Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 58

For those who might be interested
While going through the List of United States Navy ships: A–B, I came across USS Augustus Holly (1861) - I initially stripped off the useless disambiguator but on second thought, ended up deleting the page. If you're curious, the article was a copy of an older version of the DANFS article, which has next to no details. As such, it seemed like a clear lack of significance. Parsecboy (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please explain how the article as-deleted met the criteria for A7: This applies to any article about a real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event --Izno (talk) 01:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The list in A7 is not meant to be exhaustive, it is merely illustrative (which is why, for example, schools are specifically exempted even though they do not fall into any of the listed categories). And I don't know that anyone can reasonably argue that a ship that may or may not have been used by the Navy meets the bar as to a claim of significance. Parsecboy (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As evidenced by many discussions at WT:CSD (and the existence of A9), A7 exhaustive. Please restore the article. --Izno (talk) 12:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What the policy says and what editors say on talk pages are two different things - there's nothing in the definition of A7 to indicate that the list is exhaustive, so no, I won't be restoring the article. You don't need to keep pinging me, by the way. Parsecboy (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The community has long treated named warships, at least informally, as presumptively notable. I can't remember one being deleted at AfD. And I would say that any warship, presuming reliable source confirmation of its existence, would have at the very least, a claim to significance. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * All well and good if we were discussing a warship, but we're not; Augustus Holly was a member of the Stone Fleet; as far as I know, they weren't even commissioned into the Navy. Parsecboy (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if A7 did apply, the subject does have a credible claim of significance, and is therefore not appropriate for summary execution, nor for prodding. And there is additional material available that can supplement the DANFS text. Davidships (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What is the claim to significance, exactly? She was purchased by the USN and may or maybe not actually used for anything? I'm sorry, but that doesn't pass the bar.
 * And if there is plenty of material that could be added, no one is stopping you from recreating the article. Parsecboy (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We clearly differ on how high the bar is set for credible claim of significance, but that is now for decision at WP:DRV
 * Who said there was "plenty" of additional material? Other editors may also have something to contribute - that's one reason why WP:AFD allows some time for that. Then we will see whether notability is established or not. Davidships (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Although I'm not opposed to deleting articles on commissioned vessels with very limited careers (in this case it's not clear if the vessel was ever commissioned) we need to do it via consensus-derived criteria that are in writing. RobDuch (talk) 06:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Any evidence that she was commissioned? Plenty of vessels in the USN's inventory are not - see the Natick-class tugboats, for example. I haven't seen any indication that the Stone Fleet ships were ever commissioned. And this seems to indicate they weren't even manned by USN personnel. Parsecboy (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have started a deletion review for this article. Please feel free to participate. --Izno (talk) 13:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Shipindex vs DAB?
I've started a thread that might be of interest to project members. See Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation -- RoySmith (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Ship name change
Can I get an admin to revert the move from Russian cruiser Rurik (1892) to Rurik (1892, Russian cruiser )? I accidentally reverted the talk page name change first and that may be why I couldn't revert the article name change itself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed, and left a note on the mover's talk page. Parsecboy (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Wreck of the Ventnor
SS Ventnor is soon to appear on DYK. I am not the author but have added some detail. The article could use more attention, esp. to organization and recent events. I will not have time for it, so if anyone wishes to help, feel free (including changing/improving any of my edits). Thanks. Kablammo (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a large section on the Ventnor incident in Charles Sew Hoy, including doubt cast on whether "499" is the correct number of bodies. Much of that material and the aftermath would belong better in this article, not least as Hoy had himself died before the tragic events took place. Davidships (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Non-italic title
Sorry to raise such a small issue, but can anyone figure out why the title for Good Shepherd IV isn't in italics despite using the Infobox ship begin template? I looked for "display title=none" and didn't see anything.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a job for DISPLAYTITLE. I had to use that for the opposite problem with Mine planter (ship), where the article was about a ship type, not a name. RobDuch (talk) 05:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone got it with another parameter in the infobox. Thanks!&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 05:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

FAC review needed
Featured article candidates/French battleship Jauréguiberry/archive1 already has 2 reviews, plus image and source reviews. It needs one more review to pass FAC, but it's in danger of being archived. I hope that one kind soul can find the time to do a review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the multiple responses. If my changes in answer to their comments are satisfactory, it should pass with ease.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Notability guidelines for ships
Hi guys, do we have a notability guideline for ships? If not, can I suggest we implement something along the lines of WP:NASTRO so that there's some level of agreement as to what's sufficient to show a ship is notable? If it were up to me a listing in e.g., Jane's Fighting Ships or a similar catalogue accessible to amateurs, or a prominent role in a historical incident (e.g., a battle), or the loss of the ship, would be sufficient to show notability. I really don't think WP:ORG is the correct guideline for a ship since ultimately a ship is a physical object, not an organisation as such (though of course it is home to an organisation). FOARP (talk) 09:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG applies. Our project scope is vessels in excess of 100' length, or 100 tons (undefined). Vessels of this size should be capable of sustaining articles, subject to verification by reliable sources. Of course, the further back you go, and the more common the name a ship carried, the harder it gets to be able to pull together sufficient material to write an article. Naval vessels tend to be better documented than merchant vessels. From about 1850 onwards, the task gets easier. Again, steamships seem to be better documented than sailing ships. Mjroots (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps worth the comment that the original question seems to refer only to warships. There are merchant ships that are notable for various reasons. To pick one, those of new design (to the extent that they change the economics of trade) are surely of equal or greater significance compared to a major warship. Unfortunately, the old way of looking at history focused on battles and rulers, when actually most of what affected peoples' lives was the efficiency of production and of communication. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * From a warship perspective, classes of smaller boats like MTBs are usually notable, but few individual boats of that size would be. An exception is JFK's PT boat. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Often merchant ships only become notable due to their sinking, which, if they were people, would have disqualified an article per BLP1E. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Notability due to sinking: that rather reinforces my point that there is more to notability than death and destruction (though, I hope it's clear I am not advocating getting rid of RMS Titanic!!). I have in mind an article like SS Agamemnon (1865) - but noting that there is no article on the experimental Cleator, the test-bed for (slightly) higher steam pressures at sea. There are also many articles on clipper ships (perhaps too many?) which altered trade and lifestyle substantially (e.g. widespread tea drinking in the UK and a large stepwise reduction in the profitability of British wool (fleece) production when the Australian trade started to supply our mills). ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Merchant ships can also be interesting due to their design (what they are rather than what they did), but generally only to people who are already somehow interested about ships. When it comes to normal people, most probably can't name many ships beyond Titanic (and even that mainly due to the movie) unless they stare at one every day from their office or living room window... Tupsumato (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If you were to follow the same line of thinking, naval ships would become notable only if they took part in action rather than just, well, existed. Yet, we have always maintained that every commissioned naval vessel is notable by default which has resulted in a large number of individual ship articles that will never become longer than a few paragraphs. For example, many of the Flower-class corvettes could be covered in the class article, but yet seemingly non-notable individual ships such as HMS Statice (K281) have their own article. I'm knowingly invoking WP:OTHERSTUFF and don't propose that we should write an article about every merchant ship above 100' or 100 tons because even I agree that most modern cargo ships are run-of-the mill standard designs (which sometimes can be covered with a class article), but from time to time the naval-centrism of this project disappoints me a bit. Of course, I fully understand that this is probably just because the most active editors happen to be interested in naval ships, and for this reason I'm doing my part to cover non-military vessels that I find interesting in such way that someone else could find them interesting as well. There's a story behind every ship project and unfortunately most never get told. While we can't tell any new stories in Wikipedia, at least we can give some publicity to those that have been published elsewhere... Tupsumato (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No need to be prescriptive here, if it’s not broken why fix it. Then of course there’s Gipsy Moth IV; under 100'. I find if a ship does not fulfil its initial promise as an article, in the writing of it, then just switch over to the idea of converting it into an article about the line or even the route. Common sense should prevail surely. Ouch I said it... Broichmore (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a really, really bad example. A little bit of digging and that ship took part in the sinking of the U-boat GS U-678 in British service. It was also broken up in 1961 in Hamburg, which the article doesn't cover. DANFS is a little too chest-thumpy, ra-ra America and tends to ignore any service that wasn't American. As for the Flowers, the vast majority ended up in commercial service. The other problem is that it's easier to claim notability for warships (took part in a battle which technically most of the Flowers did in the Battle of the Atlantic) than it is to claim notability about a tanker or ferry servicing northern ports in Sweden, Canada, Finland, etc. Much like the clipper ships, those ships allow for those communities to exist, bringing in supplies, but unless it ran over a polar bear, it's frigging hard to argue notability for a ship that just goes about its business on a day-to-day basis without incident. Llammakey (talk) 13:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Warships generally have better coverage in the sources than merchant ships and are thus satisfy more of the criteria for notability. Even military-owned or operated freighters and the like become hard to trace once they're sold out of service. And even within the category of merchant shipping, passenger ships are generally better covered than freighters or tankers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Schooner No. 5 Elbe
Has sunk after colliding with a container ship, just after being thoroughly restored. Drawing attention to this in case anyone wishes to write her up: Commons category, German Wikipedia. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Clipper sail plan
Notice on the starboard side of the ships in the Great Tea Race there is a sail hanging over the side of both ships hulls, just skipping the water. Any comments to make on that. Technical description of same? I don't see this described anywhere. This picture by a Chinese artist in Hong Kong in 1868, was presumably commissioned by one of the ship's officers, vouching for its accuracy... Broichmore (talk) 09:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * See watersail, though this only really speaks in terms of yacht racing. I asked on a maritime history list, and received the following:
 * Those are "watersails". I bet they really weren't worth the bother, but might give a psychological advantage. In the sea shown in the painting it looks like there'd be a substantial risk of the watersail catching a wave and making a real mess -- and turning into a brake... 
 * The ship in the foreground is also setting an unusual spritsail, I suppose you'd call it, from a small yard out on the jib boom and the dolphin striker.
 * but another writes:
 * John Harland's "Seamanship in the age of sail" is the best reference. This is a highly fanciful picture, on a par with the well-known Huggins’/Essex sketch with its mass of sails, which was drawn to amuse his children (see Harland, 164).
 * The sail under the bowsprit is a ‘Jemmy Green’ (Harland, 89), but that under the lower stunsail boom is not known - the Watersail is something quite different (see Harland, 163/4).
 * Stunsails were light-weather sails, used for ghosting along, and those on the fore were more useful that those on the main, and weather more than lee. Good explanation in Harland.
 * Davidships (talk) 09:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This painting seems a little suspicious to me. Firstly the inscription, if transcribed correctly, says "Taiping and Ariel. Tea Clippers of 1866. Foochow (Fuzhou) to London 77 days". The actual passage time for the 1866 voyage was 99 days - and anyone knowledgeable about this subject would know that 77 days is fantastically fast. A quick scan of MacGregor > gives the fastest passage from China to London as 89 days, and that was during the North East monsoon, when shorter times could be achieved. Then consider the unusual stunsail that seems to almost touch the water. The account of the race, as told in great detail, especially the final dash up the Channel, by Basil Lubbock gives no mention of any unusual sails. For example, this level of detail includes recording Taeping setting topmast, topgallant and lower stunsails on one side at 6:00 am on 6th September. Lubbock's account does, however, mention both ships having to take in their Jamie Greens, just before 6pm on the 5th, in order to get their anchors over - so the depiction of that sail is correct. It may be that the painting is correct, but one would need supporting information to be sure of that. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It's the transcription that is wrong on the duration. What is written is 99 days (compare the similarly flat-topped "8" in "1866"). Davidships (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point about the transcription now that I see it on a larger screen. Just need to see some corroboration of the strange sail that we do not have a name for. The painting subject is almost certainly 5th September in the English Channel when the ships were first in sight of each other after leaving the China Sea in June. Without the "odd" sail, from the account in Lubbock, the depiction of the ship's rigs appears to be spot on. Whilst rare to see a square rigged ship setting every possible sail, these ships were at the pinnacle of the era of sail's technology - and had the large and skilled crews to handle all those sails (and fix things when they broke them). There is a bit of artistic licence in showing the ships closer to each other than they were, but that's about it. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The picture taken from the book 'The Great Days of Sail' by Shewan, and originally sourced from 'The clipper ship era' by Clark was T. G. Dutton's work -Broichmore (talk) 10:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * All I know of Thomas Goldsworthy Dutton is from the Wikipedia article on him, but I note that he was known for his technical accuracy of marine subjects. The painting certainly looks to depict a precise moment in the race when all the flying kites had been taken in due to the strength of the wind (and look at the sea state). Looking at the other pictures now in this section, the watercolour by S G Fawkes looks like a copy of the painting that gave rise to this discussion. Hence it cannot be copied from Jack Spurling (due to the dates). Having commented on the sea state in the Dutton picture, it is worth pointing out that the first painting also has evidence of quite a breeze blowing, which would be inappropriate for all that sail. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * To complete the set, I've added the engraving from the Illustrated London News (not London Illustrated News, a common error) of 22 Sep 1866, which would seem to be the most likely source for the Chinese artist. The engraver seems to be "CW" or similar, but I have not been able to identify him. Davidships (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the artist was Harrison Weir See for comparison en:File:The_Wren%27s_Nest_-_Harrison_William_Weir_-_1881.jpg, guessing its from A. N. Others sketchbook, but that's not any help to us. Broichmore (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that looks good, Briochmore - the "W" is typical, and his flourishes seem to vary from engraving to engraving
 * And for our sailing/historical experts: Are you satisfied that all the images show Taeping in the foreground, regardless of which tack they are on? The L>R passage presumably means that they are imagined from viewpoint(s) to seaward as they pass up the channel (several claim to be of the ships off Lizard). Not a sketch from life, I think, only done from details given after arrival in London. Davidships (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ref the ILN picture, I checked with the website owner of Harrison Weir] unfortunately he tells me that the artist is not him so the artist is still unknown. The caption in the Dutton picture confirms his scene is at the Lizard. Broichmore (talk) 08:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The OP mentioned accuracy. IMHO only Dutton's picture makes sense, with regard to the direction in which the ships are heeling, the set of the sails, and the deduced direction of the wind. In the other(s), the forward sails agree with the direction of heel, but the square sails want the wind coming from the other side of the ships. My 2p. Nortonius (talk) 10:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think Nortonius has hit the nail on the head with this comment - these reasons for my disquiet with the picture had eluded me, but on being pointed out, seem inescapably obvious.
 * It is worth adding that the Dutton picture fits well with the detailed narrative of the race as told to Lubbock and recorded in Ariel's logbook.
 * On the question by Davidships, the Dutton picture is after the Jamie Greens were taken in, which was done when the ships were off Portland. The other painting may well be off the Lizard, the lights of which were visible abeam at 8 am on the 5th September. The wind over the last phases of the race was a fresh westerly or south westerly - so there would be no need to tack. On the distance between the ships, Ariel was always in the lead (whilst under sail) but Taeping crept closer every time the wind eased a little. It is highly likely that there were no sketches of these ships at sea - they were the fastest things around at the time, so anyone with a sketch book would need to work very fast! ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Can anyone positively date this picture to a month in 1866? Broichmore (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Must be September, the month in which the two ships arrived in the English Channel, not having seen each other since leaving the China Sea. Whether they are off Lizard or Portland or somewhere else would determine the actual date(s).  My suspicion is that all the representations have a common origin, created from imagination after the ships arrived and so could be based on first hand testimony (as I mentioned above the L>R presentation precludes a directly observed representation and the apparent closeness is fictitious).  I think that some copyist preferred to reverse the sail plan to make a more dramatic image [just an opinion]. Davidships (talk) 19:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry I meant the numbered picture (the last one) in Foochow which I think may be before the race started? Broichmore (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The numbered picture is labelled as being 1866. This fits with Lubbock's listing of the ships waiting in the Pagoda anchorage, but not with the position of Ariel, of which he states "The beautiful Ariel lay below the rest of the fleet, close to the Pagoda Rock." If I understand the labelling correctly, Ariel is in the middle of all the other ships, which appears inconsistent. I understand Lubbock's source to be Captain Keay's private journal, which is now in the National Maritime Museum. These ships gathered at the beginning of May 1866 and the first to start loading was Ariel on the 24th May. Looking at the picture, the ships seem to be loaded to different levels, with Fiery Cross being lowest in the water (but not close to fully loaded). Perhaps this shows the ships as they take on ballast, with Fiery Cross being ahead in that process. (I note that Ariel sailed with 340 tons of ballast that year - a mixture of iron kentledge and shingle - though I cannot give an opinion on how close to the her marks any of these ships would be once fully ballasted). Alternatively, does the labelling on the photo say "lacking Ariel" - which would explain all the above and we might be seeing Fiery Cross partly loaded (she was ready to sail 12 hours after Ariel)? In that case, the photo is dated 28th May 1866 or a day or two earlier. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Back to the original question about the odd sail - I notice that MacGregor discusses sails (p 147) in a caption of a picture of Taeping. The caption is to the part of the Dutton picture of both ships (on this post) but cropped only to show Taeping. The caption says "One of Dutton's mot impressive lithographs of a clipper under full sail pictures Taeping racing up-Channel in 1866. The Illustrated London News pictured her with these same sails and in addition a Jamie Green, watersail, and jib topsail." MacGregor also discusses flying kites (p157) in his coverage of Ariel - again referring the to the ILN picture: "...all those pictured by the Illustrated London News were regularly set at different times...."

From this I infer that: The odd sail is called a "watersail" by MacGregor, who I take to be a leading authority on tea clippers. Hence this is a valid name for this sail. MacGregor avoids commenting (on p 147) on whether or not the extra sails in the ILN picture would actually have been set, and the page 157 comment ("regularly set at different times...") leads me to think that he feels the picture is somewhat fanciful. I add to this absence of any comment in Captain Keay's journal of (what we now may call) a watersail. So I conclude that we can only use the Dutton picture as a good representation of what these ships actually looked like as they raced up the channel. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The numbered picture: the caption that someone has added states that number 4 is Ariel. However, Ariel has upper and lower topsails,(MacGregor, p 156) whilst the ship numbered 4 does not. I suggest that she might be Taeping, which had single topsails. So this suggests that the second interpretation that I gave (above) is correct and we see Fiery Cross partly loaded on or just before 28th May 1866. The ship labelled 3 is not Taeping (as per the added caption) as this ship has double topsails. The identification of Fiery Cross as (2) seems correct, due to her distinctive single topsail on the foremast and double on the main in 1866-68.(MacGregor, p 123) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The descriptive sequence given by Sam Jefferson on page 128 of his book 'Clipper Ships and the Golden Age of Sail: Races and Rivalries on the' ...: is as follows: The Pagoda Anchorage, Foochow, in 1866. The Tea Clippers lined up awaiting their cargo. Pictured left to right: The 'Black Prince', 'Fiery Cross', the 'Taitsing', the 'Taeping', and the 'Flying Spur'. See https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gH3uAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA228&lpg According to him the 'Taitsing' is number 3. Do you agree with that interpretation? Broichmore (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Taitsing sounds convincing as number 3, but it is difficult to be sure as much of the hull is obscured. The rig does match MacGregor's description: deep upper topsails on fore and main and a single mizzen topsail. With the ship apparently partly loaded, this would fit with the order in which the front runners were loaded - refer to the image of Flying Spur, sitting high in the water. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The Navy List
In our references, there is a lot of citations with The Navy List in them. Is The Navy List the same as Navy List? Or would that be an unacceptable redirect? &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The current Navy List link is to a general article on Navy Lists as a whole - lots of Navies will have them - the British Navy List which is meant by most of these links is only one example of a Navy List - here are pre-World War I German lists. In conclusion - no -it wouldn't be a suitable link to the actual publication (whether it counts as a journal or something else is another matter).Nigel Ish (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Move material from Windjammer to Sailing ship?
I invite editors to participate in discussions at Talk:Windjammer and Talk:Sailing ship about whether to move the substance of Windjammer to Sailing ship. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I suggest an alternate solution to rename Windjammer to Iron sailing ship. Please comment at: Talk:Windjammer. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The Windjammer article can now be found at Iron-hulled sailing ship regrettably the article is still stained with reference to the colloquialism "Windjammer'' on five occasions. I assume after deleting those words he will get rid of the category "Windjammers". Broichmore (talk) 16:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I recommend that Category:Windjammers remain. It contains a variety of ships that can be termed "windjammer", including those described in Iron-hulled sailing ship. Currently, "Iron-hulled sailing ship" is the only general type of ship, among the entries listed; the others are specific vessels. One could remove the "Windjammer" category from "Iron-hulled sailing ship" (I don't recommend) or add the category to such articles as Barque and Full-rigged ship (I do recommend). I see that Category:Sailing ships has the various kinds of sailing ships. Accordingly, I'll delete Category:Windjammers from "Iron-hulled sailing ship" and add Category:Sailing ships to it. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Clearly sarcasm is lost on you. Why even have an article at all about Iron-hulled sailing ship (incorrectly titled in the singular rather than the plural) when it could just be a descriptive paragraph about hulls in Sailing Ships Ah, but then it would require a new article about Iron-hulled bulk carrier sailing ships. aka Windjammers. I find this all silly, since all you have achieved here is demoting the word Windjammer to being a redirect. Broichmore (talk) 12:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand sarcasm perfectly well. I don't regard it as consistent with Civility or a good method for persuading those with whom you disagree. HopsonRoad (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Uncivil! So is not listening, to anything that doesn't suit you, and carrying on in your own merry way. You honestly don't see the absurdity in article Sailing ship where you list and describe windjammer: as a large sailing ship with an iron or for the most part steel hull, built to carry cargo in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.
 * Right there you use the word windjammer to link to Iron-hulled sailing ship when your actually talking about Iron, Wide Hulled Bulk Carrier sailing ships commonly known as windjammers. Is that because you know, the public knows, what a Windjammer is, but has little immediate interest in Iron hulled ships. This Iron Hulled Sailing Ship article is a title nobody is going to search for, it's critically dependent on windjammer as a redirect. The original article was somewhat correct in comparison. Example (title): Windjammer: (description) really in fact an Iron, Wide Hulled Bulk Carrier sailing ship. Which in essence is your argument.
 * Nautical terms are riddled with inconsistency, to quote you: Even the definition of "ship" is a murky one. We should just accept it as part of life. Broichmore (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

There's a difference between not listening and not agreeing. I certainly agree that "windjammer" is a word that has meaning, one of which I used at the location in Sailing ship that you describe as a placeholder, pending a rewrite of that article. Unfortunately, its meaning is too broad to be the basis for an article, in my opinion. However, it should be consensus that decides. So, I appreciate your carrying on the conversation at Talk:Sailing ship, Broichmore. I invite other editors to participate and help provide a resolution through consensus at Talk:Iron-hulled sailing ship Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you HopsonRoad. I'm not sure if it is too broad. These ships have had their time, they are bulk carriers with sails, a thing never to go in mass production again, barring the holocaust.


 * Two points to note, and I've repeated this (here) at the Ships Talk page from the other place, because it may contain some statistics information of interest to others.


 * The first is that windjammer is in the Oxford English Dictionary. Here is it's entry. Whats to glean out of this, is that there's an acceptance of the word by the general public, even though it's ill defined; and that it's no longer contemptuous since 1899, if it ever it was for any long period. windjammer makes a better job of it, thanks to HopsonRoad.


 * The second thing is an interesting stat to look at, the pageview statistics for the article itself. |Windjammers|Windjammer|Sailing_ship Here. Incidentally when an articles name is moved, everything moves with it except its historical record of pageviews, the article starts again from zero. What the stat tells us is that the numbers of readers searching for Windjammer as a term is still the most popular specific search, even though it is now a redirect. Also its search trend has dropped about 40 percent, since the name change; this is because readers previously clicked on the word windjammer in other articles and as a result came indirectly, but still left a score for it as a search term. The bulk of these clicks came from the sailing ship article, you can see that from the Sailing ship trend which vaguely mirrors the articles trend through time. Now of course they click on [ [ Iron-hulled sailing ship|windjammer ] ] thus giving the page view score to Iron-hull.


 * Lastly the stat tells us that in the last 3 1/2 years 256,000 readers have visited, and on average two editors have made a change every day during that time without complaint. As have all the visitors and editors since 2005 except one. The stats are remarkable considering this article is Start class.


 * The project is ruthless when it come to naming conventions, that's why Perth Scotland is not Perth but the larger city (more popular on the web) in Western Australia. Therefore the more popular term wins.


 * In summary, the public's perception is the Wikitionary definition, possibly even one mast more; and the popular vote for the articles name has to be Windjammer Broichmore (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Template talk:Surviving ocean going ships
Hello, I have started a discussion here regarding this template as it's becoming too large to properly navigate. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please can we have some more input? I've made a suggestion on how to rearrange the template. Mjroots (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Ship name - year of launch or year of completion
Hi, I have recently become aware of an editor who moved page SS Whangape (1899) to SS Whangape (1900) for the following reason. "The year associated a ship was determined, according to Lloyd's Register, by the completion date not launch date". I believe this conflicts with the ships naming convention. Can someone please advise? Regards Newm30 (talk) 02:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It does. We don't care about how Lloyd's does things, we use launch date because warships, especially French and Russian ones, have much more complicated ways to judge completed than do civilian ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, though in this case, it's moot, since there was no other SS Whangape (which is where I've moved the article, since disambiguators are not used preemptively per WP:NCSHIPS). Parsecboy (talk) 11:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Civilian vs Military in WPSHIPS class and prefix templates
Moved here from Template talk:WPSHIPS class and prefix templates on 's advice.

"I note that under International navy ship prefixes most of the prefixes refer to military vessels. For the UK there is listed HMS, HMT, RMS and RFA. HMS is the standard for the Royal Navy, HMT refers to trawlers pressed into military service and under the command of the RN, RFA are civilian supply ships owned by and operated on behalf of the RN.  RMS however refers to civilian ships operating under a contract to the government to carry mails as part of their other duties.  Should civilian ships be in this list?" Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In a word, no. RMS is a civilian ship prefix. HMT can mean HM Trawler, or HM Tanker, but the latter is uncommon. Mjroots (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * HM Transport (troopship)? I have seen that used, but unsure if that is offical.  HMHS is official and should be added.  Kablammo (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "HMT" has been used officially for troop transports: . Kablammo (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * But Wikipedia claims trawlers were called "HMT" see here.Crook1 (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't normally dive into a discussion like this, but: there is no reason that prefixes have to be well thought out or exclusive for them to be the official usage. In my understanding, HMS can refer to a ship or a submarine - I presume you are meant to know which. Similarly, HMT definitely can refer to a transport or to a trawler, and both were used at about the same time. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And you can add stone frigates as in HMS Gosport. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * couple of thoughts to add. 1) HM Tug ? 2) those are National, not international, prefixes.GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

SY and S/Y
Another oddity (more of a dog's breakfast) in the template table: SY or S/Y = Sailing vessels = SY Raven (1889) or S/Y Raven (1889). Well, I had always understood SY as "steam yacht", so this caught my eye. It seems that this might be an EngVar as "S/Y" redirects to Sailing yacht, but which notes it as American usage; on the other hand "SY" redirects to Sy (disambiguation), which doesn't mention anything maritime at all. I see that in Ship prefix we have SY=sailing yacht or steam yacht.

If the reference to sailing vessel is accepted, the example chosen makes no sense since SY Raven has never been one. Indeed, apart from a couple of days in 1912, she is not noted as being a yacht in the normal meaning (despite the present owners deciding to call her a motor yacht). I haven't looked for references yet, but what do others make of this?

And to cap all that, just look where Sailing Vessel, Sailing vessel and Sailing vessel (disambiguation) redirect to! The last one seems perverse for a dab. Davidships (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion
There is a discussion at Talk:Clipper_(disambiguation) which may affect one of the subjects of this project. Kablammo (talk) 02:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Mr. Steven
Could someone more knowledgeable about ship articles on Wikipedia take a look at and review the article Mr. Steven.

It was mostly assembled by spaceflight-knowledgeable editors, so I do not believe it has all the ordinary ship article bits. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up the infobox, but the main thing that it needs is a paragraph or two worth of description.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The tonnage field still needs revising; can't do it over phone. Tupsumato (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * A search for the name here should provide more information. Kablammo (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Ship name dab
Copied from User talk:Mjroots.

"Hi, You recently moved MS Amera (2019) to MS Amera (1988), being the year of launch citing WP:NCS. In the past I've been told it shoud be the reverse which a reading of the following passage from WP:SHIPDAB woud seem to be correct:

In instances where a ship was captured or otherwise acquired by a navy or shipping company, or simply renamed, and the article is placed at that title, use the date that is in agreement with the name and prefix (such as the date of capture or entry to the navy or fleet, or the date of the renaming) rather than the date of launch.

The confusion arises when people insist on changing the title of articles every time a cruise ship gets renamed, which can happen quite often! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * SHIPDAB seems to be out of line with established practice. The one thing that does not change is the year a vessel was launched, no matter how many times it changes name. What SHIPDAB says is correct insofar as it applies to naval vessels captured and put into service with the capturing navy. Am happy to further discuss this at WT:SHIPS where more editors can join the discussion (this thread can be copied over). Mjroots (talk) 10:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure how you move the discussion, could you do that? It would be useful to get a concensus that could be added to WP:NCS to clarify what is an increasingly common occurence. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)"

It would seem that there is a variance between guidance give and established practice. As I said above and in previous discussions, established practice is that the year of launch is the primary method of disambiguation for merchant ships. Can we agree that the guidelines are amended to indicate this please? Mjroots (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I generally only work on warships, so my experience is somewhat limited, but I'd read the guidelines to favor the 2019 dab in this case. But in this case, since there are no other MS Ameras, why are we talking about dabs in the first place? Parsecboy (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I support amending the guidelines according to established practice. Tupsumato (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support amending guidelines to established practice. Llammakey (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

MV Gardyloo
MV Gardyloo arrived from Afc. Scottish night soil ship.  scope_creep Talk  12:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

List of clipper ships
How do editors at this project (and beyond) want this article to be? I have been taking the entries (which are mostly un-sourced) and placing then into a table for easier viewing. An editor has so far objected to this change, so I am taking it here for further discussion.


 * My rationale: Most of the entries on the list are un-sourced and full of WP:WEASEL and WP:PUFFERY wording. If they are meant to summarize the articles then this info could just as easily go into a table under a "short summary' column. Tables also provide sorting options so that readers can find exactly what they are looking for faster, it provides a clean look. Finally, I have not seen a single "FL" class article (Category:FL-Class List articles) that has the original structure that is being maintained as it reads like a wall of text. Feel free to share your opinions below... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for agreeing to open this discussion here, Knowledgekid87. I'm the editor who objected, and here's why. Moving the entries into a table loses most of the information now present. I believe that one or two sentences highlighting something about the ship acts as a teaser which might spur someone who reads the list to hop to an individual ship's article. The bare-bones table isn't that inviting. Yes, some of the ships' text is too long but that could be addressed by judicious editing of the entry. Due to page width restrictions, even a "short summary" would wrap at least once and make the table's lines bigger than they already are. The lack of citations is a red herring - the individual articles tend to have multiple sources, and it would be overkill to include them in the list. Disclosure: I wrote the article Bald Eagle (clipper) and added its (now tabulated) entry to the list. It used to read "Bald Eagle, 1852. Built by Donald McKay; set the record of 78 days 22 hours for a fully laden ship from San Francisco to New York." Craigthebirder (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Adjusting table rows and columns isn't an issue, and the table does not need to stretch the whole page. Lists need to be referenced just as articles do as anyone can challenge the text and have it removed. Here is a line per WP:RS:
 * "The policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception, and in particular to biographies of living persons...."
 * So I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you there, in addition comes notability issues is well. Many of the entries with no articles have no sources and are thus considered original research. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The new Short Summary column removes my only real concern, and it looks better than I expected. My one remaining suggestion would be to present the tables alphabetically rather than by launch year - I know they can be sorted but I think most readers would want it alphabetically from the start. Thank you. Craigthebirder (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I am trying my best to please everyone, its not easy work and my efforts are in good faith. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

New discussion open
I have opened up a new discussion here: Talk:List of clipper ships regarding issues with the list, and clipper articles in general. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Last of the clipper ships
According to this source:, the last two clippers were launched in 1891. If reliable sources are calling these ships "clippers" by this time, shouldn't we follow the WP:RS? I don't want to go into WP:SYNTH on why these ships wouldn't be clippers, I just want to gain some feedback on inclusion based on the WP:RS. Is there anything out there that says these aren't clippers? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Whereto
Moin. This might not be the proper place, but being too unfamiliar with en:wp to know exactly where to go to, I would like to mention that I just took the liberty of creating this little piece of article, which as of now at least is ship related. Any suggestion where to take it requesting a look-over? Regards, --G-41614 (talk) 11:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Just curious

 * The SS Otsego was launched as a passenger-cargo steamer the SS Prinz Eitel Friedrich in 1901. In 1917 the USSB renamed the ship the SS Otsego. The SS Prinz Eitel Friedrich (1904)]SS Prinz Eitel Friedrich was launched in 1904 as a passenger liner and in 1917 renamed the "USS DeKalb".
 * It seemed strange that two ships would bear the same name for what looks to be 13 years. I saw several references where the second ship was referred to as the "SMS Prinz Eitel Friedrich" which would make sense. Does anyone have any info on this? Otr500 (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Two ships with the same name is not at all unusual, just look at ship registers. It would be unusual for the same operating line to have two ships operating at the same time under the same name, but I know of a few case where two ships of the same name operated in the same ocean and even under the same flag. A case in point? See the footnote in SS Japara (1930). The 1930 ship was "stuck" in SWPA while the big new MS Japara roamed the Pacific and sometimes entered the oparea of the little, old Japara. Here is a sometimes confusing example of another case, from WW II, as described in Roland Charles' Troopships of World War II. On page 32 there is the George Washington, that operated as USAT George Washington. Then on page 191 there is George Washington,  operated by the War Shipping Administration and introduced as "The 'little' George Washington" running on coastal and Caribbean service while the biggie transported troops in large batches. That can complicate the answer to someone with "my granddad" was on the George Washington in World War II" questions. 71.178.17.34 (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The "SMS" bit is the Imperial German Navy's prefix, and the ship carried it while she operated as an auxiliary cruiser during World War I.
 * As the IP said, it's not at all uncommon for multiple ships to have the same name (though typically not of the same navy or commercial operator at the same time - they were usually careful to rename older vessels to avoid confusion, but as the Japara case demonstrates, even this was not always the case). Parsecboy (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The French submarine Minerve (S647) has been found
The sub went missing a half century ago and its wreck has recently been located. The article could do with some expansion. It is also being discussed at WP:ITNC as a possible news item for the main page. Interested editors are encouraged to jump in. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Italicising titles
I have been trying to italicise the title of KM Pekan, KM Arau, and KM Marlin. As far as I can see, the "infobox ship begin" template should have automatially italicised it. Indeed, when I put in a it produces an error message: Warning: Display title "KM Pekan" overrides earlier display title "KM Pekan "" What gives? Shuipzv3 (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't need to do this. As noted, the infobox ought to "just do it". But if you have something especially weird, infobox ship begin allows none See &sect;Title styling.
 * It may also be working fine already, as you don't see the full effects of   in a preview; you have to actually save the page. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that you don't see the full effects of  in a preview is a correct statement.  While writing my response to OP, I added my example for #2 to the appropriate article and clicked Show preview; the article title was properly formatted.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


 * doesn't know about every possible ship prefix. When I wrote the code that does italic title I used a list of articles that transcluded  as the source from for the list of supported ship prefixes.  That work was mostly done in September 2015.  The articles mentioned here were created in July 2018.  The creating editor apparently did not know about proper ship-name format or did not care.
 * When the article title does not render properly, there are a couple of remedies:
 * add the prefix to Module:WPSHIPS utilities at  – preferred but requires template editor rights
 * add &lt;article title with markup> to the article's – for these examples: KM Pekan etc
 * I have done #1 above. Articles may need a null edit.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I purged one of the pages and the result was the same, and that was when I was at my wit's end and came here. The issue appears to be resolved now. Thank you to you both. Shuipzv3 (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I purged one of the pages and the result was the same, and that was when I was at my wit's end and came here. The issue appears to be resolved now. Thank you to you both. Shuipzv3 (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The clipper ship Baltimore
Any ideas on the build date for this clipper the Baltimore. The ticket is for a sailing in 1853, from New York to Melbourne. Could the photograph be the same ship? The ship photograph is from an Australian Library collection, but it doesn't follow that the image was taken there. Broichmore (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Judging by the flag, the Baltimore in the photo appears to be a German or Dutch vessel. Not necessarily the same vessel as that the ticket was valid for. Mjroots (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Created an SIA, probably needs to be modified
I’ve never made a ships SIA, so could someone from this project add what’s needed to PS Solent? I was clueless about the descriptions (obviously), and unsure of categories. Much appreciated! — Gorthian (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have tweaked it as "PS" is not part of the actual names of the ships. However, my inclination is that this should be moved to List of ships named Solent or similar.  Apart from the two RN vessels, there are a number of others which could well sustain articles, particularly the two passenger liners of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company.  PS Solent could remain as a regular dab. Davidships (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What do others think? Davidships (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That makes sense to me, and follows an established pattern (i.e., List of ships named Nautilus, which keeps HMS Nautilus, SMS Nautilus, and USS Nautilus as sub-indices). Parsecboy (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Vasa (ship), FA deteriorating
Vasa (ship) is an FA but it is deteriorating. People with the know-how are encouraged to improve it. I was hoping to include it at WP:OTD for August 10 but there are too many citations needed. --- Coffee  and crumbs  03:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

FAC reviews needed
The nomination for HMS Bulwark is in danger of being archived if it doesn't get two more content reviews soon. Source and image reviews have already been done. I'd be grateful if editors with a little spare time on their hands could assist. Willing to exchange reviews!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to participate
G'day all, in September Milhist is running a backlog drive, Backlog Banzai. You would all be very welcome to participate, you can sign up here. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

uboat.net
I have raised a question at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding uboat.net as a source, see Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hull lines descriptive terms
There seems to be a complete absence of common marine architectural terms in Wikipedia. By this I mean the words used to describe the lines of a vessel, as well as some of the basic structural words. Whilst I feel I have some grasp of the subject, I do not have sources on which to base an article. I suggest that we need an article titled Terms in naval architecture. This would cover (and the following list is nothing like complete - extra terms worthy of definition are welcome):
 * Lines - as in ship's lines, denoting the shape of the hull. Waterline rather misses the opportunity on this one.
 * Bilge - explaining what is meant by slack bilges/firm bilges. Bilge does not cover this aspect.
 * Deadrise - an essential term in describing how flat bottomed a vessel is. Wikipedia entirely silent on this word.
 * Garboard - you can find someone describing the lines of a ship as "having hollow garboards". The redirect from Garboard, whilst giving a definition of this part of a hull, says no more than that, leaving the reader completely in the dark on descriptive usage of the word.
 * Deadwood - Deadwood (shipbuilding) is the shortest article I have ever found on Wikipedia, and I would argue is misleading by its brevity.
 * Floors - both an understanding of the term in the construction of a wooden hull and also the shapes conveyed by terms like "flat floors", "straight floors".

I note that we have articles for Gunwale (seems OK to me) and Wale, which does not cover the original constructional purpose very well.

Can anyone suggest sources from which to compose an article or have a go at putting an article together? Or is there an alternative strategy for covering this subject? I guess the challenge would be to cover both modern commercial ship technology, through yacht and small craft construction, to older wooden boats/ships and the history of naval architecture.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * You will find some at Hull (watercraft) and the linked Glossary of nautical terms. Kablammo (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The fact that I could not find Glossary of nautical terms suggests to me that a bit of work needs to be done on making this easier to find. The very short articles on some items (e.g. Deadwood (shipbuilding)) could probably be done away with and redirect to the right part of the glossary. Someone still needs to find a good source to explain things like the "entry" and "run", "slack bilges", etc. - I see these used often enough in some sources I have, but do not have a good RS definition of what they all mean. I think I understand them, but it would be nice to be sure.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * For older works see archive.org where there is a considerable repository of such references. For example, A Manual of Naval Architecture (Royal Navy1882), Ship-Building in Iron and Wood, A Manual of Naval Architecture and many more. A search on "naval architecture" site:.archive.org gives an indication of sources just at that repository. 71.178.17.34 (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A Naval Encyclopædia: comprising a dictionary of nautical words and phrases; biographical notices, and records of naval officers; special articles of naval art and science is an example of a source for terms. Many, if not most, of our modern terminology for basics goes far back so old references can apply even now. 71.178.17.34 (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Have a look at commons:Category:Ship_parts for some ideas, if not illustrations. It would be nice to see some commonality for once between the projects. If you think anything needs changing or omissions rectified at commons I would be glad to do it for you. Broichmore (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'm mulling over a few sources now, but am still having difficulty sourcing a good lines plan that shows a sheer plan, body plan and half-breadth plan. To give a complete explanation we need to see diagonals, frame lines, buttock lines and waterlines, together with a base and centre line. An example for a modern merchant vessel is not much use as it is rather an uninteresting shape to convey. I am thinking there must be some maritime museum out there with free content that can be put on commons. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There are bits and pieces on commons, but you'll need to search them out. The categorisation and filing on the subject is haphazard. See commons:Category:Boat schemas, commons:Category:Lines plan or commons:Category:Cross sections of ships just as examples with their various off shoots. Might have to use deepcat to get an overview. Point me at a set of images (in the wild) and I'll see what I can do. Broichmore (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The attached picture of Hercules (1907)(and the associated ones that you find on commons) look useful to me. Strangely, I was considering as a possible candidate the plans of Balclutha (1886) (in the Library of Congress - I would give a link but their site appears to be down right now), both vessels are in the same maritime museum. Hercules is better as it is less complicated. I might find it difficult to devote adequate time to this in the immediate near future, but will be back to it (too many competing activities, both in and out of Wikipedia). Thanks for your help.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * All the LOC Balclutha plans maybe here already. See Commons:Category:Technical drawings of the Balclutha (ship, 1886). If elsewhere there is better quality or others, we can upload. See one of them here, We have a tiff version, and of course you can alter any file to suit your purposes. Broichmore (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

IMO number conflicts
Back in 2015, this WikiProject asked for a bot to create redirects for all IMO numbers, which was implemented as Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 73. I noticed today that the Category:IMO Number the bot had been using was moved to Category:IMO numbers last year, and while I was fixing that I noticed that the bot was logging that there are some cases where multiple articles claim to be for the same ship. For example, MS Jupiter and MS Svea Corona both claim to be IMO 7360186 (the latter article seems to be IMO 7360174 instead), and Italian training ship Italia and Swan fan Makkum both claim IMO 8872825 (looks like two articles about the same ship). I thought you might find a list of such conflicts useful, so I updated the bot to create one at User:AnomieBOT/IMO number conflicts as it does its daily run looking for redirects to create/update. Anomie⚔ 00:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a really useful little bot. At a glance, many of them are pairs of very short articles which could well be merged uncontroversially.  I've corrected MS Svea Corona noted above, and had a go at one merger (Brazilian research ship Barão de Teffé and Thala Dan).  If I haven't done that right, please let me know on my talk page. Davidships (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have personally never understood the need of creating two separate articles for the same ship (reflecting different parts of the ship's career) if the individual articles end up being very short. I'm all in for merging e.g. Mutsu (nuclear ship) and RV Mirai. Tupsumato (talk) 08:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ...not to mention a number of other articles that seem to have been created by mistake. I might work on this later today. In the meanwhile, I fixed a few "clean" IMO number conflicts. Tupsumato (talk) 08:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe asking the impossible, but is there a way of checking whether or not the IMO numbers we have, are in the first place, correct? Broichmore (talk) 08:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are just talking about those flagged up by the bot, no problem. For the current log:
 * IMO 6709804: USNS Mission San Jose, USS Tomahawk (AO-88). Complicated!  These two ships, as well as USNS Mission San Diego (and others?), were chopped up and reassembled to become container/roro/rail/cargo ships and it was, I think only at that point that each vessel got unique LR 7-digit numbers (later considered IMO numbers).  In these cases, going forward, the IMO number 'sticks' with the section containing the engine-room as, whatever happens, each ship only has one of those.  That said, the three articles actually have the right numbers in the text, just the infoboxes wrong on two of the three. Now corrected.
 * IMO 7318901: John J. Boland (1973 ship), MV John J. Boland. Duplicate articles - same ship, same name, right IMO. merge essential
 * IMO 7360198: MS Arberia, MV AMET Majesty. Same ship, diff name, right IMO. Merge to MS Arberia
 * IMO 7920003: BNS Dhaleshwari, HMS Leeds Castle (P258). Same ship, diff name, right IMO. Merge - based on content, to BNS Dhaleshwari
 * IMO 7920015: BNS Bijoy, HMS Dumbarton Castle (P265). Same ship, diff name, right IMO. Merge - based on content, to BNS Bijoy
 * IMO 8835114: NOAAS Okeanos Explorer, USNS Capable (T-AGOS-16). Same ship, diff name, right IMO. Merge to NOAAS Okeanos Explorer already tagged
 * IMO 8835308: MV Governor, MV Kulshan. Same ship, diff name, right IMO. Merge - the over-wordy mostly-unreferenced MV Kulshan needs a major edit
 * IMO 8872825: Italian training ship Italia, Swan fan Makkum. Same ship, diff name, right IMO. Merge - note MarineTraffic link doesn't work as IMO not in their database - confirmed from Equasis
 * IMO 9079456: Brazilian amphibious assault ship Atlântico, HMS Ocean (L12). Same ship, diff name, right IMO. Possible merge
 * IMO 9107277: FS Eger, Marjata. Same ship, same navy, diff name, right IMO. Merge, already tagged
 * Four more to look at later. Davidships (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * IMO 9280897: HSC T&T Spirit, USAV Spearhead (TSV-1X). Same ship, diff name, right IMO. Possible merge - tagged but one contrary view
 * IMO 9675470: RV MTA Oruç Reis, RV MTA Turkuaz. Same ship, different name, right IMO. Never in service as MTA Turkuaz, and after 4½ months service name modified to Oruç Reis. Merge essential, perhaps to current name as already 2 years in service as such
 * IMO 9692571: Novorossiysk (icebreaker), Project 21900 icebreaker. One is specific ship, other ship-class with table of vessels, IMO correct. Seems OK (same applies to other four vessels of class)
 * IMO 9804033: Arctech Helsinki Shipyard, MT Yuriy Kuchiev. One is specific ship, other shipbuilder article with table of vessels, IMO correct. Seems OK (same applies to several other vessels); and there is also List of ships built at Hietalahti shipyard (401 onwards) though the IMO numbers on that table are not linked
 * Davidships (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I requested the "pure IMO number" linking feature to the IMO number template some time ago for ship list use. Perhaps the bot could be modified to look only to infobox ship begin for the IMO number conflicts? Tupsumato (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The bot doesn't look at the article itself at all. It looks at the sortkeys used in Category:IMO numbers, where each article's sortkey is the IMO number. Where multiple articles use the same number, the bot picks one at random if the IMO number redirect doesn't exist but does not change an existing redirect's target if the current target is also in the category using the number. It also won't overwrite a non-redirect. So if you wanted to you could make the IMO number page itself into a disambiguation page, or redirect it to a dab page and make sure the dab is in Category:IMO numbers. Anomie⚔ 21:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Different question. As there is a range of clearly legitimate reasons for an individual IMO number appearing in more than one article in WP, how should the IMO number be linked? At present it just links to one of those destinations. Davidships (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Could we have something similar as those pages where coordinates link to - a collection of resources to which the IMO number can point? This way we wouldn't favor any service and could provide links to other resources than just AIS (shipspotting.com, for example). Much of this could be generated by a bot by crawling through the template as the url formats should be fairly standard. Tupsumato (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Tendentious editing on the USS Arizona article
User has been engaging in an edit war with me over the proper style of rendering the turret numbers of the ship. I used Roman numerals because that's what the damage reports by the US Navy used, but Lanemiker asserts that the navy used Arabic numerals without providing any evidence. This isn't our first interaction as we had a long edit war over the categorization of the Nakajima B5N torpedo bomber in the article that only ended when another editor intervened. I believe Lanemiker has chosen this turret numbering issue out of a desire to declare some sort of victory over me, rather than any factual basis, and he seems to have fixated on the article as his method of choice. I'd like an admin to look into this admittedly trivial issue and issue the appropriate warnings.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Warned, next step banhammer. Mjroots (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * He just reverted to his preferred text, so bring on the hammer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And again.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Gave him a final warning, though I don't know how much good it'll do. Parsecboy (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Me neither, but we can only wait and see.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate template(s)
Hi! I have found the following duplicate, which is within the scope of this project:
 * Template:Furor-class destroyer
 * Template:Furor class destroyer

I am not sure what the standard procedure is for such cases, perhaps an experienced editor could have a look. UnaToFiAN-1 (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC) Found

Update
 * Template:D'Assas class cruiser, Template:D'Assas-class cruiser
 * Template:Descartes class cruiser, Template:Descartes-class cruiser

Found two more pairs. -- UnaToFiAN-1 (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata:Project chat
A discussion on "Wikidata:Project chat" about the Wikidata Infobox as seen at Commons ship categories. see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Ships Broichmore (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)