Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 49

Bulk stripping of pennant numbers?
There seems to be a push at present to remove pennant number from ship articles: USS La Jolla (SSN-701) to USS La Jolla,  USS Torsk (SS-423) to USS Torsk etc. This is being done under WP:PRECISE.

I do not see this as an improvement and believe that they should be reverted. This is not merely an anodyne disambiguator (as WP:PRECISE covers) it is the pennant number, as much a part of the name in service as the christened name. This should be preserved in the article title, even when not needed for disambiguation. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:Ship names makes it quite clear: "For an article about a modern-day ship, include the ship's hull number (US Navy hull classification symbol) or pennant numbers (Royal Navy, and many European and Commonwealth navies), if it is available, sufficiently unique, and well known.[Note 1]" where [Note 1] includes the text If there is only one ship of the name, it is wrong to disambiguate, per WP:PRECISE. On an aside, there was a discussion at WT:Article titles to change the disambiguation scheme for ship names which resolved in "change is needed--and the likely disambiguation will be the launch date" but effort seems to have stalled on the precise method. That RFC, archived here, should be reviewed, since it is clear that your opinion "the pennant number is part of the name" is not shared by all or even many. --Izno (talk) 12:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * How many times do we have to discuss this? Hull and pennant numbers are not part of a ship's name. More importantly for us (recall that we are an encyclopedia for a general audience), hull/pennant numbers are of very dubious use to readers, and they are not routinely used by similar sources (for instance, warship "encyclopedias" like Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships). Parsecboy (talk) 12:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would help if you could point to the most recent discussion. Do you know where that is? --Izno (talk) 13:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This was the most recent discussion (that I'm aware of) - it was not a particularly useful discussion itself, though there are links there to previous threads, as well as the RfC that was held last year. Parsecboy (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to replace pennant numbers with launch dates as pennant numbers like D85 or F61 are meaningless. Unlike a hull number that can give you an idea of when a ship was built.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's the conclusion the RfC reached last year, but apparently we never got around to implementing it. Parsecboy (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 100% behind 's initiative here. We're a general-interest encyclopedia, not a specialist site. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * At least for US warships, hull numbers aren't meaningless; indeed, searching for "CVN-69" produces more Ghits than "USS Eisenhower". I see that Conway includes them, and it would be peculiar to omit them, so I don't know why anyone would assert otherwise.
 * I suspect that WW II did wonders for increasing the number of never-before-or-again US ship names, so it's reasonably likely that there are more that don't need disambiguation than do. That said, this is a lot of make-work and make-controversy, which will probably degenerate into fights over picking which ship of a given name is the well-known one, taking off its hull number too. Personally, I would go with consistency and keep hull number on them all, but consistency never seems to be a WP value. And as far as disambiguation is concerned: for modern US ships, it's the one everyone knows, right down to the big number on the bow or island. Mangoe (talk) 16:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "the big number on the bow/island" amuses me--I couldn't tell you what USS Missouri number is, but I can clearly tell you it's a modern battleship (the one of which I know, anyway). That said, I've only been removing the hull number where the topic has no ambiguity. Regarding the RFC linked above, since you seem to be arguing against the discussion therein, if you want to have another RFC to overturn the previous, that's your prerogative. My suggestion is that the generalist reader (being such) has no idea nor does he care about the hull number and instead remembers the type of ship at which he's looking ("aircraft carrier" and etc.). I haven't reviewed all of the material regarding disambiguation of ship names, but I'm still sitting here puzzled regarding that most other domains on Wikipedia can figure out how to disambiguate sensibly by the type of thing which is being discussed in the article (sometimes adding a date, which usually makes it sufficiently defined). --Izno (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) You misunderstand, Mangoe. Yes, Conway's does include the hull numbers in tables or prose. That's not at issue here. The point is that Conway's does not use them in titles. For example: the entry for USS Wichita (CA-45) is simply "Wichita", not "Wichita CA-45".
 * No one has ever suggested that we go on a mass-renaming effort. But by the same token, no one ought to get upset when I stumble across an article that is unnecessarily disambiguated, and I correct it. Parsecboy (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ghits as a measure of importance are subject to a lot of factors, as witnessed by how I get more search results for USS Eisenhower than CVN-69. I'm personally in favor of going farther and renaming everything as  <(launch year if needed)> so we have one nice consistent style that anyone can understand, but at minimum we don't need unnecessary disambiguators in article titles. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed - for what it's worth, I'm getting about 238k for CVN-69 and 419k for "USS Eisenhower". I'd also point out that the first page of the latter search results include articles from CNN, RT, etc., while almost all of the former are USN pages (and Wikipedia). Again, we are not a specialist source. We are a general encyclopedia. Parsecboy (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's because "USS Eisenhower" in quotes blocks out the actual name of the ship, and because the hyphen in the hull number is oft omitted.
 * My experience of these sorts of things is that a lot of effort goes into creating a great deal of inconsistency, with various people producing a succession of consensuses resulting in some articles having a long trail of former names. A quick look at the articles in question shows that this will, for the US at least, leave nearly all CV/CVN, BB, SSBN, and CA/CG/CL articles requiring disambiguation. Running through the 1944 ships I see that an awful lot of those need disambiguation too, including nearly everything British; indeed, it would be safe to bet that a substantial majority of all British ships have to be disambiguated because there are so many names to be reused. I'm sure that adherence to sacred principle will prevail over consistency but also, when it comes down to it, these articles constitute a specialist encyclopedia, because real general encyclopedias wouldn't include them.
 * Also, I must reiterate my opposition to substituting launch date for hull or pennant number. Even specialists, as a rule, don't know launch years for modern vessels, whereas hull and pennant numbers are widely known and given. Mangoe (talk) 03:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Specialists, however, will know launch dates within a few years, if not the exact date, and that's more than enough to discriminate between the WWII-era HMS Daring and the two more modern ones. Which, BTW, is something that can't be done by the pennant numbers. Oh, and did you realize that pennant numbers aren't always stable? So the same ship, especially during WWII, could have two or more pennant numbers. They're not like USN hull numbers, which are generally quite stable, but then I'm not advocating for changing USN articles only RN and Commonwealth ones that use pennant numbers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Just for clarification here, are we no longer using pennant numbers (at least for Commonwealth vessels) as disambiguators? Does this include the hull classification symbols Australia and Canada began using after the war? Are we using years from here on in? Are we settling on a policy of disambiguation for ships, because having one country have one, and then this other country's vessels have another is just bad encyclopedia design. We kinda need to come up with some hard policy here, otherwise were going to get into this again and again (as we already are). Llammakey (talk) 11:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Exhibit A on why we need some ground rules. All ships, except the one which doesn't have a page, share the same number with different hull designations. Llammakey (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

If we get rid of hull numbers in the article title, I do think the number should appear somewhere in the article, and we need a clear guideline as to where. The first sentence of the lead seems appropriate. Is this documented anywhere? Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, in the lead. It's under hull pennant numbers and disambiguation. Near the bottom of the section it says to list all the ships hull numbers and in the MOS where it says to include it in the opening sentence if a USN ship. Llammakey (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The infobox is also a very good place for them. Parsecboy (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * So now USS PT-109 will be simply "(1942)"? Hundreds, if not, thousands of USN ships are known by Hull classification and Hull number. There will only be one USS Yorktown (CV-10) but there have been five USS Yorktowns, and no body outside Navy buffs are going to know launch dates!Pennsy22 (talk) 05:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously not, and vessels that only had a hull number are beyond the scope of this discussion. As for your second example, it's far less likely that the average reader could pick the Yorktown sunk at Midway if they were looking at titles with (CV-5) and and (CV-10) as disambiguators instead of (1937) and (1943), assuming they knew Midway happened in 1942. Parsecboy (talk) 11:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Donated photos on history.navy.mil are all public domain, US Navy-taken or not
Hey all, the US Naval History and Heritage Command has uploaded a veritable treasure trove of images to their new website, many of which are of non-US ships and are available in highish-quality TIFF files. However, many of these were not taken by US Navy employees, meaning that they are not automatically placed in the public domain; they were instead donated in the past and are marked on the website with "Copyright Owner: Naval History and Heritage Command" (example).

I'm happy to report that they've told me in an email that "... much of our collection here is donated material. Once those materials are signed over to us, they become property of the U.S. Navy. At that time, our position is that they enter the public domain. Thus, you are allowed to use them." If anyone needs me to forward this to OTRS, I or have copies of the email. Go find your ships! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That sounds a bit doubtful to non-expert me. Someone (not the original copyright holder) gives a print of a photo to the US Navy and mere possession of the print is a basis for USN to claim copyright? So what happened to the rights of the photographer? Davidships (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems perfectly reasonable to me. The Navy presumably requires the donor to certify that they own the rights to the photo. I hope the Navy makes some effort to verify this. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If that were so (and the rights were specifically also donated), I would agree. But do they say so? Nowhere on the site have I found any explanation of how and why NHHC are claiming to be "copyright owner", and for many such photos no provenance is given. In the absence of any statement, "presumably" and "hope" don't cut it for me.Davidships (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

If NHHS claims to be the copyright owner, that's good enough for me. Gatoclass (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Deck plans for SS Kaiser Wilhelm II & SS Kronprinzessin Cecilie (1906)
Both of these articles need deckplans covering the pre-WWII period and if possible the period that the SS Kaiser Wilhelm II was being used as a transport. And one other thing that needs clarification. The text for that article reads:

" USS Agamemnon was decommissioned in late August and turned over to the War Department for further use as a U.S. Army Transport. Laid up after the middle 1920s..." has anyone been able to find a source that gives exactly how long she was used as a transport prior to being mothballed?

Graham1973 (talk) 09:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * From what I can gather, the ship was earmarked for use as a transport but either never used or scarcely used, because by 1920, she had been chartered from the USSB to the United States Mail Steamship Company. BTW, I would revert that last change you made to the article, as the ship may well have been considered for use in World War II in 1940 even though the US had not yet entered the war. Gatoclass (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Twas me re WW2. In early/mid-1940 when the decision must have been made, they must have concluded that she was of no future use of any kind; more importantly, the only source cited, DANFS, makes no mention of WW2. Without sources, anything more is OR. [later: just noticed that MSTS/MSC's own Facebook page notes that USATs Monticello and Mount Vernon were offered to the British, but rejected by the latter due to age and condition - now to find a RS!] Davidships (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

infobox style discussion elsewhere
This discussion, seeking consensus to reduce the width of WPMILHIST infoboxen may be of interest to members of this project.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Guns (Artillery) submarines
I'm looking for overview sources the history of guns (Artillery) submarines: use, efficiency, results, tactics use, etc. What do you advise? --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WT:MILHIST is probably the better place to ask. Mjroots (talk) 10:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

HSV-2 Swift
FYI, HSV-2 Swift, alleged sinking / current event. Some eyes might be useful there. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

NVR
The Naval Vessel Register has once again changed the layout for links to ships in the NVR database (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Archive_48 for the discussion of the previous change). While the old NVR links still work, they link to pages that are no longer being updated. Fortunately the introduction of NVR url and NVR SC url after the previous change made fixing the problem simpler. For those interested, a discussion of the update to these two templates can be found at Template talk:NVR url. —RP88 (talk) 07:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

GA issue
Hi all - I came across the article INS Shivalik, which is currently rated as a GA, but it doesn't come close to what I'd consider to be a GA ship article. Anybody else have an opinion? Parsecboy (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The difference between the promoted version and the present version is rather startling. It might be valuable to revert the i'changes that have been made recently. --Izno (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * A good point, I hadn't thought to look at that. Parsecboy (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Need help to confirm ship identity
I'm trying to confirm the identity of a ship listed in a news article. The news article is located here. From searching around a bit I'm guessing the ship listed in the news article is the Oseberg Ship. Wondering if others here agree or have any other ideas of which ship it is? Thanks for any help you can provide. Offnfopt (talk) 08:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks like it. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC) Excavation Oseberg ship 1.jpg

AfD
The List of Type T2 tankers has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It was kept, and I've bashed it into something resembling a shape. Now, if anyone wants to write the articles... Mjroots (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

2017 competition
I've had an idea for a competition to run during 2017 with the aim of improving and creating ship articles. Anyone interested in such a competition or helping run it? Mjroots (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

FAC review request
Hi all, an article I have up at FAC hasn't gotten much attention as of yet. I'd greatly appreciate it if any interested editors could take a look - the review is here: Featured article candidates/SMS Mecklenburg/archive1. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Ship simulator
I noticed that redirects to Ship Simulator, a videogame. Shouldn't there be something for various ship simulations (like bridge simulators, lifeboat aboard ship evacuation sims, engine room simulators, etc) that are used for ship's crew training? (like flight simulator for aircraft) -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 07:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I was going to say, I don't think there is such a thing, but apparently there is.[]--Ykraps (talk) 08:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm moving Ship Simulator to Ship Simulator (video game) (and fixing all the links and redirects), and then see what I can do for the new article. Tupsumato (talk) 11:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ended up creating the article at maritime simulator with redirect from ship simulator. The article isn't good as I'm behind some seriously crappy connection, but perhaps one day someone else can start building on that stub. Tupsumato (talk) 12:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Help needed with infobox
I have added some information about the previous career of the Norwegian royal yacht, HNoMY Norge, which was originally a private luxury yacht but had an interesting war with the British Royal Navy. I'm really not sure how to add her previous incarnations into the infobox, which at a glance, makes it look as though it has been a Norwegian ship from the word go. Any help would be appreciated. Alansplodge (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Because the ship infobox is just a table, you can insert multiple templates into it, one after the other, for each of a ship's 'careers', for example: Cutty Sark.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The Norwegian monarchy's page on the yacht gives its tonnage as Bruttotonnasje: 1628 ton, which is gross tonnage, not displacement. The "tonnage" field should be used, rather than "displacement", and there is no conversion when gross tonnage is used.  Kablammo (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you both, I'll give it a bash this evening if I have time. Alansplodge (talk) 11:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Now done and "displacement" replaced with "tonnage". Thanks to User:Llammakey for sorting out a glitch. Alansplodge (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Cats for deletion
Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_November_15 Someone got upset over these cats. Brad (talk) 04:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Can we do a "destubathon"?
Hi all, have been reviewing "stub" articles for 2 weeks now and several were wrongly classed and really "start" or "C". Noticed that WP Africa is holding a "destubathon" and with 8000+ stubs in our project it may be a great initiative to do in the future. It'd be great to have consensus to kick-off this activity, and would be great that a WP member with experience manages the event (I neither have knowledge to implement nor time to manage). Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 07:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Baylander (IX-514)
So I have this draft up at Draft:Baylander (IX-514) -- does this ship take a ship prefix? -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 04:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, as far as I can tell it was never actually commissioned. But, I could be wrong. I've done some work on the article, but its history needs a much more expansive fleshing out, if anyone is interested in taking a nab at this. With a bit more work, there's no reason this draft couldn't go live. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Relevant AfD
Just to let folks know, there's an article within our scope at AfD here. Parsecboy (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Clarification
I would like some clarification on the following matter. Per WP:SHIPMOS, is it best practice to keep things pertaining to the operational service life of a ship on its individual article, rather than its ship-class article? Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Generally, ship class articles should contain only a brief summary of the service lives of the ships, and should focus more on the technical characteristics and design history of the class. Articles on individual ships should be the reverse. Parsecboy (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages
Greetings Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, — Delivered: 18:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Relevant requested move
There's a RM discussion under way at Palmers Shipbuilding and Iron Company, if anyone wants to weigh in. I initiated it, but am currently in two minds about it. Note that the "Ltd" element of the proposed move has already attracted negative comment (thanks Bradv and Huntster), with which I agree, so should I think be dropped – I would remove it from the RM template but don't want to mess with it or attract any bots. Any thoughts gratefully received. Nortonius (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Editing of talk page comments at HMS Belfast
Dear fellow editors. A few weeks ago I deleted an addition to the article on HMS Belfast. I posted on the article's talk page explaining my deletion. Some time later the editor - User:Otaku155 - whose addition to the article I had deleted edited my talk page comments. I later reverted this change, further commenting that I thought it was inappropriate for an editor to change the content of another's talk page post (per WP:TPO). The other editor has now edited my comments a second time, restoring their edit of my first comment, deleted my second entirely, and stating their opinion (in what seem to me to be defensive terms) that my original comments were unwarranted. Not wishing to get into a tit-for-tat revert war, I am posting this here. I would be grateful for other editors' comments.IxK85 (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

USS Columbia to be officially designated as SSBN-826 tomorrow
Per this reliably sourced announcement, https://news.usni.org/2016/12/13/secnav-mabus-to-officially-designate-first-orp-boat-uss-district-of-columbia-ssbn-826, Secretary Mabus will officially designate the USS Columbia as SSBN-826 tomorrow, USS Columbia (SSBN-826). Safiel (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

List of active People's Liberation Army Navy ships
Could I get some eyes/comments over at this article and the talk page. Issue is regarding this good/long standing revision being gutted and replaced with a complete mess. Cheers. Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Kentledge image
I'm looking for a photo of kentledge weights that go into ships. Can anyone help? Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Wreck of the Bristol Packet
The wreck of a "wooden sailing vessel", believed to be the Bristol Packet which stranded in 1808 off Minehead in the Bristol Channel, has recently been scheduled as an ancient monument (see Historic England listing). I think that makes it notable enough for an article, but I'm unsure what to call it. It seems unconnected with the Hayle and Bristol Steam Packet Company or Bristol General Steam Navigation Company which came later. Any exemplar articles about wrecks of sailing ships I could look at for inspiration?&mdash; Rod talk 08:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There are photos: local paper report, and on flickr here and here but I am unable to find one with a suitable licence for use. The original record is on the Somerset Historic Environment record for the site.&mdash; Rod talk 09:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

An example could be King Philip (clipper). Regards Newm30 (talk) 11:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Assuming that it is the Bristol Packet you want to write about, Lloyd's Register for 1807 lists three vessels of that name; a full-rigged ship and two sloops. Lloyd's List issue 4229, dated 16 February 1808, gives the captain's name as Day, which reveals the ship to be that listed as #465 in Lloyd's Register. It was a full-rigged ship, assessed at 249 tons b.o.m. and had been built in 1801. Therefore Bristol Packet would be a good title to use. Mjroots (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks both. I shall try to do this when I get some time (unless someone else beats me to it).&mdash; Rod talk 19:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The Lloyd's Register entry takes a bit of decoding.


 * The Lloyd's Register link doesn't seem to work properly. Replace /n0/ in the url with /n81/ . Mjroots (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A word of caution. In general, the spelling of names of ships, owners and, particularly, masters are not to be relied upon in either newspapers or Lloyd's Registers in that era unless corroborated by multiple sources, and information on masters was not forwarded consistently to Lloyd's Register, especially for smaller coastal vessels.
 * You remarked on there being three Bristol Packets in 1807 LR. The same three appear in the 1808 volume, but crucially the master of the 249t ship was changed to "J Barns" (the two sloops do not have masters with names like either Day or Barns/Burns).  Then it was reported that The Bristol Packet, Capt. Burns, from London to New York, was taken and scuttled on 24th January in mid-Atlantic by the Pénélope and Thémis French frigates.[Morning Post (London), 16/2/1808 and elsewhere]; both the ship and the captain are reported as American, including in French and American published sources.  Lastly, the Bristol Packet lost at Minehead was on a coastal voyage from Teignmouth to Bristol, much more likely for a West Country trading sloop.  Two of the Bristol Packets are missing from 1809 LR.
 * In other words, Historic England are right to be cautious in their ID of the wreck. Davidships (talk) 03:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In all three cases, tonnages are known. The size of the vessel will give a good approximation of the tonnage. That the ship was on a voyage from Teignmouth to Bristol isn't really indicative of much, Bristol was a major port and she may just have been heading there to load for a long voyage. Agree that Historic England haven't put a definite identification on the wreck, and this will need to be reflected in an article. Mjroots (talk) 07:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Historic England entry gives the vessel size as some 30 m long with a minimum extent of 16.4 m. Not sure what that second figure means, but would a full-rigged ship of that size equate to about 250 tons? Mjroots (talk) 08:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * At that time they would have used Builder's Old Measurement to calculate tonnage. There is a formula, but you need to know the beam, and where the length is measured from. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to all for help - the initial article is now at Bristol Packet (1801 ship). Further improvements obviously welcome. &mdash; Rod talk 10:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Serious problem with referencing on HMS Hydra (A144)
There appears to be a serious issue with the referencing on the article for HMS Hydra (A144). While the article (which contains vast amounts of elaborate detail about the ship's career) has large number of citations, a lot of these appear to be simply photos, maps or descriptions of places where Hydra is said to have operated, with no mention of Hydra or her operations. Large chunks of the article are therefore unreferenced. Should the article be trimmed back to what can be verified?Nigel Ish (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The article looks like it was written by a former member of the ship's crew, or an amateur historian with an interest in the vessel, so it would probably be best to try to verify the content before it's removed. It certainly seems convincing. Nick-D (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * All those fake citations are strange. I suppose they could be converted to footnotes, leaving just the genuine citations. I'd be inclined to just remove them. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Type 093 submarine
Over on Type 093 submarine, I and another editor have come into some disagreement over what sources are saying. I have taken my concerns to the talk page (number of boats, proposal for handling variants) but do not expect fruitful discussion with the other editor (whom I strongly suspect to be a sockpuppet with whom I have had a poor working relationship with in the past.)

Analysis/opinions/comments from others on the issues would be most helpful. Thanks! - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 03:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Peer review needs attention
G'day all, the Spanish ship Fenix (1749) article has been listed for peer review. If anyone is interested in taking part in the review, the page can be found here: Peer review/Spanish ship Fenix (1749)/archive1. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 15:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Help needed with class template
Dear wikiproject colleagues, I've recently created a navigation template for the "Santa Fe-class submarines" of the Argentine Navy, and need help to fix 2 problems in it: I modeled existing templates, but obviously missed something... Will appreciate help and guidance to fix this ASAP. Thanks and Happy 2017, DPdH (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The template name must have the disambiguation (1931) as there were 3 classes named similarly; however the template syntax doesn't seem to support this (or I can't work it out). Need to fix soon, otherwise someone may create again the class-article but without disambiguating as needed.
 * The template can be searched for and visualized, however the code can't be edited or viewed as the V T E commands are "red links".
 * This appears to have been resolved per these edits., are there any more outstanding issues? — Huntster (t @ c) 23:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Coal Bunker Fire Theory on RMS Titanic
There is a discussion taking place on whether to mention the coal bunker fire theory in the main Titanic article or at RMS Titanic alternative theories‎. Interested editors are invited to join the conversation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Missing topics list
My list of missing topics about vehicles is updated - Skysmith (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Many already are already covered (either as synonyms or existing sections in generic articles); others are covered with a little tweaking of destinations. Of course, if the subject justifies it those referneces can be expanded and/or spun off into separate articles later. I have piped those in the list and will happily help with the redirects if that is the proper procedure. Davidships (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

La Amistad or simply Amistad and other minor issues like lack of sources regarding her flags and ports of registry
and Talk:La Amistad. Your opinions will be apreciated. Thank you in advance. --Nicola Romani (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Move proposal Talk:Superliner (railcar)
There's a discussion about a move to Superliner on the Talk page. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Sailing faster than the wind dropped from this project
I've dropped Sailing faster than the wind from this project, since it's not about ships. I added it to WikiProject Sailing, where I felt it belonged. There is a discussion about the article's title at Talk:Sailing faster than the wind. User:HopsonRoad 13:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science promotion
T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 10:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Pakistan Navy SSP programmes
Anyone able to sort out this article. Seems to be about submarines in Pakistan navy yet to be built. And what are "SSP programmes"? Thanks — Iadmc  ♫ talk 04:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Add: the history is weird reading... especially the moving around it has gone through via various articles that appear entirely irrelevent to the present article ie Hangor-class submarine, Hangor-class submarine (1969), and Daphné-class submarine. Can't make head nor tail of it; but then I was only checking syntax... I know nothing about ships — Iadmc  ♫ talk 04:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * SSP is a hull classification symbol, SS denotes a conventionally powered submarine, and P probably for patrol, so an alternative title would be something like Pakistan Navy conventional patrol submarine program. The jumping about page moves is probably because it is a program and was not initially a particular class of submarine. How these things work is that a government will issue a request for proposals and see who is interested in bidding for the project (basically "hey world we want to buy some submarines, who wants to sell"). At various points different designs will be attached to the program, be rejected, or win only to have that rescinded. However, once a final design and builder have been decided, the program becomes that final class. The current article is too short, and maybe its a bit premature to do so but what this should be is two articles, one for the program itself, and one for the Hangor-class or whatever the final ship class is called. For an (aviation) example of how defence procurement works see Joint Strike Fighter program, which produced two designs, one of which won and would go on to inherit the JSF moniker.--KTo288 (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Just checked and P now stands for" Diesel Air-Independent Power' not patrol.--KTo288 (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

SS Vauban
I know almost nothing about ships and even less about all the complex technicalities of ship infoboxes, article title formats and even notability criteria. So if anyone wants to take on the SS Vauban stub that I've just created, I am sure it can be improved. And, if not, I don't mind if it is deleted. Sorry for the burden but I might learn something as I have it on my watchlist. - Sitush (talk) 05:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Canadian Coast Guard modified Severn class motor lifeboat
Canadian Coast Guard modified Severn class motor lifeboat is there any alternative title for this article that would not be as lengthy? Brad (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, Severn-class lifeboat (Canada) would work. It's best discussed at Talk:Canadian Coast Guard modified Severn class motor lifeboat. User:HopsonRoad 22:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to rename article ARA Suboficial Castillo (A-6) to USS Takelma (ATF-113)
''OK. I'm going to close this out as resolved with Oppose and will update the talk page for the article. Thank you all for contributing! KNHaw (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC) ''

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but I wanted to do my due diligence before making changes to an article that might cause controversy. Given that this project was mentioned in the talk page for the article, I figured this would be a good place to make my intentions known.

So, the article ARA Suboficial Castillo (A-6) details how the vessel was originally known as the USS Takelma (ATF-113) for it's 50 year career in the US Navy. Later it was sold and is currently in service with the Argentine Navy as the ARA Suboficial Castillo (A-6), having a 24 year career there. The US name is a redirect to the main article using the Argentine name.

Guidance has been given under Naming_conventions_(ships) that "An article about a ship that changed name or nationality should be placed at the best-known name, with a redirect from the other name." As such, I propose that the US Navy name is more appropriate for the main article and the Argentine name for the redirect, given the time of service for both navies. Before I make this change, however, I want to open up the question for discussion.

I have posted this question in the article talk page as well as here in order to get feedback. Are there any concerns with my proposal? I plan on doing the work within the next week or so, so please let me know.

Thanks, KNHaw (talk) 05:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * While I would agree that after the Suboficial Castillo has been decommissioned, the article could be renamed back to the most notable name assuming there'll be no such career twist that would eclipse the 50-year service under the US Navy, but for now I would rather keep the current name. 24 years is already a long time, even if the previous owner held it for a longer time, making the Argentine service notable. Even more, the vessel is still in active service in the Argentine Navy and IMHO Wikipedia should present the current situation instead of "looking back" to the history. Forcing the former name on the article would make me thing something along the lines of "The ship was once part of the great and glorious US Navy, and Wikipedia is an American website written in American largely by American people — who cares about what Argentine Navy or something is doing with it in these days?"
 * As per above, I propose amending the naming convention in such way that articles about vessels that are in service should be titled based on the current name, and after the vessel has been decommissioned, broken up, lost etc. it could revert back to what is agreed to be the most notable name. Museum ships are an exception; they should remain under their current (last) name. Tupsumato (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I should list you as Oppose on this, then? Right?  KNHaw (talk)  17:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I agree in principle with Tupsomato (though I do not share the same 'feelings'), but would not rush to change a title the moment a vessel is renamed,if there is no significant content, unlike in this case. Also, relative notability should be considered objectively, and not just by volume of text (especially with USN ships where there is in many cases "lazy" editing by wholesale copying of routine career details from DANFS, or at least easier access for English-speaking editors to useful sources. Davidships (talk) 10:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thoughtful response. I don't want to put words in your mouth, though.  Should I list you as Oppose or Concur on this, then?  KNHaw (talk)  17:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)  Thanks; oppose now indicated.Davidships (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * In general, we tend to favor titling an article with the name a vessel had during significant wartime service. Granted, the vessel did not see action during World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War, but I think supporting combat operations in three major wars is still more significant than the ship's activities for the last 23 years. Parsecboy (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thoughtful response. I'm a little unclear, though, and don't want to put words in your mouth.  Should I list you as Oppose or Concur on this?  KNHaw (talk)  17:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose I concur with Tupsumato that the vessel has been under the new name for a long time and has acquired new notability. User:HopsonRoad 13:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a clause in the standards that reads "But if the ship had significant careers in two navies, it may be best to create two articles with one ending at the transfer and the other beginning then, depending on how long the articles are and how extensive the transformation of the ship."
 * Looking at the cited example (USS Phoenix (CL-46) and the ship under its new name ARA General Belgrano), this seems a pretty high bar for the Takelma/Castillo to meet. The Takelma section could definitely serve as a small article on its own, but I think I would have to expand each of the one sentence items in the Castillo sections using the referenced sourced to produce a true article instead of a stub.  I'm curious about your take, though:  In your Oppose opinion, do you feel that two articles would be a viable alternative?  Thanks, KNHaw</i> <sup style="color:SeaGreen;">(talk)  17:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the opportunity to comment,  KNHaw , I concur that the history of this vessel does not reach the threshold of having two articles. The Argentine legacy is underdeveloped in the article, but is sufficiently notable to receive attention. Since either title redirects to the other, I don't feel strongly about my Oppose. It just seems English-centric to give stronger weight to distant history than to its recent history in the service of a non-English-speaking navy. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 20:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Insults on a ship page
I'm having troubles with an IP editor, 97.94.122.93, who's just called me a white supremacist in the edit summary for reverting him on Japanese aircraft carrier Sōryū. His edit history suggests a real chip on his shoulder. Can an admin deal with him appropriately?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have welcomed the editor at User talk:97.94.122.93 in the standard manner and asked them to "please practice civility". Hopefully, this is a constructive first step. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 03:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's the best approach for now. If it continues there are some suggestions at WP:NPA. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * - why aren't you an admin? Mjroots (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Helps to keep my blood pressure down if I don't have to deal with these sorts of people.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Milhist March Madness 2017
G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:


 * tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
 * updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
 * creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

HMS Victorious (WW2)
My name is Jim Halley and I am Founder-Editor of Aeromilitaria, the quarterly on military aviation history published by Air-Britain {Historians) Ltd which was founded in 1948. I use my laptop for editing and writing articles and books. I have not been involved with Wikipedia before and have chosen this method as the most likely one to get an answer that tells me what I have done wrong!

I wrote an article on HMS Victorious in the Pacific in 1943 for the Spring 2010 issue which contained some items which I thought important. These centered around the Fighter Control system. On arrival at Norfolk, Virginia, her aircraft were disembarked and most of the crew assigned ashore while modifications were incorporated for duty in the Pacific, including changing flight deck operations to conform with US Navy practice. This paved the way for a standard used by both USN and RN for the rest of the war.

Victorious used the call-sign USS Robin to avoid the enemy finding out that Victorious had left European waters. A merchant ship was adapted as a dummy carrier and moved around Scottish waters to fool the Luftwaffe reconnaissance aircraft. They fell for it.

The current website for Victorious mentions the large number of USN visitors to the Fighter Control Room which had an advanced layout. Among them was Rear-Admiral Ramsey who inspected the system of fighter control and ordered it to be used on the new Boxer-class carriers which were being built at that time. The Royal Navy manual for Fighter Control Officers was also adopted and became standard. Both these innovations greatly improved the defence of ships from air attack.

In the past I have seen comments in emails about Victorious being taken over by the US Navy and manned by US personnel. These were in error; Victorious retained its crew and squadrons at all times except when cross-decking.

J J Halley  Shepperton  England  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimHalley (talk • contribs) 17:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * What makes you think you've done something wrong? I don't see anything myself.
 * HMS Victorious (R38) currently has a section "Service with the US Navy" that contradicts everything you said, but it's completely unsourced. It would be a big help if you could supply some sources that would tell us what really happened. Your own article would be a great start; other sources would be welcome too.
 * I suggest you move this discussion to Talk:HMS Victorious (R38). I will watchlist it and try to help you out. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I've copied everything as you suggested and replied there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimHalley (talk • contribs) 13:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Improper renaming
has moved the page Greek cruiser Georgios Averoff to Armored cruiser Georgios Averoff (1910) in violation of WP:NCSHIP and I cannot revert the move because he's done it multiple times. Can some admin either revert this series of moves or move it over the redirect? BTW, this user has a habit of doing this sort of thing, if you'll check his edit history.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Done. Parsecboy (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Move protected. Mjroots (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Ship identifier disambiguation page
I created a new disambiguation page at ship identifier, with redirects from "Ship name", "Ship names" (pre-existing redirect to Ceremonial ship launching), "Ship naming" (pre-existing redirect to Ceremonial ship launching), "Ship number", "Ship identification number", "Vessel identifier", "Vessel identification number" and "Vessel number". I'm not very familiar with this subject and mostly relied on links at Category:Ship names and its subcategory Category:Ship identification numbers, so it should be reviewed by others to add any other relevant links. Also, the page could use better descriptions so readers better understand the differences between the listed articles.

I created it after trying to find the article for naming of ships with "MV", "MS", etc. without knowing what the article could be titled (I eventually found what I was looking for at ship prefix). When typing in the search box, "Ship names" appeared as a link, so I clicked it and was taken to Ceremonial ship launching, which doesn't directly relate to the subject "ship names". I stumbled through various articles until I found the category Category:Ship names. Given the bad redirect for "ship names", I started to create a disambiguation page for relevant articles at "ship name", but later decided that "ship identifier" would be the better title since many links were for numeric identifiers rather than "names". AHeneen (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I think the disambiguation page is a good idea and I like your formatting, but you're missing the most obvious identifier even though it redirects here: ship name. We could also look for grouping — for example, I think the ENI number should be at the same "level" with IMO number. Also, it seems that some of the articles related to naval vessel identification (such as hull number) are very US-centric and should be generalized (and the country-specific information split to a separate article), but this is of course not your fault. Tupsumato (talk) 05:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Wot no Code Letters? Mjroots (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Curiously that article does not have a link to Maritime call sign or even call sign. Also, what's a "computers play-disk"? Tupsumato (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * In my initial version of the page, the word "ship name" was included in the intro sentence ("A ship identifier or ship name may refer to:"), but was later removed. The reason that "ship name" did not appear was because a disambiguation page only lists articles and there is no article for the ship name as a proper noun (eg. "MV Ship"). However...
 * The page wasn't a proper disambiguation page, because it covers a subject rather than listing articles whose titles are ambiguous or could easily be confused for one another. Another user changed the page type to a set index article, but entries in an SIA must have a similar name (see also WP:NOTDAB). After going through several policy/guideline pages, but mainly relying on WP:DABCONCEPT, it seems like the page should either be an outline or expanded into a regular article (see Broad-concept article). In either case, the page needs to be renamed. If it is re-formatted as an outline, then it needs to be renamed "Outline of ___"; I think the best title would be "Outline of ship naming and identifiers". If it is transformed into an article, then the current title may not be appropriate because "ship identifier" is ambiguous (at least when referring to ship names) and not a common term, in both cases failing WP:COMMONNAME. I think that as an article, a descriptive title would be more appropriate "Ship naming and identifiers" being the best I can think of. AHeneen (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It was I who changed the lead; since ship name redirected to this page, I thought it would be appropriate to include it in the list even though the description is somewhat obvious. As for the article name, I think "ship naming and identifiers" could be good for a little bit expanded article. "Outline of..." just add words that make it more difficult to find. Tupsumato (talk) 04:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Article assessment
There are comments relevant to the project concerning article "class assessment" at Talk:USS Indianapolis (CA-35). Otr500 (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Categories for Merge April 2017
Suggested merge of Category:Sailboat components to Category:Sailing ship components. Maybe if that's right, we can consider Category:Sailboats v. Category:Sailing ships. -- B.S. Lawrence (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: Recommend renaming merged categories to Category:Sailing vessel components and Category:Sailing vessels. User:HopsonRoad 22:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

USCG Acacia article request
Per United States Lighthouse Service: "On March 15, 1942 the Lighthouse Service/USGG tender "Acacia" was sunk by GS U-161 (1941)." There's a little bit of info about the "Speedwell-class USCGC Acacia (WAGL-200)" at the U-161 article, from a 1987 book by David Grover. Could a bit more be found, and an article created? -- do ncr  am  01:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * USCGC Acacia (WAGL-200) Maybe someone else can add to this, its a start at least.Pennsy22 (talk) 08:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Surface-underwater ship
It is necessary to supplement: Surface-underwater ship. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Seems like a merge to semi-submersible is in order. Parsecboy (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't concur with the merge idea. The semi-submersible is well described with towed structures, like oil rigs. This is quite different from surface ships that are able to lower themselves into the water to avoid detection. User:HopsonRoad 21:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Semi-submersible craft Military applications and Capable of Themselves to swim. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * HopsonRoad - that doesn't mean the current semi-submersible article isn't simply unbalanced toward civilian applications of the concept. USS Spuyten Duyvil, for instance, is a classic example of a vessel that is semi-submersible, and it is routinely described as such. Parsecboy (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur that the phrase "semi-submersible" would seem to be a more idiomatic term than "surface-underwater ship", which is why I was surprised to see the "semi-submersible" article to be about non-self-propelled rigs. Perhaps the solution lies in this article: "Semi-Submersible Ships and Semi-Submersible Rigs: A General Overview".
 * I would be comfortable with renaming the current "Semi-submersible" article, Semi-submersible rig and the current "Surface-underwater ship" article, Semi-submersible vessel (since some are boats and others are ships). The latter article would cover self-propelled craft, whereas the former would cover towed or moored craft (e.g. a dry dock).
 * How does that seem, Parsecboy and Vyacheslav84? Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 01:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a good idea. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 11:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That seems fine to me. The new semi-submersible vessel article should also include civilian applications like heavy-lift ships, of course. Parsecboy (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

In general, at first the article was about the intermediate type of ships that wage war as surface ships, but at the same time they can submerge as submarines. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 11:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * With a clear scope, the article would include any self-propelled vessel that uses ballast to at least partially submerge, whether for presenting a smaller profile, as with a military vessel, or for utility as with a heavy-lift ship. User:HopsonRoad 12:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've put in name change discussions at Talk:Surface-underwater ship and Talk:Semi-submersible. User:HopsonRoad 12:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, the main thing is that in one article the drilling rigs and self-propelled ships are not confused. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see these various quite different concepts fitting together at all. Surface-underwater ship may not be the right title, but as it clearly says, it is about "hybrid warship, that combines the properties of a surface ship and submarine." They are not necessarily "semi" - some of those described are fully submersible.
 * Semi-submersible is a well-focused article. I am neutral on whether it could be usefully renamed Semi-submersible rig, but it's current title is well-founded (see 2007-2009 discussion on its talk page), and it should be noted that "rig" has strong oil & gas associations, whereas many semi-submersibles work in other types of offshore construction.
 * The type of cargo ship that part-submerges for loading/discharging floating cargo is already well catered for in Heavy-lift ship
 * To me these are three entirely separate subjects. Davidships (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these thoughts, Davidships. Regarding the unpowered vessel, how about Semi-submersible platform? Best to weigh in at Talk:Semi-submersible. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 21:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * A further thought about those warships that are fully submersible, Davidships, they are technically submarines, just as were the diesel-electric models of WWI and WWII, which spent most of their time cruising on the surface, but dove for stealth in attack or to escape attack. Please discuss at Talk:Surface-underwater ship. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 23:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Surface-underwater ship --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SMX-25
Editors may wish to participate in the discussion at Articles for deletion/SMX-25, regarding a semi-submersible warship concept. User:HopsonRoad 14:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Tonnage burthen query
Looking at details of English ships of the line, I observed frequent repetition of the unusual fraction "17⁄94". Can anyone enlighten me on the significance of this, please? Bjenks (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * See if the article, Builder's Old Measurement, has what you want. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 05:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Prior discussions:
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Archive_13
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Archive_30
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Archive_36
 * If a tonnage figure is given with a fraction with a denominator of 94, tons burthen is meant as used in Britain and elsewhere; if the denominator is 95, it is US tons burden. Kablammo (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for linking the previous discussions, particularly the second one. At the risk of sounding mildly grumpy, it's worth repeating that tons burthen is a nominal measurement of volume, and not weight. Its not convertible to long tons or any other current unit. It is nonetheless a standard measurement for early modern sailing ships, and offers a useful size comparator particularly in non-naval craft where the other standard (number of carriage guns) is inconsistent or unavailable. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks to all, and apols for lacking the skills to search out those earlier discussions. Bjenks (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No need for any apologies; answering such queries is among the purposes of this page and this project. Kablammo (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Two AfDs
MS Regal Star has been nominated for deletion. MS Sea Wind has also been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 12:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Both were kept . Mjroots (talk) 05:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Outrage with Infernal Machine!
Does anyone have any more details about which appears to be a report of an attempt to sabotage the destroyer HMS Peterel (1899). Are there any other sources which confirm that this event happened? If so does anyone have more details, for example, where did the event occur? What were the consequences?Nigel Ish (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Proquest has nothing indexed in the Christian Science Monitor, NYT, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, or the Detroit or LA papers for "Peterel" in the year 1901. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Some local newspapers mention an accident in July 1901 "The destroyer Peterel, belonging to the the Portsmouth instructional flotilla, having sustained an accident to her fan returned to harbour on Wednesday for repairs" - Portsmouth Evening News 11 July 1901. Other papers say the damage was to a "fan engine". In October 1901 she managed to hit HMS Spiteful in the fog and damaged the stern. Nothing else found. MilborneOne (talk) 09:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Found an infernal machine! which fits the dates - the Sheffield Evening Telegraph 12 August 1901 has a story about the steamer "Mechanician" at New Orleans was loading mules for South Africa was damaged by an explosion "An officer of the Mechanician, on which the explosion occured on Friday, has discovered a peice of wire 125ft long attached to the anchor chain, to which the bomb or torpedo, which is believed to have caused the explosion, was probably tied. The officer think that the infernal machine was attached to this wire and placed some distance ahead of the ship, against which it was carried by the current, and exploded by means of a time fuse." Looks like a case of wrong ship reported in the Australian press. MilborneOne (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Naval mines had been called "torpedos" before the invention of what we now call the torpedo. I guess "infernal machine" was used to distinguish between the two? Great name, we should still use it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Gilmore (1824 ship)
We currently have an article Gilmore (1824 ship), which mentions "re-constructed and lengthened especially for the Australian passenger trade in 1829", but no details of voyages until "First convict voyage ... November 1831", with two convict voyages to Hobart and Sydney.

We also have mentions (not wiki-linked to Gilmore (1824 ship)) of a Gilmore arriving at the Swan River Colony in Western Australia in December 1829, in: or February 1830
 * Swan River Colony
 * Thomas Peel
 * Francis Armstrong
 * Mandurah
 * Adam Armstrong (settler)

Are these both the same ship? http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/32834558 suggests that they are.

(Pinging specific editors who may be interested:

Mitch Ames (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * youve answered your own question mitch, not sure how anyone else is going to find a record from that time to contradict you JarrahTree 15:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

, yes she is the one. Regards Newm30 (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

RMS Andes
I have just completed a new article about Royal Mail Lines' 1939 flagship RMS Andes (1939). I will be grateful for any proof reading, copy editing and improvements that colleagues think it may need.

I apologise for not including a photo or other image of the whole ship. Wikimedia Commons has none and I am not skilled at finding non-copyright images elsewhere. There are of course good photos of Andes online, and colourful RML official posters of her by the artist commercial Kenneth Shoesmith, but I have no idea of their copyright status.

When I completed QSMV Dominion Monarch in August 2014 I failed to find a non-copyright image of her too. On that occasion Mjroots kindly stepped in with a small colour image of the "Dominion Maniac" in profile. It still heads that article to this day, and is still Commons' only image of the DM.

I will be grateful to anyone who can come to the rescue with a suitable picture of Andes for the new article's infobox. And I will be likewise grateful to anyone who can add any more pictures of the DM, to complement the one Mjroots managed to provide three years ago.

Best wishes to everyone in the ships project, Motacilla (talk) 11:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * - There's always the option of using a copyrighted image underWP:NFUR as there is no image freely available showing the whole ship. Looks like you have the makings of a GA there. Mjroots (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Contemporary yacht sources
Are there any good reference/resource starting points for researching contemporary yachts? Or is the advice mainly to check newspapers related to the national origin/residence of the yacht? I thought there might be some magazine or reliable blog that covers these sorts of things but perhaps not? (Please ping me when you respond.) czar  06:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC) PAGE''' ]]) 15:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * if you're talking modern large-ish motor yachts, then the builder's website might be a good place to start. Magazines are good sources. V x RS=N. Mjroots (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, such as the entries in List of motor yachts by length. What magazines do you recommend? Are there any secondary source websites for reliable info on specifications, or do you usually go with only the builder's site (primary source)? czar  01:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you use the "News" or "More/Books" tabs in a Google search on a yachting topic, you will come across such sources as ShowBoats International and Yachting—both magazines that cover large yachts in their news reports. User:HopsonRoad 12:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Many of them show up in WP:MIRAMAR if you're just looking for basic stats. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#00f;display:inline-block;padding:1px 1px 0;vertical-align:-0.3em;line-height:1;font-size:50%;text-align:center;">'''TALK

Popular pages report
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, will post at /Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of. We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
 * The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
 * The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
 * The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to for his original, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Pollux
Hey all - can someone with a Miramar account lend me a hand? I'm looking for a Swedish SS Pollux that was sunk in a collision with the battleship SMS Elsass on 23 March 1912, but I don't have access to Miramar. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is some information. Kablammo (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * According to Miramar (record 3002617), Pollux was constructed by Lindholmens Varv of Gothenburg in 1883. 1 compound steam engine,, 59.9 m pp, 8.8 m beam. Travelling Uddevalla to London, general cargo at time of collision. Llammakey (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks - have created a basic stub at SS Pollux (1883) if anybody else is interested in taking a whack at it. Parsecboy (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Added a couple of bits. Found a public domain image - see Talk page. Davidships (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

RMS Asturias
I have just completed a new article about Royal Mail Lines' passenger liner RMS Asturias (1925), the sister ship of RMS Alcantara (1926). I have tried to make the article comparable with Alcantara in length and detail. That is less than the RMS Andes (1939) article (see above), but I hope the content is sufficient. Enjoy! Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Incidentally, cannot see why the link in the fleet list in Royal Mail Steam Packet Company remains red. Davidships (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A null edit is your friend.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Help
There's a big mess of reference errors in the List of shipwrecks in 1838. This is the diff between the last version which didn't show any reference errors and the current version. I can't work out what the hell has gone wrong and need to be AFK for a couple of hours. Would appreciate assistance in fixing this. Mjroots (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Kendall-K1 (talk) 09:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Two older GA noms waiting for review.
Noticed there are two GA noms from months ago that need reviewing. Brad (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * BAP Unión April 2017
 * Reed water tube boiler February 2017

Default sort - merchant ships
Has there any policy agreement that default sort should sometimes ignore the first part of merchant ship names? For example, in Category:Container ships, CMA CGM Bougainville > Bougainville, MSC Beatrice > Beatrice. Surely a name is name? Davidships (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know of a general policy, but for ship set indices we sort on the name, not the prefix. See Template:Ship index and Category:Set indices on ships. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's true for MV, SS etc, but these are not prefixes. The name of the ship is CMA CGM Bougainville. Davidships (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, there's no policy for dropping part of the actual name of the ship with DEFAULTSORT. If there were, we'd have to argue whether it applies only to unsightly acronyms like CMA CGM or also to other "pattern names". Hence, I propose that all such defaultsorts should be KOS'd. Tupsumato (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Defsort only needs to remove ship prefixes, not part of ship names. Mjroots (talk) 11:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * My point exactly. Tupsumato (talk) 10:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * All the entries in Category:Containerships now sorted; there may be a few others in other categories.Davidships (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:2017 shipwrecks
I think there is an abnormal situation on this template. We have an article on the Fitzgerald/ACX Crystal collision, but it does not take the primary listing position on this template, instead each ship is listed as the primary articles, while the collision article is a sub article listing. Shouldn't this be flipped around, since this template is the shipwreck template, the articles on the incidents or wrecks should take primary place of purpose, if they exist. -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 04:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It is normal on the template to display ship names before and subsidiary article(s) in brackets. This can be seen by checking other templates such as 2012 shipwrecks and 2014 shipwrecks where Costa Concordia and Sewol are listed respectively. Mjroots (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Mass AfD
An AfD discussion affecting four American Cruise Lines ships is taking place here. Mjroots (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on sailing vessel lists at Talk:Sailing ship
Is transcluded here: User:HopsonRoad 09:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Probably don't need to transclude that discussion here. A link to the discussion Talk:Sailing_ship should be sufficient.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Comparison with the Olympic class
There is currently a discussion regarding this section on the talk page of RMS Mauretania which can be found here. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Lakshadweep Class
I can find no evidence to support the existence of the Lakshadweep Class of Indian Navy hospital ship, nor of the ship INS Lakshadweep. Please see Talk:Lakshadweep Class Is there any reason to not nominate for deletion? Verbcatcher (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well the ship Lakshadweep Sea does exist. As to whether it's an Indian Navy hospital ship I cannot find supporting evidence. The article should be nuked. Llammakey (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The writing on the rear of the ship in the photo looks very suspiciouly photoshopped to me. Mjroots (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't think that its photoshopped. There is a nameboard in the railing above the lifeboat davits.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the 2010-built ship (IMO 9448102) exists, but it's listed as "Passenger/General Cargo Ship" in e.g. Equasis. Tupsumato (talk) 23:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would expect it to be flying the Indian Naval Ensign, which other ships of the Indian Navy fly. It also lacks a ship number on its side. Instead, it has a logo on the stack. User:HopsonRoad 01:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/Lakshadweep Class Verbcatcher (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Strange one as the ship itself does indeed exist - had a look at turning INS Lakshadweep into one on Lakshadweep Sea, but couldn't find enough beyond the basic ship data sources, a couple of Sri Lanka pieces from the shipbuilder and tourism promos.Davidships (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * See http://lakshadweep.nic.in/howtoreach.html and http://www.lakshadweepcruise.com/lakshadweep_sea.html. As far as I can tell, Lakshadweep Sea is a cruiseferry that connects Kochi city and the Lakshadweep islands. I cannot fathom how this hospital ship rumour started, but based on Google searches, it's spread quite far and wide. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Recovery ships
Does anyone know what ships SpaceX uses to recover Dragon capsules after splashdown? -- 65.94.42.131 (talk) 04:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Of Course I Still Love You is the one rockets land on. Mjroots (talk) 07:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's the autonomous spaceport drone ship: User:HopsonRoad 11:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The rockets are the Falcon 9 rocket first stage, and is not the Dragon space capsule. The ship in the Dragon capsule image is not the ASDS, which has no such equipment like cranes, since they are just flat barges used to land rockets propulsively. Falcon rockets do not splashdown for recovery, so do not get recovered like Apollo capsules or Space Shuttle SRBs. Examining the two photos, one can tell they are not the same type of ship, the ASDS is much much wider that the recovery ship used for the Dragon. -- 65.94.42.131 (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , check out https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceX/wiki/asds, which lists all the known support ships used by SpaceX through a contract with American Marine. CRS-11 was recovered by NRC Quest, which seems to be their go-to ship these days for Dragon recovery out of the Port of Los Angeles. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- 65.94.42.131 (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

SS Pendleton
There seems to be some confusion over the flags in the SS Pendleton article. I'm not getting into an edit war, but I'm pretty sure that is wrong and that my edit was correct. Eyes needed please. Mjroots (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging, who made the original edit, and I forgot to ping originally. Mjroots (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right on the flag - if the vessel was never commissioned, the infobox should not include the USN flag. My suspicion is that Toddst1 was looking at the revision history backwards, since his edit summary seems to be in agreement. Parsecboy (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

|Ship status=
This to  template data (since reverted) has me wondering about the correctness of this sentence in the Ship status guidance: The documentation for Ship decommissioned indicates that decommissioning applies to warships. The documentation for Ship in service indicates that that parameter applies to civilian ships. In the Ship status guideline, are we not improperly mixing these two things? Is the recommendation to use  (or some text that has similar meaning) rather redundant when Ship commissioned or Ship in service are set with dates but Ship decommissioned or Ship out of service are not?
 * However, if the ship is expected to remain in service in the near future and its decommissioning will not likely go unnoticed, simply Ship in service should be enough.

I wonder if the Ship status guidance should recommend that it be omitted when:
 * 1) either of Ship commissioned or Ship in service are set
 * 2) the ship's retirement will not likely go unnoticed
 * 3) the ship's actual status is not out of the ordinary

For those ships that may quietly fade away, then the guideline should recommend  with a date when the ship was last known to be active.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The field should be removed. We don't do current events; this is not a blog.  If the ship is scrapped it can be handled in other fields; if it is undergoing SLEP or similar, the text can address it.  Kablammo (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I dislike for stylistic reasons (it does not capitalize the first word) and because it automatically adds and updates the "as of" year; I consider this to be manually inputted detail that should be ommitted by default. As for wording, most large commercial databases (IHS Sea-web, Equasis, classification society databases) use the wording "In Service/Commission" for the status; I have used "In service" in Wikipedia, omitting "active" (from the automatic template) as I consider it redundant and "commission" from the industry practice because civilian ships are not "commissioned". I agree that the wording in the guideline could be revised, but I am against removing the field altogether from the template; current status is relevant information even though it's usually trivial (most ships are by default in service) and does not change that often (rapid changes can be addressed in the text and Ship fate overrides the field in the end). Tupsumato (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

USS California (ACR-6) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for USS California (ACR-6) to be moved to USS San Diego (ACR-6). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion Talk:USS California (ACR-6). Pennsy22 (talk) 05:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Weird article glitch
For USS Cochise (YT-216) can anyone figure out why the infobox won't go to the top of the page? There are also some areas in the article where a space doesn't work either. Brad (talk) 03:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Missing |} at end of infobox. Pennsy22 (talk) 04:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Update needed at USS Antietam (CG-54)
Stars and Stripes has obtained, via an FIOA request, the report on the USS Antietam's grounding, https://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/navy-probe-blames-captain-s-judgment-in-uss-antietam-grounding-1.480879. I have tagged the article as needing an update and giving a heads up here. Safiel (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Blue Ridge
USS Blue Ridge (LCC-19) has been a mess for a while now. It consists of very long quotes with unclear sources, probably in violation of copyright. It rambles so much that it's nearly unreadable. This article could really use some attention. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)