Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 61

Ship index page
I recently created List of ships named Galatea and since I'm not in the habit of creating such pages, would appreciate it if somebody more familiar with index pages would look it over to ensure that I got the format correct. Thank you, Gatoclass (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep. I tagged it with the proper project tags. Llammakey (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. One of the things I wanted to ask was whether ship index pages should only have links to the ships, like a disambiguation page, or whether additional links are acceptable. In the event, I decided to remove all the other links, as IMO there was a fair bit of overlinking anyhow. I've also trimmed some of the entries; it's not always easy trying to decide how much information a page of this type should present, but I came down on the side of "less is more" for the time being. Gatoclass (talk) 10:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nicely done list. I think that more obscure terms used with red-linked ships should be linked, just stone frigate at present
 * My preference is to tell first why a vessel is in the list. For the Spanish training ship something more like this might be better (if that article ever gets a section on Galatea, then it could be piped directly there instead):
 * "Galatea was a Spanish Navy training ship and intended museum between 1922 and 1993, converted from the 1896 barque Glenlee, and now a museum ship at Glasgow."
 * Similarly with the Danish one.Davidships (talk) 13:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Afterthought. I would have the "Other" section in chronological order of build, like the naval sections. Davidships (talk) 13:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I placed all the links first because that's how it's done on a disambiguation page. IMO these ship index pages are basically just disambiguation pages anyway, so I think it's best to follow the same format, ie, a single link at the start and everything else unlinked. The problem is that if one does otherwise, then there is no real standard for what should and should not be included, or what the format should be, so that one ends up with a multitude of often messy formats as everybody just follows their own personal preference. Gatoclass (talk) 15:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And I see that somebody is already linking a bunch of stuff that doesn't need to be linked, as well as pipe-linking entries. Gatoclass (talk) 15:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess you mean me. WP:SHIPMOS gives guidance and examples on what should be linked and what information to include. Lyndaship (talk) 16:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link,, yes I should have read that earlier.
 * But now we are on the topic, we might as well continue the discussion. Basically, the SHIPMOS guide recommends simply following WP:DAB, but the examples given show linking of additional terms such as ship class and type, which does not follow DAB. I personally can't see any reason why we should treat ship index pages differently to other disambiguation pages, so perhaps it's time to rethink the guideline in that respect? Gatoclass (talk) 16:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ship index pages have been discussed here quite often in the past. Can I point you to WP:SETINDEX? Basically they are list articles and not disambiguation pages. Lyndaship (talk) 16:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll take a look at that a little later. Gatoclass (talk) 16:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The WP:SHIPMOS example shows both styles. Two include additional wikilinks, while the first eschews them, from which I suppose that either is acceptable.
 * Although ship lists are indeed not dab pages, some of the guidance for the latter concerning use of redirects MOS:DABREDIR and piping MOS:DABPIPING is helpful here. Creating SPANISH TRAINING SHIP Galatea solves the problem. Davidships (talk) 23:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

FAC review request
Hi all, I have SMS Roon at FAC right now, and all of the reviews conducted so far have come from members of WP:MILHIST - one of the coordinators pointed that out and asked if I could drum up a reviewer from outside the MILHIST community, so if anyone has the time, I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at the article and see what might still need to be fixed. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Afd comments requested
I've nominated HMS Saint for deletion, but I'm encountering unexpected resistance. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata uses of gross tonnage for warships
There have been mass additions of gross tonnage figures to ships in Wikidata, including warships interspersed with merchant ships. I have notified the individual who made those changes here that warships are not so measured. Kablammo (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * i'm a bit adrift on how wikidata and here are linked; what effect did it have to en.wikipedia ship articles? GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The first point to note for this discussion is that Wikidata is not English Wikipedia. While English military sources measure military vessels by displacement, if another source exists (in any language) that meassures military vessels in gross tonnage, then both measurements are equally valid on Wikidata. If the problem is that an editor is overwriting displacement with tonnage, then it is a simple case of setting up a new property so both measurements can appear in the same entry. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The convention that established gross tonnage measurement (so it could be used for other regulations) specifically excluded warships. I think there's an argument that it's an inappropriate measurement to include on the basis that it has no meaning for warships. If we found a reliable reference that described a passenger aircraft load capacity in terms of hogsheads per km would we include it? GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's my thought as well. It's not relevant for warships. Parsecboy (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As ever, we reflect the sources. If it is a single source with a whacky theory, which is ignored or discounted by other sources, then we rule it out. If it is a systemic collection of data supported by reliable sources, then it should be included in Wikidata, even if we hold a personal view that it is not correct. However, just because a dataset has been included within Wikidata, we are not compelled to use it.
 * If you are talking about removing or changing a dataset on Wikidata then this conversation should move to Wikidata. Just imagine if someone was having a debate at Wiktionary about incorrect usage of a term on English Wikipedia ship articles and tried to impose a decision here. It would be bound to set the local editors' teeth on edge. A conversation at Wikidata may reach the same consensus but at least it is held at the correct venue. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I think you're making an argument that we shouldn't impose our ideas of what should or shouldn't be included in wikidata. Which conversely implies that we shouldn't let wikidata decide what is or isn't included in en.wikipedia. Now I'm of the opinion that uncritically accepting wikidata is a risk of permitting errors to automatically propagate to Wikipedia. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting that we make propper application of WP:OFF. If this is just a discussion for idea generation, then it is fine to hold it here. If it is intended as a discussion to impose consensus on Wikidata (and by extension every other language project) then it is invalid. Consensus for a project can only be reached within a project, where other participants are not excluded. I'm not saying that Wikipedia editors shouldn't participate, just that the discussion should be held in a place where Wikidata editors can also contribute, if they wish. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

We do have some examples of transports taken up in naval service which have both grt and dp figures available. I don't know whether we have any more recent examples since gt supplanted grt, but will look.

The editor on Wikidata says he has a fix, which is needed, as there were thousands of edits each day with naval vessels sprinkled amongst them. Kablammo (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I tackled a similar topic to this before now on Wikidata, that of (launch / build dates) at this talk page archive. My proposal, in a nutshell, was (this kind of datum) needs to go in with the original template at the time of creation of the Wikidata item, even if not filled in at the time. It doesn't matter how many cells are listed, as long as the most appropriate for the particular ship type get filled out. There could be a cells for numbers of funnels, and masts; or bow and stern types for example. This discussion here shouldn't get sucked into a pointless diversion, as my query was, on the merits of launch or build; or tonnages in this case. What is needed is a designed template (if that's possible) in Wikidata that allows for empty cells to be populated as appropriate, by bots or man. That was the question; how to make it happen? I'm assuming there must be a template of sorts to amend. Broichmore (talk) 11:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Naval armour
Howdy hello folks! A bit ago I realized that we don't have one central page for discussing Naval Armour, thus I put together Draft:Naval armour. Its mostly just text copied from parent articles at the moment, but its a bit unwieldy and I don't have the time I'd like to do a proper job. I'd love some help putting it together. I had considered just moving it to the mainspace so it could attract more eyes, but its pretty bad, so your help would be great. Smooth sailing, CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested article name change
See Talk:RMS Queen Mary 2. Kablammo (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. The above discussion has drifted into comments about the use of ship prefixes in general. This may be of interest to members of the Project. Blue Riband► 00:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

A couple of FACs that could use some attention
There are a pair of articles at FAC that could use some reviews to avoid being archived. Featured article candidates/SMS Niobe/archive1 has been up for a month and only attracted one review so far, and Featured article candidates/SMS Roon/archive1 has been up since late January - it's had several reviews, but could use some eyes from outside of WP:MILHIST. Many thanks to those who take the time to review either of them. Parsecboy (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for armament caliber same metric units
Example: - German ships: 38 cm SK C/34 - British ships: BL 14 in Mark VII

I would suggest to use only one metric (mm or cm) unit. If cm is chosen: - German ships: 38 cm SK C/34 - British ships: BL 14 in Mark VII

If mm is chosen (I would prefer): - German ships: 380 mm SK C/34 - British ships: BL 14 in Mark VII

As a metric user, changing from one navy to the other, the switching between cm and mm is confusing. --Robertiki (talk) 12:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The issue is that German guns were officially named with the measurement in cm, whereas other navies, such as the French and Italian, for instance, used mm in their official designations. Parsecboy (talk) 12:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I would have expected the average reader brought up on metric to move between m, cm, and mm easily enough. And in passing the 14-inch gun is 356 mm. GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

USS Dunderberg
Since every available source (including our own article) states that Dunderberg was not only never commissioned by the US Navy, but never even accepted by them, what is our article doing at USS Dunderberg? Surely it should be at Dunderberg (ironclad)? Gatoclass (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It should actually be French ironclad Rochambeau, since she actually served under the French flag. Parsecboy (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure about that. The ship's significance is that she was a design and engineering marvel of her day, her subsequent career with the French navy being pretty insignificant by comparison. Indeed, more than half the article is dedicated to the ship's design and construction. Also, this is the English Wikipedia, and the name Dunderberg would surely be more common, and more meaningful, to English speakers than Rochambeau. Gatoclass (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support French ironclad Rochambeau Lyndaship (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Mind if I ask why? Gatoclass (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Basically the same reason as Parsecboy. She was never commissioned as a US warship and did nothing under the Dunderberg name other than getting built. The majority of her life she was under the French flag who used her as an active warship on operations. Lyndaship (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. The South American dreadnought race article is full of ships designed and built in one nation with service in another. They are typically covered under the naval service (Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes, the Argentine class Rivadavia-class battleship) not the design/build period. Given a bit I am sure I can find examples of a design/build name with the purchaser applying a different name. In any case the "USS" should be eliminated. Wikipedia is rife with misuse of that precise term, even applying it to yard craft that were never even candidates for commissioning. It is similar to using "U.S. Senator" preceding the names of non elected officers of the Senate such as the Sergent at Arms or Secretary. Palmeira (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and we have HMS Erin, not OTTOMAN BATTLESHIP Reşadiye, even though the ship's service in the Grand Fleet is fairly unremarkable and the ship's role in the Greco-Turkish arms race and the diplomatic wrangling in August 1914 is more significant. Parsecboy (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Let me just expand a little upon what I said earlier, because it seems to me that nobody has addressed those points yet. Firstly, this is the English Wikipedia, and English speakers will be most familiar with this ship under her original name of Dunderberg. Secondly, the most notable thing about this ship was the design and construction, this was a vessel that stretched the limits of shipbuilding and engineering in her day. Her actual service with the French navy was scarcely notable by comparison. And thirdly, almost twice as much text in the article is devoted to the ship when she was going under the name Dunderberg than under Rochambeau. I can't speak for others of course, but it's long been a rule of thumb of mine that ship article names should generally reflect the preponderance of text in the article rather than the length of time the ship served under a particular name, otherwise one ends up with all kinds of anomalous and indeed absurd results. If there's more to be written about a particular point in a ship's career, that generally means that is the most notable period and therefore the name that readers will expect to find the article under. Gatoclass (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * All of the discussion so far has been focused on your second point, even if no one explicitly pointed that out. The first and third are less convincing, at least to me - see WP:SYSTEMICBIAS for the first (and let's be honest, who are we talking about when we say "readers"? The article gets, on average, 20 hits a day; this is not a ship well known under either name). As for the third, that would be more relevant for, say, a ship that served for a couple of years in a major war where it saw significant action and then 40 years in another navy as a training ship (USS St. Louis (CL-49) is a good example). But that's not the case here. Parsecboy (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The actual fact here and in many cases is that there may be no bright line, it is fuzzy and judgemental. Most notable service? My long interest in U.S. Army ships here has given me too many examples of interesting and notable service as an Army vessel with "USS Something" insignificant as a naval auxiliary as the title. I've moved some where the point is very clear and a great deal can be written about the Army period. Others? Mostly good solid Army service, goes Navy and there is one paragraph or maybe a bit more in a brief and largely insignificant Navy "career" where the ship is just involved in or a principal in some notable event, maybe loss. What then? Preponderance of service and text or a bit part or "death" in some minor Navy related event? Move to Army name or leave as Navy? Readers will get to either when provided good redirects and links from other mentions. This gets a bit more complicated. Is it a naval architecture/design article or a ship article? In any case the badly misused "USS" needs to go. Palmeira (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreed, its a judgment call. In this case USS Dunderberg is incorrect as she never was commissioned, Dunderberg (ironclad) sounds clumsy and artificial but French ironclad Rochambeau is both correct and follows our usual way of identifying ironclads so it's my preference. As redirects will exist searchers will still end up on the right article easily Lyndaship (talk) 06:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, the "nation type name" format is only used for naval ships that don't use prefixes - ships that don't have a prefix have the format "name (disambiguator)". So Dunderberg (ironclad) would be the correct format if the prefix was removed. Gatoclass (talk) 12:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually it would be American ironclad Dunderberg Lyndaship (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not how I read the convention. The "nation type name" format is for military ships whose (I quote) navies or nations don't use standard ship prefixes. The US does use prefixes, so IMO that convention would not apply. Gatoclass (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Having taken a closer look at the article, the construction and design section, though the longest part of the article, is actually pretty humdrum at the moment, and doesn't have a lot to say about the ship's unique features or engineering challenges at all. Based on its current shape then, I will drop my objection to the article being moved to Rochambeau, albeit reluctantly. I may eventually be adding some more detail to the article to fill out some of the gaps, in which case I reserve the right to bring this issue up again at some future point if I think the balance has moved sufficiently in favour of the name Dunderberg.

just in relation to one of your points, I think 20 hits per day is actually pretty good for a civil war warship that isn't in the top interest bracket - many civil war vessels are lucky to get a tenth of that. And I still think that most of those who click on the article will be Americans expecting to find the article at Dunderberg. , I fully agree that too many ship articles get a "USS" prefix when their naval service was a relatively minor part of their career - indeed, if you look at my own article creations you will find many that I have renamed accordingly. Gatoclass (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is getting a bit beyond the point, but Monitor gets over 500 hits per day and Virginia gets a little over 350 those are examples of vessels that are relatively "well-known", and I guarantee if you go out and ask the "man on the street" (not right now, obviously), they would have no clue what either of them were, why they're famous, or could identify them in a line-up. The idea that the ship in question is "well known" under either of her names is ridiculous on its face. You have a preference for Dunderberg, but that's all it is. Parsecboy (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said, I think 20 hits per day is pretty good for a ship that isn't in the top interest bracket. I am fully aware of the number of hits Monitor and Virginia get. But by comparison to most civil war warship articles - at least in my experience - 20 hits a day is a pretty decent number, and shows that there is sustained interest in the article, unlike many others that are created and basically never get another hit again. And no, I don't simply "have a preference for Dunderberg and that's all it is", I laid out solid reasons for my preference whether you agree with them or not. I am not, incidentally, American, so I can assure you that national prejudice is not an issue here. Gatoclass (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Changes to article look good to me. Now to settle on a new title. Reading the construction history again, closely, I am struck by the sad tale of Navy construction over and over again. Change orders, driving expense, overruns, change orders again, more overruns. Non payment. The lesson of change orders without cost consideration in advance learned, forgotten, relearned, forgotten! Palmeira (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Some immediate, noncontroversial, correction is needed in any case. The present infobox has "USS" with the name; prefixes are not part of the name. The flag is the Navy jack. Never so. It is also listed in "Ironclads of the United States" which is marginal at best, particularly if that assumes U.S.N. The ship may have never even been formally "flagged" as it sat with builder awaiting a buyer, but at least ownership was U.S. so 1865 flag would be appropriate. I think those changes should be made now and new title bare of U.S.N. associations can come later. Palmeira (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Random yard list
There is a rather unsatisfactory selection of vessels listed in the article on English shipyard Philip and Son of Dartmouth. I raised this on its talk page last summer, but with no response. I'm happy to go ahead on the basis suggested, but would welcome any views before I get started. Davidships (talk) 02:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

RCGS Resolute, incident off Venezuela, and an edit war
Hi. I'm engaged in an edit war with another user regarding the recent incident involving the cruise ship RCGS Resolute off Venezuela. Could someone experienced with controversial topics take a look on the article and perhaps comment on the talk page. I'd also be happy if someone could point me to another WikiProject etc. where I could get help for "improving NPOV" (or something like that; can't really explain it in any other way). Tupsumato (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Question
Are fictional ships excepted? For example, The Black Pearl. Thanks, Rodrigo Valequez(🗣) 14:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * IMHO no, except for real-world replicas of fictional ships. Tupsumato (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Fictional vessels fall outside the scope of this WP. Mjroots (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Requests at Template talk:Infobox ship
I've made suggestions for changes to the Infobox ship template which might be of interest to participants to this project. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies the first linking on this comment was incorrect, now corrected.--Goldsztajn (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Other ships template and hatnote
Editors may wish to comment on a proposal to change the usage of the other ships hatnote at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines Lyndaship (talk) 07:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

US National Naval Aviation Museum
Does anyone happen to know if photographs in the US National Naval Aviation Museum are freely licenced? Gatoclass (talk) 07:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The museum is not a government organization, it is a private foundation:
 * "The Naval Aviation Museum Foundation, Inc. is the nonprofit, 501(c)(3) educational and fundraising organization that supports the development of the National Naval Aviation Museum." (About us)
 * I would assume photographs of the collection on the web site are foundation photos and not public domain. Some photos in a collection may be official and thus public domain, but they may be private donations or commercial photography. Status of those depends entirely upon original source. A private entity cannot copyright an official photo, neither can a public entity "un-copyright" an item without that being a condition of acceptance. Thus some official organizations have donated materials that are copyright, though some I am familiar with encourage donors to submit them granting free license. One has to ascertain the original source and go from there. Palmeira (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you . The reason I ask is because I started a WP:GAN review of USS Kwajalein, and the nominator has two images in it from the above-mentioned museum, for which I was unable to determine the copyright. Given that they are WWII vintage, would it be fair to assume they would fall under the usual PD-USGov-Military-Navy template, or should I ask the nominator to remove the photos? Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 10:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Good examples of the problem. Take the photo of USS Kwajalein. Logically a 1944 air shot of the ship "underway transporting Vought F4U Corsair and Grumman TBF Avenger aircraft to the war zone" is most likely official photography. But it is just possible the photo was taken by a commercial or press photographer with the ship leaving a U.S. port as are so many such modern photos hanging in wardrooms after purchase by the ship. The "Source" on the Photo page allows a search of the museum data with "1996.488.034.003" that results in little help. The museum attributes the photo to the "Robert L. Lawson Photograph Collection" but has "Creator: Not Stated" so the museum itself does not know exactly. Then that collection; Archive for the tag "Robert L. Lawson Photograph Collection" is no help in identifying "creator" precisely. So what is left is that the photo is being used by organizations attributing it to a collection without actual attribution to the owner in sense of creator/copyright. So, Robert L. Lawson is most likely an author who has a collection of photos, some almost certainly official, that is circulating out of the museum and even the Smithsonian. Since photography during war was largely official the probability is that it is public domain, but then press was allowed on ships so maybe not. Not even the museums are making a definitive determination. I'd say chances are fairly small anyone will challenge and the photographs are historically valuable so I personally would not request the Wiki photo be removed. By the way, I have a large collection of photos, some published in government documents, which I cannot definitively trace to official creators so I do  not put the on Wikipedia until I can. Palmeira (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, much appreciated. I won't make an issue of it then. Gatoclass (talk) 08:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I see the launch photo was removed for fairly good reasons. "Christening of USS Kwajalein (CVE-98) with daughter Susan Ann, 4 May 1944" has an unlikely "Own work" source and a date far removed from that of the photo. Launch photos are often by the builder's PR department or local news so that odds go way up that they are not official and public domain. I have a couple of beautiful contemporary launch prints of that type, one sent years ago by the "official" builder's photographer accompanied by a letter with recollections of the day. Though the letter stated I could use it and the company itself is long gone I would not upload it here. There is probably no entity around now that could claim copyright and I'm not interested in doing the research to determine there is not. The air shots of Kwajalein? I got a grin yesterday thinking of the brave soul perhaps making an unauthorized flight close to a warship in wartime to take an unauthorized photo. If anything censors would be all over them. Palmeira (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Navy.mil website
There's a discussion at Bot_requests that could use input from this group. BusterD (talk) 16:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

List of oldest surviving ships
Shouldn't Fishing Tug Katherine V be included? 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 14:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No. The list terminates at 1918 and Katherine V was built in 1923. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

HMS Victory's commissioned status
A user has questioned whether the HMS Victory is really a commissioned ship. Please comment at Talk:USS Constitution. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Help needed
Hopefully this is the right forum to ask, and I hope you guys can help me out: at some point in time between 7-Mar-1960 and 14-Mar-1960, USS Kearsarge stopped at the port of Honolulu for a day or 2 long stop on its way to San Francisco. Any idea where I can find the exact date? And finding ship log for that specific period (Mar-6 - Mar-17 1960) would be totally amazing, but I'm afraid to even ask. -- Wesha (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think the Kearsarge did stop at Hawaii. This press clipping should answer your questions? Here is a | follow-up -Broichmore (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The reason I'm asking is because I have a Soviet newspaper Pravda dated March 15th 1960 that has an article which explicitly says that "at this moment Kearsarge is traveling from Honololu to San Francisco", which implies it did stop at Honolulu sometime after saving the four but left before 15th. I guess the ultimate answer would be in the Kearsarge ship logs, but they are only digitized down to 1961-- no 1960 yet. -- Wesha (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * This clipping from the Honolulu Star-Bulletin says: The carrier is en route from Japan to San Francisco, where it is due about March 15. (A Pearl Harbor spokesman for the Pacific Fleet said the Kearsarge will proceed directly to San Francisco on the Great Circle route without stopping at Hawaii.) . Same story part 2. Also general interest and Soviet scoop comment -Broichmore (talk) 12:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The Russians in New York. Broichmore (talk) 12:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Our article on the carrier, and DANFS, state that the Russians were flown home. Given this contemporaneous clipping that appears to be incorrect.  Kablammo (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes and no. They were flown home -- eventually; in all the details, it was a more complex ordeal (although, admittedly, less so than 49 days without much food): first, they were flown to Russian embassy in NY, then took RMS Queen Mary to Europe , and then flown from Paris to Moscow . -- Wesha (talk) 00:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * OK thank you. So I guess Honolulu stop goes off the map then until ship logs are digitized at least. -- Wesha (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh BTW, here's the image from the Russian papers. Includes Honolulu :( -- Wesha (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * So here's another catch: if Kearsarge was skipping Honolulu, then I would expect it to use Great-circle navigation which would have placed it much closer to the Kuril Islands than where the rescue actually happened: Direct Yokosuka to S.F. route. Could it initially aim at Honolulu but changed mid-course to S.F.? -- 21:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The only reference to that, implies that the Great-circle route was decided on after pick up of the Russians. Broichmore (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Where do you see that reference (even if implied)? I read the article clipping and didn't see anything relevant. However, as I mentioned, it is my suspicion. The ultimate answer should be in the ship logs (once year 1960 is available for public). -- Wesha (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Photo of the rescued on the Kearsarge Broichmore (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I added that (newspaper article) to the (Wikipedia) article. There are literally hundreds of them! -- Wesha (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The aircraft carrier was proceeding direct to the west coast, having left Yokosuka, Japan, on March 3. USS Kearsarge Rescues Four Soviet Soldiers Adift in Pacific Ocean for 49 Days.  Kablammo (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Yay! Finally some source that says that explicitly. We've been trying to collate data from all the news reports, and we arrived at this picture; according to the data, the rescue should have happened somewhere in the green area. Sources:
 * * "1,200 miles off Wake Island"
 * * " about 1,000 miles west-northwest of Midway Island"
 * * "900 miles to the south-west of Iturup island"; "720 miles away from nearest land, Marcus Island" - Izvestia, №65 (13301), March 17th 1960, p. 4
 * -- Wesha (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * 2010 interview with the commander of the saved crew: "....the carrier [we were saved by] stopped at Hawaii and remained there for a few days." -- Wesha (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * AP Honolulu reports 9 March USS Kearsarge saves 4 in boat - vodka (part 1) and (part 2) Broichmore (talk) 10:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yet another map from a publication. I know, we can say it's not authoritative... can't wait to get the deck log. -- Wesha (talk) 05:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Japanese ship article name standardization.
Looking at Category:Japan naval ship stubs There are two groups of ship naming that may need standardization. One is the articles that start 'Japanese Escort Ship'. Some are in the form Japanese escort ship No.17, others like Japanese escort ship CD-75. I *think* they should all be in the CD form. The other I'm even less sure. The ones starting 'Japanese submarine chaser' I *think* the ones that are CH- are Chasers and the ones that start Cha- are Auxiliary chasers. For the second group, would it make more sense to change the article name to something like 'Japanese auxiliary submarine chaser Cha-5' Ideas?16:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't think that we need to distinguish between submarine chasers and auxiliary submarine chasers, just like we don't distinguish between the various types of cruisers in their article names. I'm fine with standardizing on CD-xx for the others.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

RCGS
Is RCGS a ship prefix? I'm not finding anything on Google, but I wanted to check with the folks here just in case. (This relates to RCGS Resolute.) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Apparently it stands for either "Royal Canadian Geographic Ship" or "Royal Canadian Geographical Society" because the ship's current owners are in a partnership with the Royal Canadian Geographical Society. Whether that constitutes a ship prefix or it is just a part of this one ship's name is debatable. Have the society operated other ships before and used the same naming convention? If so, that pushes it more to the side of a formal prefix. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As the editor responsible for expanding that article after the incident off Venezuela, I would like to explain my reasoning of not treating "RCGS" as a ship prefix. Unlike "real" prefixes such as USS, RMS, MS and so forth, "RCGS" is part of RCGS Resolute's full registered name; see for example DNV GL database entry). That's also why I haven't abbreviated the name to Resolute in the article. Furthermore, One Ocean Expeditions's website states "RCGS Resolute also carries the name of The Royal Canadian Geographical Society (RCGS)..." which indicates that the abbreviation refers to the society itself rather than RCGS Resolute being "Royal Canadian Geographical Society ship Resolute". In such case, shouldn't the prefix be "RCGSS"? Tupsumato (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Granted, another page on One Ocean Expeditions's website states "Did you know RCGS Resolute is the first vessel in history to be granted the Royal Canadian Geographical Society ship prefix?" Still, I'm not unsure if this counts as a prefix or a "prefix". Tupsumato (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That is correct, it's not a prefix, but definitely part of the name, even if the operators call it a prefix. It's fairly common for ships nowadays to use us the initials of owner or charterer to begin a ship's name - eg MSC Magnifica or, a bit more extreme CMA CGM Antoine de Saint Exupery. An ugly approach to "branding" in my view. Davidships (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Brilliant! Glad to see this solved. Thanks to, , and for your inputs. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Brilliant! Glad to see this solved. Thanks to, , and for your inputs. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Konarak vessel incident into Iranian support vessel Konarak
You might want to comment on this merger proposal.Davidships (talk) 10:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Request delete typo redirect
Typo on move left Swan (Morotboat) blunder (First coffee!). Corrected with direct links in articles. No links show for typo redirect page. Palmeira (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Done - I've only just started my first cup, so I better hold off on doing anything rash ;) Parsecboy (talk) 12:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yeah, moving before second cup maybe not best idea. And cleaning up some misplaced "USS" stuff was to be an easy thing as a break from a couple of new pieces with lots of detailed referencing I'm doing. Palmeira (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Should you not change it to motorboat before the capitalization troll comes along? Broichmore (talk) 12:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * One gives up trying to foretell actions, account for, outwit, or otherwise avoid trivia "trolls" (often they even help a bit with consistency) as long as they do not damage content. Some are pests as they do cluelessly alter content (I've seen precise terms muddled with "corrections" here — and have given up some arguments here on ships where accuracy wasn't worth the drama), but many are like print editors who catch inconsistencies of the type that can make me just put a book down as glaring inconsistencies get in the way of narrative to a fatal extent. Whether (Motorboat) or (motorboat)? "Meh" for me. Swan was one. Now (Morotboat) as my groggy fingers typed? Nope! Palmeira (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Norway heritage reliability at RSN
The RSN post Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability of Norway Heritage has application to this project and I invite members to comment there. I am posting a similar message at the Norway wikiproject as well. Feel free to post this other places you feel it could go. Thanks, Ghinga7 (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

USS HAWKBILL (SS-366)
The Wikipedia article reads: "sponsored by Mrs. F. W. Scanland, Jr., and commissioned 17 May 1944, Lt. Comdr. F. Worth Scanland, Jr., in command." Actually, the sponsor was Mrs. F. Worth Scanland, Sr. She was the wife of then-Commodore F. Worth Scanland, Sr., and the mother of the Commanding Officer of the submarine.38.104.30.218 (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you got a source for this - we need good sources to change the article as DANFS, which the article has been largely based on, says "Mrs. F. W. Scanland, Jr".Nigel Ish (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

William & Mary Shipwreck 1853
Do we have an article on the wreck of the William and Mary discussed here, here and here? If not, this might be worth looking into. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We have an entry at List of shipwrecks in May 1853 but no linked article. From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Champlain II
Champlain II is about the wrecksite, shouldn't this be called Champlain II wrecksite or Champlain II shipwreck? -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's an opportunity for you to expand the article. Broichmore (talk) 10:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

HMS K13 moved to HMS K13 accident
The article on the British submarine HMS K13 has been moved to HMS K13 accident without any discussion with the mover claiming that "The submarine is known only for the accident. Not notable on its own". This may be of interest to this wikiproject and if not contested may have implications to other articles.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles on French organizations involved in the ship design process
For those of you keeping score at home, I've written brief articles on the Conseil supérieur de la Marine and the Conseil des travaux, so links may be created in existing articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Isn't that a basic task for article creators - there are only about two dozen existing mentions? Davidships (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the note is in part for editors like me who work on articles on French warships - if Sturm just added all of the links himself, I might not have noticed that the articles have been created. Parsecboy (talk) 12:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I need to go back and add links to my own articles as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

SS Helgoland (1963)
I want to create a page about this ship, first ripping from [], but wanted to confirm what name I should use, as the ship has changed name several times being Helgoland from 1963-1972, Stena Finlandica from 1972-1975, Baltic Star 1975-2000 and Galapagos Legend 2000-present. My primary interest in the ship was its service as a hospital ship in South Vietnam from 1966 to 1971. thanks Mztourist (talk) 07:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - firstly, she is a motor vessel, not a steamship. As an active vessel, MV Galapagos Legend is the title you should use, with redirects from other titles. Plenty of info about the vessel on Fakta om Fartyg's webpage. It's in Swedish but you should be able to work it out. Mjroots (talk) 07:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Noted, thanks. Mztourist (talk) 07:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - It's a nice article, but I disagree on the approach on naming stated by . She should take a title by which she is most notable and commonly known in reliable sources, as per WP:NC-SHIP, WP:NC and WP:COMMONNAME - it is wrong to assume that a current name trumps everything.  On the face of it, the preponderence of the article is as a Heligoland ferry and Red Cross hospital ship named Helgoland rather than any of her subsequent names.
 * If the name Helgoland were chosen, disambiguation would be required as there have been many other ships of this name (five of them already have articles), per WP:SHIPDAB. The most obvious choices would be MV Helgoland (1963) or Helgoland, but note that the use of optional prefixes also follows the sources, per WP:PREFIXSHIP. Davidships (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The second suggestion indicates a full-rigged ship named Helgoland and launched in 1963. I'm only about de-1/2 so may have missed the significance to the earlier service as a hospital ship. Mjroots (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I've created the page: MV Galapagos Legend, I don't really care what its called and will leave it to those with greater expertise than me to make that decision. Mztourist (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Category:American Revolution ships of the United States has been nominated for discussion
Category:American Revolution ships of the United States has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Propose renaming Category:American Revolution ships of the United States to Category:American Revolutionary War ships of the United States. Nominator's rationale: To be consistent with other primary sub-categories of Category:American Revolutionary War. Ledalion (talk) 03:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * A point has been missed here, this should not be name change, it should be a deletion, it's a duplication of Category:Ships of the Continental Navy‎. The Continental Navy which only existed for the length of the revolution. Broichmore (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe a number of vessels in the American Revolution were in various colonial (later state) navies, so there were many more ships in that war than those of the Continental Navy. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 22:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

19th-century ships
The category hierarchy for Victorian-era ships no longer exists outside the countries of the British Empire, see
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_February_28
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_9
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_18

There is now a partial hierarchy for Category:19th-century naval ships, but not for merchant / passenger ships, nor for naval ships by type other than submarines.

I leave it to this project to decide what should be done next. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Italic title
Anyone know why Clementine Maersk isn't displaying an italic title? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The infobox does not automatically italicize an article title when the title has an unrecognized form. See.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Request deletion of USNS Redstone redirect
Really a bit ridiculous that page moves are so blocked by old redirects. The page USNS Mission De Pala is way out of date, uses a name for an obscure tanker, while the USNS Redstone has much more recognition and documentation. Cannot move due to old redirect. Palmeira (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , Could you link the exact redirect? CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * lol nvm Parsec beat me to it CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Deleted. Parsecboy (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks much! Fast.

List of ship launches in 1944
Can someone add SS Licentia to the list of ship launches in 1944? Some wierd template is in use there and I can't fathom it out. It won't recognise the shipbuilder for a start, keeps displaying as "unknown builder". Also, why do all the entries using that template display as "citation needed" when the linked articles verify? Mjroots (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've commented on the seemingly random layout and formatting of list of ship launches before - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Archive_60 - but the 1944 list appears to be taking the biscuit as it has two entirely different formats, depending on which month it is. The multiple "citation needed"s appears to be a product of the "weird template" used for August - which appears to require a citation - but really all the entries in the list should be cited in the list, and not rely on the linked articles to provide verification.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - It has been the practice since before I started editing Wikipedia that ship which have articles do not need a reference at the ship launch list. Mjroots (talk) 05:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've finally managed to work it out. Must say that is one of the most difficult, non-intuitive templates to use that I've come across. Mjroots (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I must say the complete change of "look and feel" in a table as a result is one of the ugliest, most distracting I've seen. I would contend such extensive tables should, for the viewer's sake as well as editors, be standardized at least in appearance over the entire set of tables (years) not to mention within a single table. The appearance is amateurish and shoddy with such random changes without good reason. Unless there is very good reason to convert years of tables to the "wierd template" format I'd support banning it where there is no good reason to adopt it as a standard. Palmeira (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, seems that an proposal to deprecate that template via a TfD discussion may be in order. Mjroots (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That particular template is terrible as it seems to expect anyone trying to add to the page to guess what the format is, but that isn't the only non-standard template these articles used - there is also Nigel Ish (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As below, standardized presentation of the same data within tables regarding the same thing is a minimum requirement in anything pretending to be for the reader. Palmeira (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The 1943 list also has a mix of formats - we should at the bare minimum use the same format for a single year!Nigel Ish (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless it has some use elsewhere I'd say "Yes indeed!" At the least standardizing the ship tables — I believe the majority format in that table is widely used — to use of a single format, look and feel for the viewer is in my view necessary. I hate running into that elsewhere and some old experience with some such garbage from a contractor resulted in a firm "Nope! Not acceptable!" Palmeira (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I've proposed that Ship event row and Ship builder (dependent on Ship event row) are deprecated, removed then deleted. Discussion at Templates for discussion/Log/2020 May 27. Mjroots (talk) 06:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Fully agree and supported. Palmeira (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Templates deprecated. I've made a start on their removal. Both shipwreck lists have been purged of the template. Assistance in removing it from other articles and lists appreciated. Mjroots (talk) 09:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)