for battles they can be made for ships, but it is up to us to decide how. I appreciate the need for the RFC on the wider issue, but I think we still have to work out the most informative but least intrusive method of using flags in ship articles. Am I wrong?
 * Your argument is that a visual representation can aid the reader, and I can buy that, but visual representation can also be overused, hence the need for ships rules in my opinion. With so many flags to choose from in some cases, they can easily become distracting if overdone. I just checked 5 featured articles, and then 5 of the most popular ship articles, and found 5 slightly different ways of doing the infobox. That's better than 10 different systems I suppose, but we could do with just one. MOSSHIPS is no assistance. Weakopedia (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree that overuse of flags can be distracting - such as company flags. As you will have seen below, the RFC has been opened. It does ask that specific instances of flag useage be addressed, rather that a blanket ban/approval of such useage. Your comments at the RFC are welcome. Mjroots (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Requests for comment
RFCs have been opened on the use of flagicons in lists and in infoboxes. Mjroots (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

San Diego Air & Space Museum images
I recently met with staff from the Balboa Park Online Collaborative, an organization dedicated to improving public access to the content of the park's museums. One of these museums, the San Diego Air & Space Museum, has digitized a portion of its collections over the last few years. So far, they have uploaded over 100,000 images on their Flickr account. The staff have indicated that they will be able to assist in getting the licenses changed for free license use if we can determine which images could be used. With such a large selection of images available on a variety of ships and other topics, I'm inviting members of this project to request images that could be used to improve various articles under this project's scope. For any image requests, please list the url of the image at the image request page so we can begin the process of uploading the images to Commons. If there are any questions, please leave them on the project's talk page. Thank you! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Project scope, re small boats?
Naphtha launch has just had its project box removed from the talk page. Whilst I can see that these are clearly boats rather than ships, is the scope of WikiProject Ships really drawn to be so narrow? After all, we don't have a WikiProject Boats, as far as I know. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * These would appear to fail the 100/100 benchmark. Thus they would probably fall under WP:HARBOUR. Mjroots (talk) 15:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Naphtha launch claims to be American, but the talk page says this article should use British English... seems a bit weird... 65.95.13.213 (talk) 06:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This is why there was a wikiProject Boats proposal before... which failed because people said that there shouldn't be a project to cover vehicles that are not covered by WPSHIPS. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 06:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it would be unreasonable to hand all vessels under 100 tonnes over to WP:HARBOUR. Some might fit in WikiProject Sailing, but certainly not all. I think it would be more reasonable to expand the remit of this wikiproject to include boats; it's not particularly bloaty and there's obviously a lot of commonality between the two subjects... bobrayner (talk) 12:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I remember such a proposal expanding WPShips also failing previously. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 06:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

"Knock down" lake ships around the World
I've created articles for two Lake Victoria ferries: RMS Victoria and MV Uhuru, and expanded the articles for a number of other African lake ships. There is a category for lake freighters on the North American Great Lakes but is there a suitable category for passenger and freight ships on other lakes around the World?

I'm baffled as to how to italicise ships' names in the names of their articles. When I created the RMS Victoria article it seemed to happen automatically but when I created MV Uhuru it did not. I tried moving MV Umoja to "MV Umoja" but that only created inverted commas that I didn't want. I assume the procedure is clear and simple but I've completely missed it. Please will some kind person direct me?

Historically, African lake ships tend to have been built as "knock downs" and transported to their lakes as kits for final assembly and launch. "Knock downs" are a notable specialist form of shipbuilding for which I haven't found a Wikipedia category. Such a category would link historic ships such as MV Chauncy Maples on Lake Malawi, MV Liemba (formerly SMS Graf von Goetzen) on Lake Tanganyika, PS Maid of the Loch on Loch Lomond, SS Ollanta on Lake Titicaca, SS Robert Coryndon on the African Lake Albert and SS Usoga on Lake Victoria. I would create the category myself, but I do not know whether "knock down" is the correct technical term for such shipbuilding. Also I've never created a WP category before, I need to learn how to, and you can see from the preceding paragraph how haphazard my knowledge of WP technicalities is!

All kind and constructive advice will be gratefully received! Motacilla (talk) 10:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Re: Italicizing article titles. There are a number of methods for doing this. See the following templates for more information:
 * Italic title
 * Italic title prefixed
 * DISPLAYTITLE
 * I changed two of the ferry articles (MV Umoja and MV Uhuru) you created and you can view the implementation there. —Diiscool (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks: that's very helpful. Motacilla (talk) 10:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC) I've now managed to create articles about four Lake Titicaca ships: Yapura, SS Coya, SS Inca and SS Ollanta and improve the article on Yavari. However, I'm struggling to find enough material for SS Robert Coryndon on Lake Albert. Any ideas where to look? Motacilla (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've now added articles for MV Kabalega, MV Pemba, PS Lugard II, PS Speke, PS Sudan, SS Robert Coryndon, SS Rusinga and SS Usoga. I've also revised and expanded articles for MV Kaawa and MV Umoja.


 * However, the Kaawa, Kabalega and Pemba articles still lack a lot of basic technical data. I have been unable to find out what company and shipyard in what country built them, at what dates and what their yard numbers, dimensions and tonnages are. There are also remarkably disparate claims as to how many railway wagons each ferry can carry – although of course this may depend on the length of the wagons.


 * I have been unable to find out exactly what route and ports PS Speke served on the Victoria Nile and Lake Kyoga. I am unfamiliar with Uganda's geography: is the Victoria Nile navigable for this size of ferry all the way from Lake Victoria to Lake Albert?


 * I have found that PS Lugard II was delivered from her builders to Uganda via the Lake Victoria port of Kisumu in Kenya. She was sent in kit form from Scotland as far as Kisumu. Could she have been assembled and launched at Kisumu and reached the Victoria Nile and Lake Kyoga under her own steam?


 * The Uganda Railway also had paddle steamers called PS Stanley (1910) and PS Grant (1925) that I think plied the Victoria Nile and Lake Kyoga and PS Lugard (1927) that plied the Albert Nile until Lugard II replaced her. Unfortunately I've been unable to find enough material online to create articles for any of these ships, so I would be grateful for any help in this direction. Motacilla (talk) 13:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for review of proposed infobox
I have prepared a navbox for use with defunct shipping companies: Infobox Defunct shipping company, and I solicit any and all suggestions for improvement. Here is a sample. There are a lot more fields in the infobox, but as a practical matter it seem unlikely that all of them will be used.


 * There isn't a matching template:Infobox shipping company is there? Having looked at the proposed template params only a few are specific to shipping companies
 * And some of those look like they would be prone to excessive lists. How useful/important will such a infobox be? Why isn't the "defunct company infobox" sufficient? GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And some of those look like they would be prone to excessive lists. How useful/important will such a infobox be? Why isn't the "defunct company infobox" sufficient? GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Would it get much use? Can't existing infoboxes be used? bobrayner (talk) 08:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Infobox defunct company could have the relevant parameters added to allow its use for shipping companies. Mjroots (talk) 08:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Infobox defunct company redirects to Infobox company which has a few fields for defunct companies, but which is primarily oriented towards operating companies. I tried using Infobox company on several articles, but it conveyed little useful information, see for example Oregon Steam Navigation Company.  Many of the fields related to accounting, webpage, etc., and just don't cover this topic well.


 * Infobox company can't readily be reconfigured, it is locked and appears to contain complicated syntax, and putting a number of industry-specific fields would seem inconsistent with the very general nature of Infobox company


 * There are 48 articles in Category:Defunct shipping companies of the United States. Some of these have Infobox defunct company, what percentage I don't know.  Random clicking shows many with no navbox at all.Mtsmallwood (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Graeme about the danger of encouraging excessive lists with some of these fields. In fact, about the only field I can think of which might usefully apply to a shipping line would be |Routes but that isn't included. The rest of the info proposed for inclusion in the infobox would be better presented in tables or lists in the article IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Infoboxes are summaries only, of course, and some care must be taken in every use to avoid placing too much information in the box, and overwhelming the purpose. For an example, please see SS Asbury Park, where the large numbers of owners required a separate section in the article itself, even though the infobox contains a field for |owners.  But it seems to me that the possibility that too much information might be placed in an infobox is not an objection to the infobox itself.

As to particular fields, I have given some thought to, I believe, all of them, in particular as follows: "The Puget Sound Tugboat Company commenced operations June 1st, with the Tacoma Mill Company, Puget Sound Commercial Company, Port Blakely Mill Company and Washington Mill Company as stockholders. These corporations were given stock based on the valuation of the tugs as follows: Puget Sound Commercial Company, Tyee, $70,000; Port Blakely Mill Company, Wanderer, $66,000; Kendrick & Adams, Richard Holyoke, $35,000 ; Tacoma Mill Company, Tacoma, $43,000. E. P. Blake was elected president: Cyrus Walker, vice-president; E. G. Ames, secretary; W. De Witt, treasurer; and J. B. L,ibby, manager." And you could then summarize in the infobox: Capital. Initial capital stock valued at $214,000. "At Newport, Issaquah connected with the newly-built highway that to Lake Sammamish, Fall City, Issaquah, North Bend, and Snoqualmie Pass."
 * |Also known as. This field is required because the common name of many companies was different from their legal names.
 * |Type. Many companies were dedicated to towing, ferries, etc. This field allows distinctions to be drawn between them.
 * |Capital. This is important because it gives an idea of how much money it might take to start a shipping firm. For example, in writing an article on the Puget Sound Tug Boat Company, you would find in the Lewis and Dryden Marine History the following:
 * |Industry. Many companies not traditionally thought of as maritime businesses owned steamboats or steamships. For example the Washington Mill Company owned the steam tug Richard Holyoke.
 *  |Bankers. Bankers could be critical in the development of a shipping firm. An example would be La Conner Trading and Transportation Company.
 * |Agents .Agents could be more important than the shipping lines themselves. A classic example would be Charles Miner Goodall and the Goodall, Nelson and Perkins agency, which among other lines, controlled the important Pacific Coast Steamship Company.
 * |Ports of call = (Ports of call) |Landings = |Piers = |Terminals =Ports of call covers large cities served by major lines. Landings would cover improved and unimproved brief stopping places.  These were very common.  Companies often chose to use sternwheelers because they could pick up and drop off freight and passengers without expensive shore facilities.  Piers could include an improved landing, but I think properly understood it covers larger more elaborate structures. Ferry companies would commonly use “terminals”.  If there are too many to readily summarize, a simple number could be given, as in the rail transport infobox.
 * |Rail links. Rail links were important for many shipping lines.  For example, Canadian Pacific steamboat route on the Arrow Lines existed in large part because of the need to reach areas beyond the CPR's rail terminus at Robson, BC.  Also, in many cases, cable railways were linked with shipping or ferry terminals to form a continuous transit system.  Other examples would be the rail ferries crossing San Francisco Bay, the portage railways on the Columbia river, and the steamboat-railway connection at Skagway, Alaska.    Another classic example would be the Ilwaco Railway and Navigation Company, which was a narrow gauge railway with steamboat connections on both ends.
 * |Road links Much like the railways, these were important for early shipping lines, and particularly of course for ferry routes.  For example, from Steamboats of Lake Washington:
 * |Unions. There were many early maritime unions.  Strikes and labor disputes were common and often bitter.  This field allows a quick cross-reference to a union organization, if one is known.
 * |Competitors. Rate wars and anti-competitive contracts and subsidies were common in the shipping business.  The idea with this field is to capture competitors which are themselves notable.  For example, the only serious challenge to the 1860-1880 domination of the Oregon Steam Navigation Company on the Columbia and the Willamette river shipping routes came from the People's Transportation Company.  This was resolved by a an exchange of routes, vessels, and an anticompetitive subsidy agreement between the two companies.  The proposed infobox would allow a ready cross-reference between the two companies as competitors of each other.
 * |Govt contracts. Many early shipping companies had mail contracts.  These were an important consideration in the financial success of early steam vessels.  See for example Wilson G. Hunt (sidewheeler).  There was of course often a lot of political maneuvering associated with gaining and keeping government contracts and subsidies.
 * |Govt ownership.Ferry lines in particular were often owned by governments, as they were seen as extensions of highways. In Washington State, for example, both Pierce County and King County operated ferry lines.
 * |Litigation. In some cases, shipping companies were involved in significant court cases, the classic example being Gibbons v. Ogden,  but there are others, such as the fact that the King and Winge Shipbuilding Company was a party in a case decided by the U.S. Supreme court The Roanoke.  Apart from the legal importance, many of these court cases contain detailed descriptions of business practices, wrecks, salvage, etc.  And in the example infobox for the Anderson Steamboat Company, the company founder John L. Anderson was engaged in substantial litigation with King County, Washington over the county's takeover of the ferry business on Lake Washington.Mtsmallwood (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but your list just reinforces my impression that you are trying to cram far too much detail into the infobox. IMO, most of this information is best dealt with in the article itself. I think some of the fields are arguably valid - I can see some validity in the |Agents field, for example, also possibly the |Type field. I'm not sure about |Competitors. The ports of call/landings/terminals/piers is too detailed, for example, even small companies that only operated on a single river typically had 8 or more landings, why would we want to list them all in the infobox? I think |Routes would cover most of the important information, as it provides a de facto list of terminals/piers/whatever. I don't see why |Capital is any more or less important for shipping lines than for any other company, |Litigation is pointless and so is |Unions, we don't need to try and compress the entire history of a line in the infobox, it's just for basic information. So I think this infobox needs some more thought. Gatoclass (talk) 02:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you give a comprehensive list of fields you believe should be eliminated, and I will strike those?Mtsmallwood (talk) 07:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I would say strike all of them except the |Type, |Agents, and perhaps |Competitors fields, and add a |Routes field which can serve as a replacement for a number of the others. I can't see much value in the other fields at this point. Gatoclass (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * let's just forget about it.Mtsmallwood (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the notion of a shipping line infobox has value, I just think you are proposing too many fields. Some shipping lines ran dozens of different routes and had hundreds of ships - how can you possibly fit all that into an infobox? I think my proposals were reasonable, perhaps you should take a little more time to consider them. Gatoclass (talk) 11:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

definition of deep water port
As a result of reading the discussion on use of flagicons in lists, I looked at list of deep-water ports and found the definition of deep-water port lacking. Port is no help either. The US Deepwater Port Act of 1974 seems to be solely to do with licensing of gas and oil handling structures. Is there a definition out there? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There certainly are distinctions made in other sources, but I'm not aware of anything like a universal standard - it will vary between regions and between eras. In World War 2, deepwater meant "Can it take a Liberty ship?"; in modern high-volume shipping, deepwater could mean being able to accommodate double that draft, and far higher tonnage (whether for containerships or for bulk). We may just have to pick one slightly arbitrary cutoff point and stick with that, similar to the speed threshold used on high-speed rail articles... bobrayner (talk) 12:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * What about specifying the handling capacity of the port, expanding that list into tabular format, with checkboxes for (1) Liberty ship; (2) trans-oceanic capable Seawaymax Laker (Great Lakes ship) ; (3) Panamax ; (4) Suezmax ; (5) Malaccamax ; (6) Q-max; (7) Chinamax ;
 * It'd be less arbitrary, since to be listed, it meets the minimum (ie. Liberty ship capable), but we list the capability of the port according to the standard maximum capabilities of standard trans-oceanic routes. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 09:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)