Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 72

Notice: "Largest naval battle in history"
Please see associated talk page for this article, along with recent discussions there and recent, significant changes to the article's content. The objective is to, by way of consensus, determine if a name change is needed, as well as which content (which battles) should be listed, (and what criteria to use), and any other changes and/or improvements as needed. But this starts with getting more editors involved. Thanks - w o lf  04:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on WP:RSN
The following discussion and RFC on WP:RSN might be of interest to members of this WikiProject: Reliable sources/Noticeboard. -Ljleppan (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on RSN
Discussion posted at RSN regarding the reliability of globalsecurity.org, see-> link. - w o lf  20:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Formatting articles featuring multiple vessels
I recently stumbled upon the article Santa Fe Railroad Tugboats which features detailed descriptions of three closely related vessels. Other issues aside, I recently reformatted the page to allow better readability of the subsections about each tugboat, although I'm unsure if this new format follows the preferred style for this project. Is there a standard format for articles discussing multiple vessels in-depth? I don't believe there is much guidance for this in the MOS for WP:Ships, since they are not ships of the same class or even constructed at roughly the same time; should the vessel section of this article this be split into three separate pages instead, one for each boat? UnknownCytoplasm (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is more of a list article than a standard article, so it should probably follow something like List of battleships of Germany (instead of ship classes, each major tugboat would have an entry), where each ship would have a small infobox on the side with their main details including length, propulsion/engine type, crew, speed, etc. and in each section, describing the tugboat and then following that up with a summary of the vessel's career. None of these vessels are notable enough to warrant their own page, so redirects to an anchor heading would also be good to do. Just my suggestions. Llammakey (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That makes sense, and the process of doing this should really help the article. UnknownCytoplasm (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Newly discovered wreck
... of Mesaba, formerly Winifreda, with a connection to Titanic.. Articles on its discovery include BBC and CNN. Anyone who wishes to write it up, feel free. Kablammo (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Featured article review for ironclad warship
User:Buidhe has nominated Ironclad warship for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Watercraft: singular and plural
We have an editor making changes to Watercraft – to deal with an alleged grammatical problem with the way this word is used. For reference, the Oxford English Dictionary says "A boat or other vessel designed for use on water. Also with plural agreement: such vessels collectively." (Bold added). The result of these edits seems very clumsy to me. Am I alone in this, or do others agree? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not know why they are banging on about his preference for "watercrafts", but I have added a short comment. It may be used a bit, but, like aircrafts, spacecraft etc I would not see it as mainstream, either side of the Atlantic. Davidships (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

"Commissioning" versus "Completion"?
Looking at some warship articles, some have "Completion" as the last step, some have "Commissioning". Where the ship is listed one way in the class article and a different was in the individual ship article, they don't match, and "Completion" comes later than "Commissioning". This confuses me, as I thought that Commissioning mean the ship was in active service and ready for combat. Does "Completion" mean that the last little thing has been installed bolted down and painted, but these are minor details? Or does it the addition of (say) all the guns specified in the design, so the ship is at full operational strength, so these could be major things? Sometimes one and sometimes the other? Or what?

Should we state both Completion date and Commissioning date when he have both? Or if we have both should we only use one, and if so which one? (At any rate I don't think the class article should use one and the ship article the other, which I am seeing.) Thanking your for your consideration, Herostratus (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Depends on the navy. Some will commission a ship before completion so they can conduct sea trials; others will not formally commission a ship until the trials are completed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * See for example HMS Resistance; she was completed between 30 April and 21 June 1801, and was commissioned during this in May. Both dates are used in the text and infobox. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah alright, thanks. And now I see French destroyer Le Terrible, which has not only commissioned and completed, but "in service" which is even later. I suppose this is the date on which the ship "reports to its home port and officially loads or accepts any remaining equipment (such as munitions)" and I suppose is now available for live patrols.


 * Mnmh a lot of of this is covered in Ship commissioning but you kind of have to read thru thru it and then it doesn't really answer the reader's question "what do these terms mean?". It might be good to have a short article which explains these three terms in a couple paragraphs each, noting how the terms are flexible, and I link to them from first use of each term. However, that's easy for me to say, as I don't feel qualified to do it myself. But thanks for your answers. Herostratus (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

book search: United States Maritime Commission Official Construction Record
https://www.google.de/books/edition/United_States_Maritime_Commission_Offici/ekGatgAACAAJ?hl=de

seems to be not available in digital form for whatever reason.

does anyone have it? Nowakki (talk) 12:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Shipwreck lists by year need some attention
Good afternoon all, I hoped to bring attention to some articles that I think need to be reworked so that they are more readable and intuitive. A few months back I posted on Talk:List of shipwrecks in 2022 about the dubious inclusion standards for these lists. Many of the entries, in my opinion, do not belong. They include dinghies that didn't sink, pangas that washed ashore, and kayaks that flipped over. Additionally, the shipwreck template as it stands right now makes these lists slow to load and very bloated, dividing the article into hundreds of subsections since each day has its own table. These two pieces combined make the shipwreck by year lists hard to read and navigate, and defeats their purpose. I would appreciate input, and assistance in laying out guidelines for making these list articles better. Very Respectfully, Fritzmann (message me) 20:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Floating dock (impounded)
I have just proposed moving Floating dock (impounded) to a better title on its talk page. I am raising the point here as I am completely bemused by an article that seems to have a title that is so wrong. What am I missing? (So, this is a gross error check.) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

list of shipwrecks
it would be nice if one could refer to an entry by ship name.

this is useful when listing ships by launch name, as is customary when listing the ship in a yard article, but having the link point to somewhere else. that somewhere else is the ultimate fate for lots of otherwise boring ships. right now one has to mention the name the ship was sunk as on the source page, instead of having the name in the target link.

also: it would be nice if there existed a template to refer to a shipwreck instead of using a regular wikilink for it. Nowakki (talk) 09:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Is there any particular example you wish to show us, to help fully understand your question? Mjroots (talk) 13:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Federal Shipbuilding and Drydock Company Nowakki (talk) 13:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * That is very useful. IMvHO, the ships should have redlinks to ship articles, rather than being linked to shipwreck list entries covering their losses. Mjroots (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * the shipwreck entries all seem to starts with a redlink. and if you only add the redlink, then no information is given about any other place on wikipedia where the ship is mentioned. 2 problems solved. that is assuming that most of the redlinks now in existence will remain so and it would not be too much to ask to expect a creator of a new article to find their way to the shipyard article and fix the listing.
 * perhaps something better can be done with some technical tricks. Nowakki (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

inconsistencies in reliable sources
i played a little "place the ship on the slip" with Union Iron Works and i found several problems with the sources.

I am not sure what to do with this and i am not going to write letters to publishers.

Does anybody care? Or maybe tell me if and how i am wrong. Nowakki (talk) 09:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The Union Iron Works article is a mess - which appears to be full of original research - wikipedia articles should report what reliable sources actually say, and not try to use them to derive things like what ship was launched on what slipway when that isn't in the sources.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * the allocation based on keel laying dates and launch dates is purely analytical. which is not original research.
 * backed by photographic evidence, which is not original research.
 * the only OR is the claim that the sources must be wrong and this is not stated as a fact. Nowakki (talk) 10:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:PRIMARY. Analysis of primary sources, including photographs or other materials, can only be accepted in very limited circumstances. If you are making a lot of edits based on primary material, you may find that other editors will legitimately remove the text to the talk page until you can provide a secondary source. In particular, if you are interpreting a photograph, you must have a secondary source to support that interpretation. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * it's a purely analytical argument i am making.
 * assuming the cited sources are correct: layout of the shipyard, dates of vessels constructed, then the conclusion must be true for all shipyards in the history of civilization if the laws of logic and physics apply to them. there is no need to provide evidence for a specific shipyard. like there is no need to provide evidence that a particular woman and her biological daughter do not have the same date of birth, which is true for all mothers and their biological daughters.
 * besides that, it casts doubt on the official record. for that reason too it is notable. Nowakki (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * the naval systems command has no problem with that method of analysis.
 * https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a431364.pdf Nowakki (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * if you look at the same document on page 75 you will see a nice graph showing time from keel laying to commissioning.
 * Union Iron Works is clearly not the front runner in that race, but they did achieve the lowest time from keel laying to launching with 3 months and 4 days.
 * if you look at the same document on page 65, you will read that Todd had 11 slipways for destroyer production. Which you can research if you want to be not the case.
 * original research, government sanctioned. wikipedia would prefer the more sloppy OR. Nowakki (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ping, just to make sure you are not missing anything. Nowakki (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If a reliable secondary source makes such an analysis then it is fine to report it here - if it doesn't then it isn't suitable for Wikipedia.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * even if that source conducts original research? Nowakki (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Contributors to Wikipedia are forbidden from conducting original research as there is no way for other editors to tell if that contributor is a reliable source, nor is their work scrutinised by others. It is perfectly fine for secondary sources to conduct research and publish their findings; the secondary source can be checked for reliability and whether other sources have scrutinised their findings. Some of the best source material we have are academic papers that have conducted research and undergone peer review by experts in the relevant field. If you can point to a secondary source that has drawn the same conclusions as you would have done from reviewing primary material, then that is an improvement on conducting your own research. There is still the question of whether your secondary source is reliable, but the presence of the secondary source at least allows other editors to review whether the source supports your claims. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * that makes sense for something where the reader cares whether something is true or not.
 * this is obviously just a bit of sudoku with historical facts for the intellectually curious. Nowakki (talk) 01:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I understand your point there. If you are going to follow Wikipedia policy and use secondary sourcing, then fine. If you are going to ignore policy in the interest of pursuing "sudoku with historical facts," then you are going to run into a few obstacles here sooner or later. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

list of authorizing acts and appropriations
Draft:United States Navy budget of the interwar period

a link into the list could be placed in articles or infoboxes of ship or ship class articles.

for example

"|Total ships on order = ([Budget List#FY37|12]]"

for the Sims-class destroyer article

classes that span more than one year would just point to the first year. Nowakki (talk) 11:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Every article on Wikipedia must be a freestanding article, referenced correctly and passing both WP:N and WP:V. If what you propose is some sort of behind the scenes database then this will not fly. Your draft appears to me to embrace not being a correctly referenced article
 * If you are proposing a new parameter to an infobox then this requires fuller discussion. However, unless the background article is a complete set of useful, fully referenced background articles, this can't fly as a parameter.
 * Thus, for me, your scheme is flawed, and I oppose this approach
 * This does not mean that this discussion has no merit. Thank you for starting it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * finding an article to tuck it into as a section will not be a problem. Nowakki (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Formatting of planned/estimated dates — italicized or not
Many articles covering ships under construction, on order, or otherwise planned have estimates for e.g. when the ship is expected to enter service; for example here. I have typically added "(planned)" after date (full date, month and year, or just year) to emphasize that the date is an estimate given at some point (thus also covering scenarios where the deadlines fly past whistling). However, User:Blueginger2 has remarked that "estimated dates are italicized elsewhere". Do we have a manual of style wither within WP:SHIPS or elsewhere that covers this? Personally I feel that using text formatting alone carries a risk that crucial information is lost e.g. when using a screen reader. On the other hand, the style I have used may sometimes clutter complex tables. Tupsumato (talk) 06:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm engaged in an edit war with User:Blueginger2 in the article about Project 22220 icebreakers — please help. I'm opening a discussion on the article talk page shortly. Tupsumato (talk) 10:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Discussion open here. Tupsumato (talk) 10:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


 * In the article Project 22220 icebreaker, User:Tupsumato keeps removing data from the article, please help. Blueginger2 (talk) 10:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

a shipyard infobox
who owns/owned the yard, who operates it. when was it founded. what types, what number, what tonnage of ships were produced.

number of slipways, possibly allowing this to be a list of matching year:number pairs to account for upgrades being done.

there are a few yards for which it would be relatively easily filled with accurate data, WW1 and WW2 purpose built facilities, where everything is easily accounted for because all of it went to the government, but there is at the moment no such infobox. Nowakki (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's probably too much detail to go in an infobox (and too subject to change - ship/dockyards are likely to change greatly during their operating life). Infoboxes are best kept to things that are simple and unambiguous.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * it does not make sense for all cases, but almost universally makes sense for all shipyards from 1940-1945 or 1916-1922.
 * Let's keep the infoboxes as simple as possible. Docks and slipways should be covered in the main body, not the infoboxes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * infoboxes that cover the same time period could be added to dozens of pages, so there would be uniformity to allow data to be comparable. Nowakki (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * How about putting together an example? - w o lf  01:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Use of prefix MV versus M/V in articles and inclusion as part of name
There is an editor who is going around changing ship names that have the prefix MV to M/V and including it as part of their names. I reported them to ANI for edit warring, but nothing happened there. I tried explaining it to them, but they ignored me. Some help would appreciated. You can find the edits at Lake freighter, MV Mark W. Barker, River-class freighter, Benson Ford (1924 ship), List of Great Lakes museum and historic ships, Interlake Steamship Company, etc. Llammakey (talk) 12:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * For those who want to weigh in, there is a thread here. Parsecboy (talk) 13:06, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

FAR for New Carissa
User:Buidhe has nominated New Carissa for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Article title quandary
There are many articles on vorpostenboote, with more to come. They are generally housed at titles following the format "German trawler [pennant number] name". However, we have an issue with one vessel. It was never a trawler, having been built as a minesweeper for the Soviet Union and seized by Germany before delivery. It was sunk during WWII. Would it be appropriate to house this one under the title of "German vorpostenboot [pennant number] name.? Mjroots (talk) 06:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * My vote would be to use an English descriptor: outpost boat, patrol boat, flakship, or the like. I think even the ships which were trawlers should be moved to new titles, if they are notable because of their service in the Kriegsmarine. Fritzmann (message me) 14:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The "German trawler" bit is correct, as they were mostly trawlers requistioned for use as auxiliary warships. The Royal Navy used the prefix HMT for theirs (His Majestey's Trawler). I'm not in favour of translating the German title to English. Mjroots (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:UE is pretty clear. Is there an English-language name for this ship that is used in sources? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If there is no English given, "German ship" as the title and explain the vorpostenboote and minesweeper things in the lead, explaining why the article is titled as such, since the two services designated the vessel differently. Llammakey (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "German ship [pennant number] name" works. Gives scope to link vorpostenboot in the lede. Mjroots (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * On the subject of whether armed trawlers need to have done any actual trawling, the Royal Navy had Admiralty trawlers (627 in the First World War alone) which were built specifically as warships and never caught a single fish in their careers. Alansplodge (talk) 11:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As to the ship in question which brought up the original query, it turns out she was used as a trawler before her naval service, so I went with German trawler V 315 Bris as the article title. Mjroots (talk) 06:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

miramar ship index
The List of ship launches in 1918 has recently grown a bit. it would be nice if somebody who has access to miramar could weigh in and list the total number miramar thinks happened in that year. or any other year. Nowakki (talk) 08:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not think that it is possible to search the online Miramar in that way - but maybe it can be done from the CD version.Davidships (talk) 11:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * is there a command line interface? Nowakki (talk) 12:12, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

New ship template created by User:BucketOfSquirrels
As you can see on the RVS Takuare (03) and RKS Teanoai II articles, has created their own ship templates/infoboxes. I bring this to the group's attention as there was an attempt earlier this year to shrink the size of the infobox. I do not even know how to correct this, because templates and their rules on their use go over my head. Llammakey (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)


 * looks nice. but not much different. Nowakki (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks needless. And a little weird. Templates are supposed to be a generic, so they can be used on multiple articles. "Template:Infobox ship" is used on over 40,000 articles, while "Template:Infobox Guardian-class patrol boat" can be used for at most... 22. I don't see why they didn't just use the template we already have, they copied all the parameters word-for-word from it anyway. - w o lf  04:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * it's better to make a new template for the 22 ships with values that are common across the class already filled in. then there will be less repetition. Nowakki (talk) 05:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I created the template in order to avoid repeating and then having to update the same information in 23 different articles. (Including the class page, assuming no more orders.) I asked the Teahouse on 16 October how to best accomplish this, and the template seemed like a better idea than importing WikiData directly from each article. (I don't think WikiData has properties for all the parameters. However the template imports those I could find.)

The template is not intended to duplicate the generic "Template:Infobox ship", as it will only be used for boats of one class. Rather, it is a custom implementation of the standard template, which also is why I tried to make sure the parameters were the same.

As you might have seen; the template provides values for the sub-templates Infobox ship class overview & Infobox ship characteristics that mostly are not intended to be overwritten, a default image in Infobox ship image that may be, and no values in Infobox ship career so that they can be added like normal in the articles. BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 13:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There is nothing really technically wrong with doing this. I don't think that the  should appear on every ship article because that is redundant and inconsistent with the vast majority of ship infoboxen.
 * In the past editors have created numerous small templates (,, etc) for use in generic ship infoboxen.
 * I don't think WikiData has properties for all the parameters. However the template imports those I could find. Several years ago, this wikiproject decided to reject wikidata as a source for infoboxen.  Unless that consensus has changed, it would seem that  should not be fetching data from wikidata.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry BucketofSquirrels, but why does class information need to be repeated in every article of the Guardian class? That is what confused me when I saw your template. Otherwise it is just a copy of the existing warship infobox. Llammakey (talk) 12:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have hacked so that  only shows on the class article.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "Hacked"... lolz! Anyway, it worked on the class page, but so far not on individual boat pages. - w o lf  17:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Articles aren't instantly updated when a template is changed. MediaWiki has to regenerate the rendered html that readers see.  You can wait for the articles that use changed templates to eventually trickle out of the job queue or you can manually refresh those articles.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Thanks for info. - w o lf  02:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Thanks for info. - w o lf  02:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

AfD notification
The SS Gifu Maru article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 04:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Royal Navy ships serving both before and after 1801
User:Lyndaship has been mass changing the country and flag icons of Royal Navy ships with the edit summary 'no UK before 1801'. However, all the ships on my watchlist were in service after 1801, and whereas a case could be made for having both Great Britain and UK flags, I don't think it's right to remove UK from these articles. Does this project have any guidelines on this? Ykraps (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Pinging a user after the fact does not work so pinging Editor Lyndaship; see.
 * According to the Ship flag heading under :
 * The flag depicted should be the last version of the flag flown by the vessel (or if multiple "Career" subtemplates are in use, the last version flown during the relevant part of the ship's history). For example, Australian warships that left service after 1967 will show the new (and current) Australian White Ensign, while ships that decommissioned before this flag came into use will use the old version.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So RN ships serving after 1801 (and before) should use UK? --Ykraps (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * My main interest was in ensuring that Great Britain appears in the country box for ships launched by that political entity. We had a complete mess with some ships in a class showing United Kingdom and some Great Britain plus many ships whose whole service was prior to 1801 showing UK as the country and even some launched post 1801 showing GB. I am in the process of changing the flags to match the country displayed in the infobox as its totally wrong to have a UK flag when it flew a GB one. I was unaware of the existing guidance re flags provided by Trappist, as there is no similar guidance for country I think we should change the flag guidance to the flag in use at the time the ship was launched to prevent confusion, if a subsequent flag change is felt important that an extra career box can be added. I don't think we should complicate matters by having to work out if a ship spent longer in GB or UK service to decide what country is displayed in the infobox and the existing country guidance does not say if a ship was launched pre 1801 and served after we should use UK Lyndaship (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The entity that launched the ship shouldn't be the only one in the infobox: for a start, lots of ships were built and launched in one country then were used by another, and not just Royal Navy ones. Yes, there are some that are wrongly labelled, I've changed a few myself and been responsible for some (I tend to copy and paste infoboxes from similar articles) but can we concentrate on those and leaving the others pending a full discussion and consensus? My preference would be for both to be included BTW. --Ykraps (talk) 06:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The entity that launched the ship shouldn't be the only one in the infobox: for a start, lots of ships were built and launched in one country then were used by another, and not just Royal Navy ones. Yes, there are some that are wrongly labelled, I've changed a few myself and been responsible for some (I tend to copy and paste infoboxes from similar articles) but can we concentrate on those and leaving the others pending a full discussion and consensus? My preference would be for both to be included BTW. --Ykraps (talk) 06:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Any chance you can stop making these changes until this discussion is complete? There will be plenty of opportunities to boost your edit count if you have to return and add the UK details later. --Ykraps (talk) 07:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't seem right and I'm not sure that template guidance directly applies here. My understanding is that the first flag and country in a ship infobox is that of the country that launched her and that she first sailed under. If she then sailed for another country after, that country, their flag and any other details are listed next, lower down the infobox. If these ships were launched by Great Britain and sailed under that flag before 1801, before there was a UK, then that flag should be first. If the ship continued to sail for the UK after 1801, then that flag and the details should come next.

Also, is there another discussion about this somewhere else? Did attempt to discuss this with  directly on an article or user talk page, before bringing it up here? Just curious. - w o lf  22:37, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No. This seemed the most obvious platform for the discussion. I did try to ping Lyndaships. --Ykraps (talk) 06:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Suits me. Can someone do that then rather than delete one in favour of another. --Ykraps (talk) 06:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, don't park your comments in the middle of other editor's posts, kay? Thanks - w o lf  18:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

There could be some room for a policy tweak here, depending on the general consensus about this... Firstly though, with the existing policy of using the flag last used by that entity (and we should consider GB and UK to be the same entity), the country name next to it should of course match with the flag. My policy tweak suggestion is that this should be related to the last period of active service. There are a considerable number of ships that had their entire active careers pre-1801, but survived in some form of harbour service for several decades into the 19th century. It seems out of place to slap the UK flag on those ships, simply because they lingered on for years before finally being broken up. I'm personally in favour of this approach being used for articles - just taking the launch year can lead to the same situation in reverse, where a ship launched in 1800 is shown with the GB flag but never actually sailed under it. Martocticvs (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "just taking the launch year can lead to the same situation in reverse, where a ship launched in 1800 is shown with the GB flag but never actually sailed under it." - that's a good point. - w o lf  17:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Many of these articles have no commissioning dates let alone a last commissioning date and even if they do we then have to define if it was an active commission. They nearly all have a launch date (I agree a first commission date would be better than a launch date for choosing the appropriate flag to display). Why is it more important to show the last flag flown over the first one?Lyndaship (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Jimho, but the first flag should always be included, then any subsequent flags after that, in order. There is always a first flag, but not always a second or last flag. - w o lf  02:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I've notified WP:WikiProject Military history of this discussion in the hope of getting more input. --Ykraps (talk) 07:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The long-standing policy seems clear to me. I imagine that there would be opposition, certainly from me, to spamming the infobox with every flag they ever served under. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Miramar request
Can someone with access to Miramar please look up Sopite IMO 5334406 and make any necessary corrections to the German trawler V 405 J. Hinrich Wilhelms article please? this website suggests that she returned to the German register, but I'm unsure of its reliability. Mjroots (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Last owner is a French company, Miramar doesn't contradict anything in the article. However, it has a note at the bottom - [Lg 1961, cv to cargo ship], ie lengthened 1961 and converted to Cargo ship Lyndaship (talk) 13:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * - if you could add that info and cite it, that would be great, thanks. Mjroots (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok I've added it. Possibly if it's correct Lloyds Register might add some detail Lyndaship (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Lloyd's register 1959-60 turned up a few more details. Had to hunt for her as the search interface doesn't alway return results. Mjroots (talk) 07:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

miramar
List of ship launches in 1918 and List of ship launches in 1919 has recently grown a bit.

Is there somebody here who can do moderate amounts of magic with miramar and add something that can help make these lists more complete. Given that, at least for united states steel shipbuilding, everything is already covered by an independent source or can be added with not much more effort, now would be the time to start trying to make these lists as complete as possible while not having to worry about stepping on copyright toes. Nowakki (talk) 06:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Sinking of HTMS Sukhothai
This article has been nominated at WP:ITNC to be linked on the main page as a current event that is In the News. Interested editors may discuss the nomination at the preceding link. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Vorpostenboote article notability
Good day, everyone.

I am concerned that many of the English articles on the various Vorpostenboot boats violate WP:N as the article references consist solely of ship lists, such as Lloyd's, Die deutschen Kriegsschiffe, and Miramar. While these articles are not an issue in itself as they contain useful data, the sources mention the boat in question alongside every other ship in service. This is fine for notable warships, however many of the Vorpostenboot lack articles and notability. The references provide a decent amount of information, however it mainly relates to the bookkeeping side of the vessel, such as identification letters and name/ownership changes. This information is incredibly common, and does not justify an article in itself. Several of them are also likely Kriegsfischkutters, which has little English on the topic. Sources should discuss the boat for more than a few lines to justify an article. I recall several LCT articles being deleted on grounds of similar WP:N issues.

I wanted to bring the issue up here before opening up AFD procedure on each respective article. The issues I bring up apply to nearly every article found nearly every article of the class, found here. GGOTCC (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * - the vast majority of the vorpostenboote do meet GNG. As commissioned naval vessels (some of which served with two navies), MILHIST holds that they should be capable of sustaining articles. Die Deutschen Kriegschiffe is a book by a notable German author. There is no bar to this RS being used because it is written in the German language. There may be the occasional vessel which cannot meet GNG, such as V 203 Heinrich Buermann which does not get an article. Mjroots (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * BTW, the comment that "many of the boats lack articles". There's a reason for this. It's a work in progress. I'm currently working on various lists of shipwrecks, lists of ship launches, vorpostenboot articles plus whatever else takes my fancy. It all takes time, but I'll get there in the end. Mjroots (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I just did a series on small freighters owned by a regional shipping company before and during WWI. All were above in size, but not by much. I drew the line at writing articles on those that were sunk during the war. A couple of others survived encounters with U-boats, but I don't know the sources, if any, on U-boat war cruises to get enough details to fill out any articles that I might have done. But that was my decision on what was worth my time, not on their inherent notability.
 * I think that this is fundamentally yet another debate between inclusionists, myself included, and deletionists, in which camp I believe GGOTCC falls. But I'll save everyone's time and not rehash the arguments for and against yet again.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * These articles meet our standards for notability. AFDs on dozens of articles meeting those standards would be misdirected. The two editors above are experienced and competent editors and creators of content and are familiar with those standards. To the extent any individual article is not compliant with those standards and cannot be made compliant with them, there may be a case for deletion, but not otherwise. Kablammo (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Coming to this discussion as a complete outsider, the sourcing of e.g. SS Rhineland (1938) (picked semi-randomly as the first ship in Vorpostenboote Navbox) is not encouraging. I'm getting a lot of the same vibes as with Olympians prior to the recent RfC that resulted in a near-complete overhaul of the sports notability criteria. Ljleppan (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, what's our standards for notability here, WP:GNG? Ljleppan (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if some of them aren't individually notable (although I suspect many are notable), wouldn't merging to a list article be preferable to outright deletion? Hog Farm Talk 17:25, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I would also think that these groups of these boats would meet the criteria for NLIST, though many may not meet GNG. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I randomly picked a ship from the middle of the navbox, German trawler V 305 Ostpreussen, and it was worse. If the only actual source for this fishing trawler is Die deutschen Kriegsschiffe and Lloyd's Register, then I also have to question notability. Does other actual source coverage exist? I fear that MILHIST is creating a walled garden of articles that, under normal circumstances, would absolutely be deleted at AfD. Silver  seren C 18:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Loyd's Register is essentially a directory-type listing, so isn't useful for establishing notability. I think the test is whether there are multiple reliable sources that provide at least some individual coverage of the ship. I tend to favour a horses for courses type approach for ship notability, as sourcing varies. In general pre-1945 patrol craft and small auxiliaries don't attract the necessary types of coverage needed to meet WP:N, not least due to the vast numbers of them. Nick-D (talk) 21:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Generally, I'm of the mind that WWII-era military vessels tend to attract an unusually large amount of press/scholarly coverage ala Janes Fighting Ships and whatnot. That said, I'm not willing to simply assume that GNG coverage exists for all of these dime-a-dozen patrol boats. Whether they are "commissioned naval vessels" doesn't seem relevant. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Coverage in "Die Deutschen Kriegschiffe" and similar books is more than enough to justify an NLIST, IMO. But where is the line for these types of poorly documented ships? I found and added two references to SS Rhineland, aka Sperrbrecher 31, documenting that she escorted the Bismarck through the Baltic in 1941. She's not mentioned again in either source. Does that suffice to establish notability?
 * I've added some sources below for interested editors who might want to flesh out some of these types of articles.
 * The only English-language book that I know of specifically covering these. It mentions well over a hundred different ships.
 * Regional histories like, , or Geirr Haarr's trilogy on the Norwegian Campaign.
 * Or the most detailed book on the naval side of WW2,
 * As an aside, I would caution editors against using Bertke, Smith & Kindell, World War II Sea War in a multitude of volumes. It is published by Bertke himself, and I don't believe that any of the authors have any right to be taken as experts.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I found and added two references to SS Rhineland, aka Sperrbrecher 31, documenting that she escorted the Bismarck through the Baltic in 1941. She's not mentioned again in either source. Does that suffice to establish notability? based on the description, that's far from meeting WP:GNG. Ljleppan (talk) 11:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if they're just mentioned in a sentence or two, that doesn't meet the requirements of significant coverage for a source to actually contribute to meeting GNG. Silver  seren C 16:47, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sturmvogel, do you have a copy of Freivogel? I think does, perhaps he could tell us if it covers these boats. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I’ve got it, will look. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Freivogel does talk about the 11th Security Flotilla (Sicherungsflottille), which was formed in October 1943, and existed for about a year until the Germans were pushed away from the Adriatic coast of Yugoslavia. Prior to that the Italians looked after the Adriatic. Vorpostenboote are not mentioned explicitly, but the various vessels impressed into war service by the Germans as part of the 11th are mentioned. Many of them were former Yugoslav and Italian warships known as Torpedoboot, Ausland, captured auxiliaries, and also requisitioned patrol vessels. I’m not sure which, if any, of these would be considered Vorpostenboot. None are designated V in Freivogel. He uses TA, NA, AS, MAS, B, and N. No V’s. So, not sure he is of much help here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Question about recent Samuel de Champlain (tugboat) sighting
I posted it on the ship's discussion page but it seems to not have a lot of visibility. -- Wesha (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Preserved ships and museum ships
Ships are not my main interest but I've found there seems to be a grey area around Category:Ships preserved in museums and Category:Museum ships. The article Museum ship doesn't clarify whether it uses the term to include ships out of water such as Cutty Sark; until I rescued it just now Ships preserved in museums had been redirected in 2019 to List of museum ships by someone who hadn't noticed the difference (I've added a sentence to clarify the distinction but may not have got it right); where would a ship which is intact enough to go aboard but is part of a museum be categorised?; what about a ship which is preserved, and not in a museum, but is not itself a museum open to the public either? I see that National Historic Fleet is listed under Category:Museum ships in the United Kingdom, although not many of them are as defined by Museum ship. Someone more involved with ships might like to have a look and try to clarify things here. Over to you. Pam D  12:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the article should be redirected as its broad and confusing. Just because a ship is in a local museum somewhere doesn't mean it needs to be on some list of loosely associated things. We have for example: List of submarine museums which at least narrows down the scope to the submarine (a type of ship). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I saw your clarification edit here:, wouldn't this just be static display though? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Izumo-class multi-purpose destroyer
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Izumo-class multi-purpose destroyer that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Infobox corruption
The ship infobox formatting at MV Connemara is corrupted, presumably due to something in the unconventionally coded photo recently added, but I cannot see what. Hopefully someone can fix it. Davidships (talk) 13:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Is it now ok? Tupsumato (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, but only because the photo has been changed. Davidships (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Looks like User:Pickersgill-Cunliffe managed to slip in a fixing edit between me opening the page and clicking the "edit" link. Turns out I just added a redundant "File:" and claimed it as a triumphant victory that fixed everything. Oops... Tupsumato (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Looks like the "template-breaking" photograph was cropped by an IP editor from this photograph using CSS image crop which the infobox template of course does not understand. Tupsumato (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

PROD of Ship List page
It was surprising to see Warre (ship) subject to a WP:PROD on the grounds that the list only had one blue-linked entry. I have removed the PROD and added reasons to the Talk page. Davidships (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Merge of coastal minehunter to minehunter
I put a suggestion on the coastal minehunter page for a merge to the minehunter page. I'm not sure it is a subject that requires its own page. Any comments welcome. Llammakey (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merger
USS Tempest (1862) has been proposed for merging into List of tinclad warships of the Union Navy. Discussion is located at Talk:List of tinclad warships of the Union Navy. Hog Farm Talk 20:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for USS Missouri (BB-63)
There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/USS Missouri (BB-63)/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. Hog Farm Talk 03:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

point lobos
can someone familiar with rules + regulations of ship naming make the connection here?

Earl King, Ernest Ramsay, and Frank Conner

List of Empire ships (U–Z)

seems obvious to me, but then i am asking myself why the connection has not yet been made.

thanks a nunch Nowakki (talk) 09:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It would help if you explained which of the ship's names you are talking about and the connection you believe there is between these events. You have linked articles saying a ship was named Point Lobos in 1931, a murder happened on the ship in the 1930s and the ship was renamed Empress Wagtail at the start of WWII. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There has been more than one ship under the name "Point Lobos".
 * https://wrecksite.eu/wreck.aspx?172669
 * Using Lloyd's pages given on the page above, is that enough to establish that Point Lobos, anchored in Alameda in 1936, was built in Tacoma in 1919.
 * For a different "Point Lobos", see for example Albina Engine & Machine Works Nowakki (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There have only been two Point Lobos, the first was the Alameda one launched in 1918 and renamed to Ernest H. Meyer in 1929, the second was launched in 1919 as Ossining and took the name Point Lobos in 1933 becoming Empire Wagtail in 1941 Lyndaship (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The event in Alameda was in 1936. So it's the other way around, no? Nowakki (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry eye jump. Try again. There have only been two Point Lobos, the first was launched by Albina in Portland Oregon in 1918 and renamed to Ernest H. Meyer in 1929, the second was launched by Todd in Tacoma in 1919 as Ossining and took the name Point Lobos in 1933 becoming Empire Wagtail in 1941
 * So, when someone gets around to writing the article on SS Point Lobos (1919), that incident can be included. Mjroots (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * i added it to the empire wagtail stub. whoever chooses to should be able to find it there. Nowakki (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

New article DSV Limiting Factor
Just expanded a draft and moved it into mainspace as DSV Limiting Factor. I am reasonably familiar with ships, but not so much with writing articles about specific vessels, so would appreciate if someone who has a few good articles to their name would take a look and leave any comments or suggestions they feel appropriate on the talk page. Also, I tried to rate it at C-class, which worked for all the projects except ships, where it got a start rating. I assume the project has some automated rating system overriding the human rater somehow. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 18:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Pre-Cold War French Navy pennant numbers
I've been diving deep into recently and Appendix I covers what we've been using as pennant numbers. Before the Cold War these were strictly used for budgetary purposes, not to identify ships. Thus they are not "pennant numbers" as we define them. The French Navy did use pennant numbers on some ships in the interwar period to show unit assignments, but these differed from the budgetary numbers. Therefore we need to delete these so-called pennant numbers from article titles and revert to year of launch for any required disambiguators. Thoughts? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If they are not pennant numbers then they should not be used as such. There is a lot of leeway in the guidelines for this wikiproject, but if they are not pennant numbers, that would mean that another type of number would have to added to the disambiguation text in the guidelines and those numbers would have to be explained in the text somewhere and we end up down a huge rabbit hole just on the guidelines page. If we talk about the article, then if that number is used as a disambiguator, it has to have some importance and once again, needs to be explained somewhere in the text. It is better just to go with launch year and avoid all that. Even if we ignore the guidelines page, those "pennant numbers" would still need to be explained in the article. Llammakey (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Much prefer the constant of a launch year as opposed to a potential variable of a pennant number for dabs. The only articles affected dabwise I think are those for submarines Lyndaship (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Help needed
Which is the identity of the ship that the Kriegsmarine requisitioned as "Schiff 4", later V 1801 Wandrahm and V 6114 Eismeer? Was it SS Wandrahm (1920), SS Wandrahm (1927) or something else? The German Wikipedia has a list of ships with the designation "Schiff", which has a couple of references. Mjroots (talk) 07:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Although it seems that the "Schiff.." vessels were of a variety of types, including a few trawlers, deWP describes her as a "freighter", and Miramar lists the 1927 Stettin-built cargo ship as "WANDRAHM - 39 SCHIFF 4 - 40 V.1801 - 40 EISMEER - 46 ONEGA" (for last name under Soviet ownership, also see LR 1969). No other freighter candidate found in the right period and assume that your 1920 ship was the 239grt trawler completed in 1921. Unfortunately I do not have the relevant volumes of Gröner, and the available snippets do not reveal enough. Davidships (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, that gives me something to work from. Mjroots (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've found the webpage in Russian which gives some history of the ship. Mjroots (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Good find - and looks usable, by specialist columnist in an established newspaper. Davidships (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

joshua hendy turbines
Joshua Hendy Iron Works licence-built Westinghouse steam turbines in World War 2. A portion of C1-B of Consolidated Steel, and Victory ships of various Kaiser yards used them. Asking if anyone is sitting on a database or document that details what ships were using those engines.

PS: if anyone can weigh in on the problem of which C1-B were produced at the Wilmington and Long Beach yards of Consolidated Steel, where sources just can't agree amongst themselves, that would be fantastic. Nowakki (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


 * As you have the ship names in Colton, have you correlated those with their entries in Merchant Vessels of the United States?
 * Another place to check for that, and for the engines, is Lloyd's Register (for example, in 1947 LR, Cape Trinity, Cape Tryon and Cape Victory are shown as all from Wilmington; but Cape Tryon had a Joshua Hendy engine, and the other two had Westinghouses). Main site here is, I think, quicker for browsing - but for those lost before 1947, you can check via here selecting "digitised Lloyd's register" instead of "Full catalogue" and adding ship name alongside. Hope that helps.  Davidships (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * a conflict between Merchants of the United States and LLoyd's, how would that be best resolved? Nowakki (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I wasn't expressing any preference; I think that depends on what you find. Unfortunately we cannot tell what sources the late Tim Colton relied on.  Davidships (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * what about miramar. does it not contain this kind of information? Nowakki (talk) 09:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, so far as the yard is concerned (but no engine-builders). I had a quick look - Miramar has 17 built at Long Beach (Yd 156-159, 238, 277-279, 332-336, 539, 756-758), while Colton has just the first seven of these. Davidships (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * does miramar have keel laying dates and launch dates for all of them? Nowakki (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Nowakki, you can get a free ticket to Miramar via the Wikipedia library Lyndaship (talk) 15:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

What is a submarine?
Proper definition with reliable source needed. See Talk:Submarine Anyone here with access to good technical sources? Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 16:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Any admins out there?
We have a user posting from various IPs, all to naval ship articles, and while some edits are ok, others are problematic, but beyond that, the summaries are all a.a.f. eg;
 * 185.82.254.188:
 * "I put 2031 i promise again again I will not edit" &
 * "I promise i won’t edit it again"
 * 176.220.125.77:
 * "I promise i won’t put it again edit I write 2026 commissioned frigate I will not break terms of service" &
 * "I won’t do it again edit i will not do it again"
 * 37.231.45.163:
 * "I won’t do it again",
 * "I Promise one more time only and enough I won’t do it again I will agree terms of service",
 * "I promise i won’t do edit again pls I promise again",
 * "I promise I won’t do it edit again I promise pls I am gonna agree terms of service",
 * "I won’t do it I put because they will retired uss Nimitz 2025 I won’t do it again I am gonna follow terms of services",
 * "I swear I won’t edit it again only one more time i will not do it I will follow terms of services" &
 * "I swear I won’t edit it again only one more time i will not do it I will follow terms of services"
 * 37.231.159.112:
 * "I won’t edit again I wrote because I can’t see frigate acitve"
 * 94.128.166.34:
 * "I put 2 scrapped they were Des Moines Newport new i won’t edit again" (about a half dozen like this today using this ip address)
 * Another one from 37.231.254.206, promising not to edit USS Norfolk (DL-1), but then they did anyway.

I'm sure there are other edits from other IP accounts, with the same kind of summaries, and most likely on the same subject. If anyone comes across any, feel free to add to the list. Meanwhile, do any of the helpful admins that usually pop in here from time to time, have any ideas to put forward about this? Any assistance would be appreciated. Cheers - w o lf  06:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Two "appear to be" Turkish IPs, and the other Kuwaiti, although I agree they look pretty similar, and it could just be a dynamic or VPN. A range block wouldn't be useful, so I think revert on sight any dubious edits, and if they do more than say five dubious edits on one IP address, just report them. You can ping me in such cases, I'll happily take a look. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Are there any articles that might benefit from either a PBLOCK or semi-protection? Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The short answer is: probably not yet. Only once or twice have they edited an article more than once, (that I see with these three IPs). But I'm sure I've seen these "I promise this or that"-type nonsense summaries before, so that's another reason I posted here, to make others aware. Cheers - w o lf  18:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * if it gets to the point where action is needed, let me know. Mjroots (talk) 04:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Will do. Thanks - w o lf  04:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oy... still at it. With this bizarre groveling in the summaries, I suspect this may be a banned user, but with all the ip-hopping, (initially Turkey, now Kuwait) I also suspect there is little that can be done. - w o lf  01:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That edit wasn't unconstructive. Your suspicions may be correct re the banned user, but unless we can identify the banned editor, there's nothing we can do apart from keep an eye on this. Mjroots (talk) 06:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Like I said, some of the edits are ok, some not so much, but it's the annoying summaries that caught my attention and make me think this is an evader. I will keep a watch and see if anything more significant develops. Cheers - w o lf  17:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

SS William Penn
The United States Shipping Board converted 23 steam ships to diesel in the 1920s, due to the lower fuel consumption.

The SS William Penn (built by Pusey and Jones in Gloucester) was the prototype ship for that program and there is plenty of documentation on her and her voyages. The ship does not have a wikipedia article. If anyone is interested, or if anyone has a AI that can spit out a passable skeleton of an article, this ship may be worthwhile to look into.

there are several articles on other converted ships, but no mention is made of the program (the conversions are mentioned). so there are ripple benefits. i was going to add an extended section to the William Penn page summarizing the program, but i don't really know how to bootstrap a proper ship article.

PS: the USS Defiance (ID-3327) was converted twice. back to steamer in 1938.

PPS: there are also toy articles of the Busch-Sulzer variety in wikipedia's diesel department that would see benefits from this. Nowakki (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

George Hibbert (ship, 1804)
This ship appears to have a problem.

This Article says the model ship on the Hibbert Gate is the "George Hibbert", a barque built in London in 1804; c. 1834, it was used to transport convicts to Australia.

Was this ship actually built in 1803? The Lloyds link for 1804 is rotten.

This piece says the ship is The Hibbert (1785-1813) which was one of the largest vessels in the West India trade at the turn of the 19th century. See https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.person.bm000044708. Which is correct? Are there two ships? Any help appreciated. I left a duplicate of this question on the talk page. Broichmore (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , who might be ble to help. Mjroots (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing rotten about 1804 LR, and the two versions, "Underwriters" and "Shipowners", agree on 1803 (nb the Underwriters book gives age). Meanwhile, I think that Acad has indeed nailed it on the talk page. Davidships (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Recent info find on two shipwrecks
While researching to write a description for File:Museum of the North Beach 12.jpg I ran across some information on two wrecked ships: the S.S. Seagate, registered in Monrovia (Liberia). Built 1944, wrecked 1956-09-06 near Aberdeen, Washington, and the S.S. Texmar, probably built 1919, owned by the Bethlehem Steel Corporation and operated at the time of its grounding under a bareboat charter by the Calmar Steamship Company (their own proprietary subsidiary). Grounded on a shoal in Gray's Harbor, Washington December 30, 1960. Currently the latter is mentioned (with no link, and nothing about the grounding) in the Calmar Steamship Company article.

Just passing this along in case anyone wants to do something with any of this. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 04:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Already mentioned at list of shipwrecks in 1956 and list of shipwrecks in 1960 respectively. Mjroots (talk) 13:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Did some quick searches: there was an interesting enough legal case about the Texmar wreck that it might well be worth an article. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 05:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * - If you do write an article, plenty of info can be found in shipping registers. Many of which are linked from WP:SHIPS/R. Mjroots (talk) 06:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Penang and Battle of Cocos maps
Hi all! I want to upload some maps regarding this two occasions. Battle of Penang map from Naval Staff Monographs is already uploaded, but unfortunately there is no map about the Battle of the Cocos in NSM. But there is one in Krieg zur See and this same one with one color more in the book of Prince Franz Joseph von Hohenzollern My Experiences in S. M. S. Emden. PDF Extraction Wizard does not work for me with both of these images. A British map of the Battle of the Cocos can be seen here - I don't know whether it is free for uploading or not. Can someone please help me in uploading these images? Thank you. - Andreas (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)


 * https://imgur.com/a/MBWTB2h Nowakki (talk) 07:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And what is about the British Battle of Cocos map? It can be found on Naval-History.net. Is it free for Commons? - Andreas (talk) 10:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It was published in 1920, and the "Modern Introduction" in the online link to it says that the work is "out-of-copyright". Kablammo (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Somehow I did not find the map in the book though I was searching for it. Now I have it. - Andreas (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Empire ships
What makes USS West Hobomac (ID-3335) different from Empire ships? Except that it did not have an "Empire X" name? It was also transferred by the Minister of War Transport (MoWT) in 1940 and given a British flag.

If there is no substantial difference, that would make "Empire ship" a misleading category. Nowakki (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The Empire ships were only linked by being prefixed "Empire". They were an assortment of different types- cargo ships, tankers, tug, ocean liners etc. They were not a standard design like Fort ships, Liberty ships, Park Ships, Victory ships etc. West Hobomac was not an an Empire ship. Mjroots (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * West Hobomac was also not one of those WW2 standard designs. There lies my problem. A guy giving names to ships has created an arbitrary category. The group of "a random sample of some of the ships" that sailed for Britain. Nowakki (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added some categories to the article. I believe these are now all correct and no additions or deletions need to be made. Mjroots (talk) 10:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * there should be a list of empire ships that are not named "Empire X". Nowakki (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You have some examples? - w o lf  17:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

ship launch standard format is still not right
there is no way of sorting the list to see how many ships were built by ACME in a given year or how many UncleSam-class destroyers where built.

you have to do the same procedure 12 times and write the intermediate results down.

the TOC could be rescued, using the {{anchor template either for the first entry in a month or for a subheading row that only contains the month.

such a subheading could also display the count for the month if that is desirable. and when the table is sorted it will not get in the way. Nowakki (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * {{Re|Nowakki}} Ever considered the possibility that you are going about this the wrong way? If you want know how many ships Harland and Wolff launched in 1927, there is a place that you can easily find out. How many Clemson-class destroyers were built? You can easily find that out too. Mjroots (talk) 07:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * in other words: there is no need to do it right, because it can be done right somewhere else.
 * and it is at this point not done elsewhere to a satisfying degree of completeness. Nowakki (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * In other words, it seems to me that you are trying to use the lists of ship launches for something they were not designed for. Mjroots (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * like i said. the design is still not right. Nowakki (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

help, please
I have read few years ago in a WIKIPEDIA/en article that an USS wooden ship (perhaps a sloop) was "sunk for preservation" in one of the Great Lakes and was then raised and restored. May you tell me the name of the vessel? I tried the list of scuttled vessels, without success. Perhaps should be added there. thanks. pietro. Of course, my memory may be slightly wrong ... 176.206.34.69 (talk) 13:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * HMS Detroit (1813) was among the US ships that were sunk for preservation. Llammakey (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Also USS Lawrence (1813) and USS Niagara (1813). Apparently a result of the Treaty of Ghent of 1815, but no mention in our article. Alansplodge (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much to Alansplodge who has found the vessel and also to Llamakey, who has taught me that an USS vessel must be searched also as an HMS one! 176.206.34.69 (talk)
 * I have added Category:Scuttled vessels to these three articles. Alansplodge (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

ENSCO
ENSCO floating platforms 8500 and 8501 article is a bit of an odd duck. Article was created after 2020, after SpaceX bought the two former deepwater oil drilling platforms with a plan to convert them to become floating launch vehicle operations platforms--and the article was pretty much exclusively about that. Now, SpaceX has sold the platforms, and will not be continuing with the conversions/refits.

A first edit has been made to attempt to generalize the article. But I'm sure that if a ships-oriented editor went there, the article would be vastly improved. So if that's you, take a look over there, and help with what should be done. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Or this article may just need to be deleted. As plain old oil rigs, would we normally have articles about them? The aborted use as launch-pads can be noted on a SpaceX article. (jmho) - w o lf  15:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree, merge back to SpaceX facilities, to which the article in question is currently the "main article". Whether these were "plain old oil rigs" I cannot say, but if not, the already-postulated Ensco 8500 Series Semi Submersible could also be created (or this one repurposed?). Davidships (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Naming conventions for cruise ship articles.
Currently there doesn't seem to be a rational convention for naming articles about cruise ships (mainly). Because modern ships can get swapped between owners fairly frequently, with the associated name changes, it often gets to the point where an article titled MV First Name starts off referring to MV Third Name while the infobox refers to MV Second Name. No doubt to the utter confusion of the general reader. Would it not be better for all such article titles to be the first operational name of the vessel with all subsequent names being appropriate redirects? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Also applies to ferries to a lesser extent. I believe the existing convention is to use the latest name and when the ship is scrapped to decide what the best known name was. Not perfect and probably against WP:COMMONNAME but if we always used the first operational name as the title of the article I think we would be endlessly reverting moves as the fanboys constantly changed it to the current name of the ship Lyndaship (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The fanboys are a continuing problem. The real problem is when the article title is apparenty chosen at random from the middle of the list of names and the text starts with the last name or even some other random name. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I, for one, support the clear and easy-to-understand policy of using an extant ship's current registered name (excluding possible "scrapyard names" and the like) and, once that ship has sailed, having a healthy fight about the best-known name where the article should be parked for all eternity. Tupsumato (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are going to do that, then the lead section needs updating to reflect that. Too many editors are changing one or the other but not both. So you end up with an article called SPL Princess Anastasia (1986) starting "Moby Orli is a cruiseferry owned by Moby SPA. Until September 2010, she was known as Pride of Bilbao, operated by P&O Ferries on their Portsmouth–Bilbao route." You don't get to the title name till a fair way down the lead. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Obviously. Just because some editors don't do a proper job when a ship changes its name is not an argument for adopting a more complex naming policy. Tupsumato (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What is complex about not keep changing the name of the article? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Moving the article is not a particularly complex operation and leaves an automatic redirect that ensures backwards compatibility with any article that linked to the ship under its previous name (and if my memory serves me right, there's a bot that fixes double redirects automatically). However, using a little-known first name would be confusing, misleading, and leave a casual reader (who might have seen the ship in the news or just booked a cruise on it) wondering if they have arrived in the correct article because the big title on top of the page is something they might have never heard before.
 * As I said before, we should not adopt policies that support sloppy editing; we should strive for principles that ensure that our articles are accurate and up-to-date. Furthermore, changing the naming policy would necessitate moving a large number of existing articles to names that mean very little to a casual reader. Tupsumato (talk) 12:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate where you are coming from, and as you point out, it is a little late in the day to try and introduce a new policy.Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry to come late to the party, but there is a rational convention for these circumstances at WP:SHIPNAME, which is completely consistent with WP policy in focusing on the most likely name that a reader will come looking for - then the greatest number of landings will actually be at the right place. Proper application does not produce a "random name", even if it looks so. Whenever in doubt, the choice of article name should be discussed on the article talk page in accordance with WP:TITLECHANGES and posted to WP:RM if necessary. I agree that fan boys can be a nuisance and more maintenance editing is required sometimes, including taking full acount of MOS:FIRST.  Perhaps WP:SHIPNAME should be revised to make it clear that, generally, only a name under which the ship has actually been in service should be chosen (still too many Covid-lay-up names for ships in the scrap queue). Davidships (talk) 12:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * SHIPNAME is more about warships where multiple name changes are fairly rare. I think three is the most I've ever come across. They also tend to be long lasting changes. Would also apply, in the civil sphere, to examples like France/Norway. At the other extreme, I can't remember which ship is involved, but there is at least one example of a cruise ship changing name every spring and autumn as it transferred between cruising areas and operating companies. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * SHIPNAME is about all ships. It has civilian sections, military sections, and others that apply to both, as in the one in question. Your example [perhaps the Norwegian Black Watch/Jupiter, jointly owned by Fred Olsen and Bergen Line, which has no article yet] is exactly why talk page consensus based on WP Policy is the right guidance. Davidships (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually Black Prince/Venus was what I was thinking of, seems to be a habit with Fred Olsen. Sorry, I was slightly opaque, it is easier to apply SHIPNAME to warships for the reasons I stated. The ship that started this discussion was probably best known as Pride of Bilbao, at least in UK, which is not her first name or the name of the article. Arguably she is probably also as well known as Princess Anastasia, so which to choose? To rename the article Moby Orli as the latest name, though she's literally only just entered service with that name, is what lead me to ask if there was a better way of organising things. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree that WP:SHIPNAME covers it, see no need to deviate from that for cruise ships. Agree with above suggestions that the current name should be used for in service vessels and then the WP:COMMONNAME thereafter. Souneoret (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Engines of Saga Pearl II
Can anyone help with good post-2009 sources on the engine fit of the cruiseship Saga Pearl II? Current ref should be good but seems contradictory over whether the ship was re-engined in the 2009 refit. Explained at Talk:Pearl II. (PS: the article should be renamed, as never in operation as Pearl II, but am awaiting any conclusion from the discussion above.) Davidships (talk) 12:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Help to identify a ship
Hello, can you help me identify a "minesweeper Salamander" active around 1907-1910 and 1913 (was captained by Paul Stupar 1907-1910; participated in the Blockade of Montenegro in 1913). It is mentioned in two sources, but giving the dates and type of ship it is none of those listed at HMS Salamander or SMS Salamander... Tommy Lee J. (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's probably the Austro-Hungarian minelayer (laid down in 1890 and launched in 1891) - it was still extant during the First World War according to Greger's Austro-Hungarian Warships of World War I.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Nigel Ish thanks for the reply. I only realized now the replies were written by two different editors.
 * Again, I think that's probably what I am looking for ( https://www.kuk-kriegsmarine.it/navi/navi-appoggio/salamander/scheda-nave-de.html )
 * The use of "minesweeper" in my sources could be due to mistranslation by the authors (?) Tommy Lee J. (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * google books finds a tender used as a school ship ca. 1913, but it's only a snippet.
 * https://www.google.de/books/edition/Jahresbericht_der_K_und_k_Kriegmarine/ex84AQAAMAAJ?hl=de&gbpv=1&bsq=sms+salamander&dq=sms+salamander&printsec=frontcover Nowakki (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Nowakki, thanks for the reply.
 * Meanwhile I found this on the internet:
 * https://www.kuk-kriegsmarine.it/navi/navi-appoggio/salamander/scheda-nave-de.html
 * So judging from the dates it should be it, as you suggested, though in my sources they (mis?)call it minesweeper. I don't think Austria-Hungary had two ships with the same name active at the same time anyway. Tommy Lee J. (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * https://books.google.de/books?id=WDflBeEK6QMC&pg=PA1417&dq=minen+salamander&hl=de&newbks=1&newbks_redir=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjHjM3AhJ39AhW-i_0HHQI9DgIQuwV6BAgOEAc
 * another big blob of 1900 pages in german where salamander appears as a mine tender once in what at a glance looks to be a comprehensive list of ships of some kind. Nowakki (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Is minetender a minesweeper or minelayer? Tommy Lee J. (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * not sure, but i don't think one "tends to" enemy mines, not would one never sweep up their own laid mines. Nowakki (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Miramar gives it as a minelayer Lyndaship (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Lyndaship Thanks. Do you have a link for Miramar? Tommy Lee J. (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Jane's Fighting Ships of World War I also has "Mine Layer (Minenlager)", with a small photo (none in Commons, I think). Davidships (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Davidships Thanks; the photo should be in the public domain now. Do you have a link for this source? I'm thinking about creating a stub article for this ship Tommy Lee J. (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Davidships@Lyndaship@Nigel Ish@Nowakki, I just created SMS Salamander (1890), it's the first article of a ship that I create, and it would be nice if you could have a look at it and correct any mistake, or expand it if you like. Tommy Lee J. (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * P.S. Just realized that the Croatian source actually uses the word "minelayer" ("minopolagača"), so actually only Hooton calls it "minesweeper". Probably just a mistake. Tommy Lee J. (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * archive.org pdfs allow putting a page into the url. suggested would be:
 * ..../page/n123/mode/1up
 * for linking to page 123. in your case the target page seems to be behind a paywall, so it wouldn't really matter. for future reference. page-link refs are amazing.
 * also try and use google.com instead of google.de URLs to help make wikipedia look more standardized for these widely used archives. Nowakki (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)