Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 54

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 50

←

Archive 52

→

JDS or JS

The prefix for Japanese ships was changed from JDS to JS at the end of 2007. I've noticed a lack of consistency in articles and red links in class articles for ships which served both before and after the change. Do we have a policy? If not, we could either go for once a JDS always a JDS based either on order date, launch date or commissioned date. Or if the ship was in commission on 1 Jan 2008 it's a JS. Don't think any of these ships will be better known as one or other in the English speaking world. I favour making the launch date the defining criterion as it's usually the most easily obtainable date but if another editor subsequently changes the prefix on an article because the bulk or even all of it's active service was as a JS I'm happy to let it go on the basis of most common name Lyndaship (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

"The ship prefix JDS (Japanese Defense Ship) was used until 2008, at which time JMSDF ships started using the prefix JS (Japanese Ship) to reflect the upgrade of the Japanese Defense Agency to the Ministry of Defense.". Of course, I'm still in favor of dropping ship prefixes because general readers have little to no clue what they are, but that's for another discussion. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

But one of the reasons we have this project is so people can learn. I don't think we should do away with relevant content just because some readers don't know what it means. Ship prefixes are an important part of ship articles, especially naval ships. (imho) - ^theWOLFchild 13:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

According to WP:NC-S, it's neither. We don't use IJN/HIJMS for Imperial Japanese Navy vessels, nor do we use JDS/JS for JSDF vessels. They take the form "Japanese (ship type) (ship name) (disambiguator if required)". Mjroots (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I was under the impression that JDS/JS were/are actual prefixes, not invented ones like IJN/HIJMS. Parsecboy (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe JDS/JS are official prefixes and certainly they are used on articles here. I've changed my mind on when we should use JS. I now think if the ship served after 2008 article titles should be JS. However as there's been no comments (and a consensus of one who changed her mind after making the proposal has no validity) on setting a policy I'm not going to change anything Lyndaship (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

That seems a logical approach, Lyndaships - with a JDS redirect for those ships that straddle the divide. Davidships (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

A link to a DAB page

HMS Rodney (1884) links to the DAB page Queensferry. Can any expert help solve this puzzle? Narky Blert (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Changed Queensferry to Firth of Forth and sourced as presumably she moored at a buoy! Lyndaship (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Neat solution, thanks! Narky Blert (talk) 09:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

More advice on ships and memorials

Would it be possible to get more advice on ships and memorials? This is mainly in relation to WWI and WWII. I raised this here back in February. Since then, I have done some work on List of ships named on the Tower Hill Memorial (see also notes left on talk page). I'm not sure where to go from there, as there are several ways the list could be developed. It is not intended to be complete, but I would appreciate some advice on what a sensible cut-off point would be for identifying ships where articles might be suitable that haven't been created yet, and/or for pointing to lists and sections in articles where a shipwreck or sinking might be covered. Some ships are also red-links from disambiguation pages (e.g. SS Britannia (1889) listed at SS Britannia). Would it be acceptable to include those as red-links that presumably may get created at some point? Depending on the advice received here, I might also return to Helles Memorial and other memorials where shipwrecks and sinkings are either named directly on the memorial, or are linked to the memorial in reliable sources. Carcharoth (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:REDLINK, these are valid redlinks. Check the various lists of shipwrecks covering WWI and WWII, there are many redlinks in them. All of these are capable of being turned into articles in due course. Mjroots (talk) 10:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there an easy way to pick out the UK merchant shipping from those lists (I did look through them, but gave up after a while as it was taking a long time - I eventually wikified a list of all the ship names on the memorial along with the most common prefixes and checked all the blue links)? It is a bit more complicated than that, as some of the shipping named on the Tower Hill Memorial was sailing under and flying a non-UK flag, but had UK merchant seamen on board, and if they were among the missing dead then that ship and their names ended up on the memorial. The trouble I have is that I have no real idea where the line is drawn. How do I know if a red-link is a genuine potential article, or someone linking a non-notable ship that will never get an article? Carcharoth (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

It depends how easy you want it to be. If you are looking for tables already sortable by flag, then that is not available, but since by at least one generally accepted definition "UK merchant shipping" means, at least at that time, ships registered in UK ports, and "British merchant shipping" would add the ships on the British register from other ports in the Empire, that is quickly identifiable as United Kingdom, Canada etc are named and every entry has the ensign as a visual check

On the question of notability there was a very useful discussion about this a decade ago at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 12#Notability of Merchant ships. I think that in the shipwreck lists, red links pretty well follow that thinking, and some of the (few) unlinked might turn out to be notable. In reality, not all the red links will ever be written as stand-alone articles (not only from sourcing limitations, but even more so from the enormous task for editors to write them), but there is probably considerable scope for more ship-class, convoy or shipowner articles, which can have mini-histories of individual vessels. Davidships (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. I'll have a think about this. Might start with inserting some information in shipwreck lists. Carcharoth (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Information on almost all WWII merchant ships can be found on the Plimsoll Ship Data website, which has free-to-access digitised copies of Lloyd's Registers from 1930-45. WWI vessels which survived past 1929 should also be on there. There is a wealth of info - measurements, tonnages, code letters, official numbers, owners & operators, engine details etc which are really useful in writing ship articles. Other than that, WP:SHIPS/R is our repository of sources for researching ships. Mjroots (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm back guys!

It's truly been a while, but college has been keeping me busy. In the last weeks, it was 2-4 tests per week, really serious stuff. Anyway I'm back with a big and downright international project. We all know how the overwhelming majority of shipbuilding in WW2 was done by major powers. So I saw fit to compile a list of major warships (1000+ tons) built by belligerent minor powers, on both sides. I sort of knew what I was getting myself into when I started, and I was right: complete Dutch dominance. Anyways you guys check it out, spell-check it, rate it, all that good stuff: List of major Word War II warships built by minor powers Torpilorul (talk) 10:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you might be offending WP:CANVASS. You can remove the PROD yourself Lyndaship (talk) 06:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Fine, looks like even asking for help is illegal in this place... Torpilorul (talk) 06:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

HMS Bramble (J11)

Article HMS Bramble (J11) built 1942 has an image attached which is a Halcyon minesweeper. See Commons. Meanwhile Commons has another image which is marked hull number J11 and its cataloged against Algerine minesweepers, which is the Bramble built in 1945. On the disambiguation page it says 1945 is the pennant J273. Can the J11 pennant apply to both? Do you agree that "File:HMS Bramble 1945 IWM FL 2816.jpg" is the Algerine? Any comments? Broichmore (talk) 10:53 am, Yesterday (UTC−4)

Peruvian R-class submarine

During 1920s , Peruvian Navy ordered 6 R-class submarine , 4 completed , 2 canceled. What i wanted to ask is: Are those 2 canceled boats assigned to built by Electric Boat , just like the completed boats ? Thank you. -- Comrade John (talk) 09:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I suppose that Jane's of the era will have something more definitive, but the Hampshire Telegraph (UK) was generally good on naval news, at least on a bare-bones basis. Friday 29 June 1928: "The Peruvian Navy is proceeding steadily with its programme of submarines of the 'R' type, ships of 755 tons submerged displacement, which are on the usual Electric Boat Company lines, and which emply the ideas of Mr Marley F Hay, their well-known designer. R1 and 2 have been in commission for some time, R3 and 4 are launched and now fitting out, while R5 and 6 are still on the slips, but are to be delivered before the end of the year." List of Peruvian Navy ships has the succinct "projected in 1926, but not funded".^[1]

However, the reality seems to be rooted in the growing revelations of corruption in the last years of President Leguia through the 1920s at the same time as the Depression reduced the ability of American banks to extend the finance required. Details of the arrangements forexcessive or illegal commissions for the third pair of submarines were later revealed in the US Congressional Hearings on the Munitions Business in 1934 by officials of Electric Boat.^[2] Davidships (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

^ Chesnau, Roger and Gardiner, Robert (Ed.) Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, 1922–1946. Conway Maritime Press, 1980. ISBN 0-85177-146-7
^ Quiroz, Alfonso W (2008). Corrupt Circles: A History of Unbound Graft in Peru. Washington DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press. pp. 229–244, esp243-244. ISBN 0801891280. Retrieved 23 June 2018.

So , in short , the third pair of Peruvian Navy's R-class submarine assigned to built by Electric Boat is true ?--Comrade John (talk) 10:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I would say so, CJ. I forgot to add above that there is no mention of the third pair in the published yard list of Electric Boat at Groton. Either their yard numbers were re-allocated to other orders, or they never got as far as being allocated. My (OR) interpretation of all this is that the orders were never contracted, for the reasons identified, and so "not proceeded with" would be a more accurate description than "cancelled".Davidships (talk) 12:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Stalin's Ocean-going Fleet by Jurgen Rohwer

Does any of you guys happen to own this book? There's a copious amount of it available on Google Books, but some key pages still I cannot access. So I'd need some scans from it to be e-mailed. Torpilorul (talk) 13:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Back with ship articles

Hello again guys. This is my first ship article in months, finally had my last exam today. To celebrate the end of my first year of college, I did something I've been wanting to do for a loooooooooooooong time! But it's late and I'm tired, so if the article's quality seems rather shoddy this is why. I'll improve upon it myself later, but in the meantime please rate it spell-check it, all that good stuff. G'night. Torpilorul (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Ship-related disambiguation fixes needed!

An unusually large number of ships-related disambiguation pages have incoming links needing to be fixed. Please help out - the links are as follows:

Thanks! bd2412 T 20:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Can someone explain this? Lyndaship (talk) 08:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

In my review of tags, these pages were assigned the tag ship index, but since they were disambiguation pages, the tag was changed. Pages like Italian ship Nautilus have a link going to Nautilus-class submarine, which is a disambiguation page and the link on Italian ship Nautilus needs to be directed to the correct page. Llammakey (talk) 12:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

All fixed except the D-class lifeboat as I have no info at all on that subject. Llammakey (talk) 12:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

If they're to be disambiguation pages instead of set indexes, they need to be reformatted as disambiguation pages. In particular, exactly one blue link per line, no red links unless the red link is used in the article space, no entries for ships that aren't mentioned in the article space, and piping the entry link only for italics. I thought they were set indexes so that they could provide article-space-level information themselves. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

From what I understood, the ship indexes were considered lists because that would allow additional information about non-notable ships to be added to them. However, ship classes are considered too technical to put into a list and deserve their own page. Therefore these pages are just for disambiguation purposes. I have been putting most of them into disambiguation format but I'm still slogging through the ship indexes, moving them from dab tags to ship index pages. Llammakey (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'll jump in (and feel free to tag them as {{disambiguation cleanup}} for others to jump in on. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Old chestnut already

I was looking at HMS Maenad (J335) on the EN:wiki it's J335 obviously, on the Finnish Wiki it's fi:HMS Maenad (J435). Launched in 1944 and scrapped in 1957. Can someone confirm what the dates are for these pennant numbers? Can't we do the sensible thing here and write in the policy that pennant /hull numbers appear in the body of an article and nowhere else, as opposed to article titles and Commons category names? Broichmore (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The problem with that is that in most cases, pennant numbers are useful disambiguators. Where a vessel has no pennant number, or a pennant number is duplicated, disambiguation is by year of launch. Mjroots (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't year of launch be a more useful disambiguator in all cases, especially for general readers? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Immutable events usually make better disambiguators, rather than things as variable as a pennant or hull numbers which are more commonly changed or duplicated. Very occasionally two ships of the same name are launched in the same year, but are not difficult to deal with. This of course only relates to warships. For me, the use of launch year for merchant ships is an aberration - virtually all sources date ships by year of completion, and I am constantly confused by what I see here (but I suppose that this water has long passed under the bridge). Davidships (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The policy we have, needs to be revised. The prime disambiguator should be launch date and if that's not available build date, then it should be (first?) pennant number given. Pennant numbers can change as we well know, and they are unpredictable, I. E. not always sequential even, either for the vessel or for the period. They mean nothing to the casual reader. They're confusing, even in WW1 the RN changed numbers to confuse the enemy!!! Dates give an immediate fix on (period) recognition, and that's the major importance here. I would say different on the sea. Even in my original question above here, no one answered (in this case at least) because no one can say (or are interested in) what years span what pennant number. Dates as far as ships go are are immutable, pennant numbers are not. Broichmore (talk) 09:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with that - we discussed this several years ago here - the result was "There is consensus to support the proposal. No specific language was presented and so there is no consensus on what that language is supposed to be." Why we never went forward with it, I don't know, but I see no reason not to now. Parsecboy (talk) 09:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I favour using launch dates over Pennants as dabs too. There is a concern over sunk costs and that the US and to a lesser extent NATO navies tend to use the pennant as part of the ships identification. Lyndaship (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

stone frigates and naming conventions

It is apparently common practice to use the shipname templates ({{HMS}} and the like) when referring to stone frigates. I wonder if this is a correct practice particularly because the practice does not seem to be supported by MOS:ITALICS §Names and titles; stone frigates are not ships, planes, spacecraft, or trains but are shore facilities. There may be some nuance here because historically these shore facilities were once actual ships (typically as hulks).

The impetus for this question is the ship index page HMAS Leeuwin where there is listed one ship and one shore facility sharing the name. So, I guess the initial questions are:

Should the names of stone frigates follow the naming conventions of WP:NCSHIPS?

Whatever the answer is, should it be made part of WP:NCSHIPS?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Where the practice of the navy concerned is to refer to them in the same way as to their ships, then WP should follow suit; in many cases the shore establishement carried on the same function as previously carried on by a real ship of the same name, eg HMS Conway. MOS, naming conventions etc to be adjusted where necessary. Davidships (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Inadequate references - King George V-class battleship (1939)

I have downgraded King George V-class battleship (1939) from B to C, and tagged it as needing improvements to the references. This is because many of the references are useless, being either undefined or ambiguously defined as noted by me on the talk page. Your attention would be appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

HELP WANTED

For a number of years we have been experiencing a steady decline in the number of administrators as a result of attrition and a declining number of editors willing to consider adminship. Things have reached a point where we are starting to experience chronic backlogs in important areas of the project including noticeboards, requests for closure, SPI, CSD & etc. If you are an experienced editor with around two years (or more) of tenure, 10k edits give or take and no record of seriously disruptive behavior, please consider if you might be willing to help out the community by becoming an administrator. The community can only function as well as we all are willing to participate. If you are interested start by reading WP:MOP and WP:RFAADVICE. Then go to WP:ORCP and open a discussion. Over the next few days experienced editors will take a look at your record and let you know what they think your chances are of passing RfA (the three most terrifying letters on Wikipedia) as well as provide you with feedback on areas that might be of concern and how to prepare yourself. Lastly you can find a list of experienced editors who may be willing to nominate you here. Thank you and happy editing... [Note:This page may not be on my watchlist so if you want to reply to me, please either ping me or drop me a line on my talk page.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Some major changes are needed if this issue is going to be resolved. It should be easier to become an admin, instead of the current the RfA, which is tantamount to a rectal probe. Just set out a baseline of qualifiers, if someone's meets them, they get the tools. But with this comes zero-tolerance, one-strike and you're out policy. There also needs to be an community based process to desysop admins that should not be admins (and we do have some truly awful ones here). - wolf 00:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

TITANIIC

An article titled TITANIIC (Yes, that's the spelling) has flown under the radar as it is an orphan article. This is another Titanic replica project but by Czech entrepreneur Ondřej Vrkoč. Very hard to evaluate the reliability of the sources as they are mostly in Czech and the English language articles are Wiki mirrors. But from what I can tell it's all self promotion with help from an editor with an apparent COI. The project leader claims a collaboration with QM2 designer Stephen Payne and a business partnership with shipyard STX France. I've found no independent sources that support those claims of third party affiliation.

This promotion piece seems to be similar to the SS Titan (2012) and RMS Olympic III projects: promotion by somebody with a really nice web site but no maritime credentials and no realistic fund raising plan. All he has to do is get just 10,000 people to pay in $100,000 for christening rights and he'll have his billion for a one-off new build. Given the lack of geographic scope per WP:ORG, and difficulty of RS verification, and COI at best this is a merger with Replica Titanic or a straight up AfD. After running this by another editor I now consider AfD to be the right path as including it in Replica Titanic would still need better sources. Am I missing something? Blue Riband► 17:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I've started a discussion to merge TITANIIC into Replica Titanic. Blue Riband► 15:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Submitted AfD. Merging would not solve the current verifiability problem. Blue Riband► 00:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/TITANIIC. Kablammo (talk) 02:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Arcticaborg and Antarcticaborg

When I created the article about the icebreaking supply vessels Arcticaborg and Antarcticaborg back in 2012, I decided to combine the ships to a single article as they were deployed as a pair in the Caspian Sea. However, since then the careers of these vessels have diverged; one sailed to Canada and was later acquired by a Canadian offshore company while the other remains laid-up in the Mediterranean. As a result, I decided to split the article as both ships meet our established notability criteria on their own. However, the article about Antarcticaborg was reverted to a redirect, meaning that as of today the link to Antarcticaborg points to the article about Arcticaborg which no longer contains e.g. IMO numbers, launch dates etc. for the sister ship.

I kindly ask you to reconsider having individual articles for these vessels as their careers have diverged and, as individual ships, they meet our notability guidelines. I admit the articles are largely duplicates as the ships are identical, but over time they'd grow apart as the 20-year-old ships are still far from being ready for the scrap heap. Tupsumato (talk) 09:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I reverted the redirect, both are individually notable Lyndaship (talk) 09:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Ship prefixes used by NATO

Another editor has queried my deletion of ship prefixes used by NATO when they are not used by the owning navy [1] and [2]. I have pointed out the WP:Naming conventions (ships) policy but that refers to titles of articles as opposed to usage within articles. I'm dead against using these artificial prefixes anywhere as I consider them wrong information and have previously seen creep when people then create an article using this artificial prefix. I do think he has a point in this instance as the articles are about NATO organisations and the sources use these prefixes but I don't think that trumps the need for continuity in the way wikipedia handles them. Grateful for others opinions Lyndaship (talk) 10:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

It is interesting that two of the ships with 'made-up' prefixes at Standing NATO Maritime Group 2 §Force, their pages at hellenicnavy.gr use the HS prefix:

HS Kalipso

HS Armatolos

As a middle ground, one might think of these ships as members of the NATO navy in which case, it would appear that that 'country' uses prefixes. WP:NCSHIPS makes some effort to suggest that we should not make up ship prefixes and that we should not accept prefixes made-up by individual authors. WP:NCSHIPS is mute about naval forces from 'landless' countries.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I would not describe such prefixes as "wrong information", which implies a mistake, whether wilful or ignorant. "HS" has been been officially designated by an international authority, with the agreement of the country concerned, for the purpose of denoting nationality. Within the NATO context its use is "right information", and omitting it would imply that NATO doesn't use it. That is re-inforced where the country concerned uses it when writing in English, and where multiple reliable sources in English do so also.

It seems to me that it is no more artificial than HNLMS, which is probably another NATO invention to provide consistency and clarity - it is neither a translation of the Dutch prefix (HM or HMS) nor a logical abbreviation (HNMS) - but it is also used by the Dutch Navy when writing in English. The usage is properly explained at His/Her Netherlands Majesty's Ship and List of active Royal Netherlands Navy ships.

Omitting any mention of prefixes in a Greek Navy context is also misleading as it implies the ships do not have prefixes. They do. But, as with quite a few navies, they are based on generic ship type, not nationality. Perhaps wherever there is this divergence of real practice, there should be a para in the appropriate national navy pages, as in The Netherlands? Davidships (talk) 13:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Davidships, better to include and explain, than just delete altogether. (jmho) - ^theWOLFchild 13:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for comments. I too have seen some inconsistent usage of HS by the Greek Navy but really that's a separate debate, if we accept they use it then there would be no problem NATO using it too. The other prefixes used by NATO include ITS for Italian Ship, FS for French ship and FGS for Federal German Ship - none of which I believe the national navies use at all. I've also seen ESPLN for Spanish Patrol Boats in use by the EU in their press releases for Operation Atalanta. I agree HNLMS is a construct but it is one commonly accepted in the english speaking world for Dutch ships, the same cannot be said of these created NATO ones. I fully agree that if it is decided that they should be used in these articles then both there and on the national navy wikipedia pages an explanation should be made, in fact even if its decided they should not it would make sense to mention the standard NATO abbreviation on the latter. I think not omitting these single organisation/non native prefixes on wikipedia articles is a slippery slope - we need consistency. Lyndaship (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Just three observations. (1) I don't know how far back use of HS goes, but Jane's Fighting Ships 1980-1981 has on p202, in the introduction to navy of Greece, "Prefix to Ships' Names: H.S. (Hellenic Ship)". (2) How do we judge what is commonly accepted in the English-speaking world for Greek warships. (3) Would it make any difference if HNLMS was a NATO concoction too? Davidships (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I fear like all enthusiasts we are going from the general to the particular here. The question is should we use their created prefixes for navies which don't use them and not if one of the prefixes they use has national usage which we don't acknowledge on wikipedia. Lyndaship (talk) 07:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Why not, if that's what RS do? Hence my Q2 above. My judgment is that as this is an official designation, approved and used by the Greek Government, and used by RS in English for at least 38 years (it is not something just made up by an author - or by WP - as a convenience). The same applies in principle to other NATO members' navies, not only those that happen to use a national prefix internally. Davidships (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

oppose use - per Lyndaship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llammakey (talk • contribs) 14:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Lyndaship: NC-S is a guideline, not policy. We on Wiki do "make up ship prefixes". HMS (His/Ner Majesty's Ship) is generally taken to mean ships of the British Royal Navy. However, a translation of HMS can also apply to ships of other Navies, including the Royal Netherlands Navy, for which we use HNLMS instead of the Dutch Hr.Ms/Zr.Ms. For thr Royal Swedish Navy, we use HSwMS instead of the Swedish HMS. For the Royal Norwegian Navy, we use HNoMS instead of the Norwegian KNM.

The case of Greek Navy vessels is a tricky one. Use of HS is clearly established by reliable sources, for a reasonable length of time too. In this case, I think we can use HS as a prefix for Greek Navy ships, and that NC-S should be adjusted to reflect this should consensus prevail for the use of HS. Mjroots (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

If we accept HS is correct for Greek ships there is no longer a problem with the use of it in these articles. But what about FS for French ships, FGS for German ships, ITS for Italian ships, SPS for Spanish ships, ROS for Romanian ships etc? Lyndaship (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

At the moment, I'd lean against those uses. What added a lot of weight to HS was the fact that Official Greek sources do use the prefix. I doubt that is the case for the others. Mjroots (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Mjroots. HS because it does appear in other secondary sources and the Greeks do use it themselves. The others are just NATO prefixes which come from a source other than the national governments. Furthermore, the person insisting on using these NATO prefixes just declared ownership of the articles, intends to disregard WP:NC-SHIP and insists on not only using the prefixes, but also keeping the hull numbers visible. See here and all the other NATO pages, along with RIMPAC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llammakey (talk • contribs)

OK, let's engage with Battleship Sailor: WP:NC-S is a guideline, but one for which there is very strong WP:CONSENSUS. Things can be changed, but only by reasoned discussion and achieving a consensus to change things. Editors who fail to accept this are likely to have short editing careers. Current consensus is against using these made-up prefixes, with the use of HS for Greek ships being discussed. What NATO does is not necessarily what Wikipedia does. Mjroots (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi to all, I was notified of this discussion by Lyndaship. "HS" as a prefix was definitely established for use in a NATO context, and doubtless that is also the reason why the HN itself uses it in its webpage. So I would hesitate to call it "official" as in reflecting some universal guideline for use in English, adopted or initiated by the Greek government or military; it is merely that the NATO context is the most familiar English-language context for Greek officers, so that is what they will use when writing in English. I note that there is nothing analogous in Greek practice; Greek warships use a prefix that designates their function as frigate, fast attack craft, etc. Prior to that there was the designation "ΒΠ" (Βασιλικόν Πλοίον, "Royal Vessel") used under the monarchy, but I don't know how far back this went. Constantine ✍ 21:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, it's about time I talked. First off, I apologize for being aggressive, I just got angry and said what was off the top of my head, I cooled down and realized I was too harsh, and for that, I'm sorry.

As for claiming the pages, I know that Wikipedia is public and anyone can edit it, so nobody owns pages. But I do ask you to please try and see things from my view. If you look at the editing history for the NATO maritime groups, you'll clearly see that going back to a year, that I was the only one who was really updated the page and keeping it current. I got a message from administrators asking me to keep updating the pages. I got used to them being mine and having them done my way. Having my work radically changed bothers me, and I tend to fight to keep it a certain way. WP:NC-Ship was nowhere to be found in the time of my editing of the pages, and from my perspective, you guys kinda came out of nowhere and calling my work "fake" & "wrong." I looked up your project, it's a cool thing. The reason I joined the Navy was for my love of ships, but like you said, no one person, or group for that matter, can claim pages, Wikipedia is public, anyone can edit it. From my view, it's the same thing as having a stranger go into your house and rearrange your furniture without your permission and then say the way you had it before was wrong, you'd be pissed too.

Look, I willing to cooperate, but I don't see a problem in using the NATO prefixes, I didn't make them up, NATO did and they're official by them. NATO as a primary source, should be good enough as the information is coming directly from the horses mouth. As for the hull id numbers, I don't see a problem with using them, and I kept them visible to make the updating easier, but again, I don't see a problem with keeping them visible. As for the case of the Dutch De Zeven Provincien-class, internationally, most navies consider it a destroyer, I have proof of that, but I didn't want to put it in the reference on the page because the ships change frequently and I think it wouldn't be worth it.

But again, I apologize for my aggressiveness, and I do wish to work with you civilly. User:Battleship Sailor User talk:Battleship Sailor 24:22 EST, 16 July 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 04:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

"New Jersey" steamboat disaster opposite Philadelphia, March 15th 1856

Hello!

I came upon the engravings pictured on the side, which are both titled "Conflagration of the Steam Boat New Jersey on the Delaware River opposite Philad[a], March 15th 1856, in which 50 (resp. 60) Persons lost their lives" and are found at National Maritime Museum, Greenwich.

This disaster is not mentioned in List of shipwrecks of the United States, or List of disasters in the United States by death toll. The ship is not mentioned on New Jersey (disambiguation). Does anyone know more about this disaster, or this ship? Place Clichy (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I found this on Gendisasters. It would have been widely reported in contemporary American newspapers. 17:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Entry added to the list of shipwrecks in 1856. Mjroots (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

What is a torpedo boat anyway?

For quite a while I've been stumbling over this dilemma. Two of Romania's torpedo boats in WW2, NMS Smeul and NMS Năluca, had their torpedo tubes removed. ...So why on Earth are they still referred to as torpedo boats?! Really, I've seen book sources rating them as torpedo boats, only to mention they didn't have torpedo tubes a mere few lines later. Isn't a torpedo boat supposed to...carry torpedoes? I mean why are they not referred to as corvettes or escorts or something? "Torpedo boat", it's in their very name, and it's gone. Literally all books I came across mention them as torpedo boats only to "debunk" this rows later. I'm confused. Torpilorul (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

"What is a torpedo boat?" and particularly "How big is a torpedo boat?" are difficult questions to answer, and depend significantly on the date.

A torpedo boat is a boat that is fast enough to approach capital ships without being sunk (i.e. faster than the guns can train on it) and can then launch torpedoes. The first ones were fast, but small. As their steam power plants grew larger - and particularly with a shift to steam turbines around 1900 - they grew larger.

A related class was the torpedo boat destroyer, the ancestor of today's destroyers. These were similar boats to torpedo boats, but were intended to be fast enough to catch torpedo boats and damage them with gunfire - implying light, quick-firing guns. They were fast - their greater size than torpedo boats used the latest naval engineering of the day, particularly the realisation that a longer, narrow hull allowed more space for engine power but proportionately less water resistance. They could be three times the length of a torpedo boat and twice the speed.

No-one knows what the earlier torpedo gunboat was for. They were supposed to be 'catchers' against torpedo boats, but they weren't big enough to be any faster (and no-one knew this early on that that was the right approach). They also had torpedo tubes added, giving them an additional offensive capability (but not against fast-moving torpedo boats). So some admirals managed to turn the 'hunter' into a poor copy of its 'prey', by overloading them with a poor duplication of their own ability.

By WWI, certainly the end of it, the earlier TBs and TBDs of 1900 were obsolete. Torpedoes were longer ranged and faster, both by better propulsion and by more accurate control. The favoured way to launch a torpedo now was to sneak up with one of the newly practical submarines. Gunnery had improved too, so an attack by one of these pre-war TBs would be much more risky. There were still torpedo boats - but now they were small again; the Coastal Motor Boat had rejected steam power in favour of petrol engines. This made the boats far smaller (a quarter the length of their predecessor), avoided the need for a crew of stokers and able seaman (the crew was reduced to a handful on the bridge) and made them faster and lighter. They were now so fast that the torpedos had to be launched by slipping them over the stern, otherwise the boat would overrun them.

So, many early-war 'torpedo boats', such as those here, were obsolete as torpedo launchers. But they were still handy boats, and fast. So they were ideal for a new role, created by the new threat of the submarine, and that was as submarine chasers – the role which would soon be seen as being a destroyer's main role. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Peer review request for Montana-class battleship

Montana-class battleship

I'm opening a peer review request, as it has been nine years since the last one, and in the past year in particular, I've added a ton of new information and corrected some misconceptions about the class. In particular, I heavily expanded the armor section and also expanded the design history section. Many (perhaps most?) of these edits were done when logged off. In any case, I referred heavily to well regarded book sources such as Sumrall, Friedman, Garzke & Dulin, and INRO publications in order to reduce the amount of citations to internet sources, many of which are tertiary. Hopefully all the additions are up to FA standards. Steve7c8 (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Help needed with infobox

Hello, I've been editing the SS Delphic article and something has gone horribly wrong with the infobox, and I can't work out what it is. Can anyone here help? G-13114 (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

There was a missing bracket in one of the links. Parsecboy (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah thanks, difficult to spot that. G-13114 (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it took me a few minutes of staring at the diffs to see what went wrong. Easy to miss, but they don't fail to let you know something's wrong! Parsecboy (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Notability and when to start the article

If a ship will be really notable once finished, but currently under construction and as yet unnamed, is it notable now? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

If it's under construction at a credible shipyard (i.e. not someone's hobby project), then yes. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Andy. That's good news. It is about two, or maybe nine, of these 22,000-TEU ships. Two are under construction now and will be the world's largest.

Convenience link(s):

But what about names? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Page moves are easy. Write an article on the set of ships, as notable designs, as a notable business venture, and then as a set of notable ships. I probably wouldn't change this to an article per ship. Their history in service is likely to be so closely linked that the overall article gives a better version of it than separately. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Andy. That sounds like a good plan. So, what on Earth could I name this group of nine ships? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

That's the same problem the technical news writers have. So what are they calling the articles about them?

It's not too important a problem anyway - we can always rename the article if the name changes and becomes clearer in the future. So even something as crude as CMA CGM 22,000 TEU container ships would be workable for the moment. We've already got CMA CGM, TEU and container ship as terms in use for article titles. Boxship though isn't - I believe that's more a Chinese-language term, translated, and not generally used in English as the term of choice. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Andy. I've stubbed it as CMA CGM 22,000 TEU container ships, like you suggested. Should there be a hyphen between TEU and container? Anyhow, you're a clever bunny thinking up that title. So simple and so to-the-point. I'll come back and fill in the details soon. Best wishes and thanks again! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Hyphenation is used to indicate an adjectival phrase. So if anything was going to be hyphenated, it would be 22,000-TEU – but I wouldn't do that.

I ignore hypens on WP. There are people who care very, very deeply about hyphens. They will re-edit articles to insert, remove or re-arrange them. They're welcome to this, I don't get involved, and I certainly don't start hyphenation wars. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Hyphens seem to be a moveable feast, hyphenation that was acceptable in 2004 has now been changed a couple of times on its journey to the new 2018 fashion. If in doubt, copy the source and sit back and watch and enjoy the changes that the copy-editors will undoubtably make.ClemRutter (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, 22,000-TEU. That's what I meant. Really. I even posted at IRC asking: iak> ...article "CMA CGM 22,000 TEU container ships" should be "CMA CGM 22,000-TEU container ships", right?... (I think I'm allowed publicly log my own post.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey wait. Should it be 22,000-TEU-container...? Ahhhhhhh. :) Anyhow, this will all be resolved when they each get named MSC articles, like the "MSC May-Flip-Upside-Down-In-A-Storm". Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Vietnamese submarine Hồ Chí Minh City

Another editor created Vietnamese submarine Hồ Chí Minh City, and I moved the draft to article space. Anyone with an interest in Vietnam's navy or Kilo-class submarines is encouraged to improve the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Synchronicity with Commons

I'm late to the party, but can no consensus be found with Commons in how we categorize / name ships? The major and most crucial being we work on launch date and they work on build date, that seems to be the major difference... As Commons major client should we not be doing something about this in a concerted way? Broichmore (talk) 11:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm opposed to categorizing/disambiguating ships by build date, IMO it should be by launch date. I don't really care what Commons does, they do a lot of strange things over there that don't conform with en.wiki. Gatoclass (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Speaking for modern merchant shipping, I take the contrary view. Virtually all reliable maritime literature, shipping registers, newspapers and journals, shipowners, shipping databases etc use year of completion as the general reference point, even if the date of launching is also included. It is en.wiki which the outlier on this. I am aware that at one time Lloyd's Register used year of launch, but it didn't last long (and of course in the days of sail there was rarely any difference, with some ships going straight to the loading berth from the launching ways). I have mentioned this in passing now and again, usually resigned to the conclusion that this water has long flowed under the bridge. I never found where, presumably in the early days, this was discussed and decided, so this time I'll actually ask. But for me, Titanic will always be a 1912 ship. Davidships (talk) 23:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

This is the record of the discussion at Commons at least: Commons Categories_for_discussion/2013/08/_Naming_categories_for_individual_naval_and_fishing_ships Despite statements made herein, this issue is far from dead. The majority by a significant margin of existing cat titles in Commons contain or are launch dates. -- Broichmore (talk) 10:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I also dislike the idea of using the launch date as often there's quite a long period between launching and actually delivering the vessel to the owner. Furthermore, from time to time ships are floated around before the ceremonial launching event and/or the ship may not even hit the water on the same day when the bottle is broken and cheese platters are passed around. Of course, eventually we'll find an official launch date from the databases, but it's becoming increasingly unclear what happened on that date. Finally, keel laying date also has some significance regarding e.g. rule compliance. However, I'll follow whatever policy Wikipedia has established (also because I don't have anything better to propose) even if it causes misunderstandings ("Yeah, it's that 1954 ship, but the article is disambiguated by '1952' because that's when the vessel was launched..."). Tupsumato (talk) 08:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I come down to "Once it floats it's a boat" and therefore favour launch dates to dab. It's a definitive date were as completion may not be the same as acceptance into service. There are cases of warships such as French battleship Richelieu engaging in combat before completion and although I can't think of one offhand being sunk while fitting out or on trials before completion Lyndaship (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

For modern civilian ships, four dates are typically recorded: contract date, keel laying date, launching date, and delivery date. Between keel laying and issuing the ship's documents (delivery), the vessel exists as "ship under construction" or "newbuilding". I'd rather disambiguate the ships based on the moment when the ship stops being "ship under construction" and becomes "ship in service" rather than some event which may represent different things at different shipyards or even in different projects within the same yard. Tupsumato (talk) 22:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Gatoclass. I'm not sure how or why Commons adopted this convention, but it's very clunky and doesn't reflect usual ship naming conventions. Until fairly recently, Commons was poorly run, with a fairly small group of editors making decisions like this. Nick-D (talk) 08:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Gatoclass and Nick-D. Llammakey (talk) 11:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nick-D: where (ouside en-WP) are these "usual naming conventions" set out and which reliable sources use them? Where are they discussed on en-WP before setting the guidance? As I said above, I am not proposing a change, but we need to know why we are having this conversation.Davidships (talk) 12:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Can we also do something about the Commons issue of calling every floating dinghy a "ship"? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

That would be nice. Also, the clunky (ship, year) format instead of the natural English usage of (year ship). Gatoclass (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm disturbed that Davidships considers en:wiki the outlier here (I notice no one demurred); because if that's the case it soon wont be. The en:wiki is the goto website and that will become only more true as we swallow up every competing shipping site around us. The (ship year format) is valuable if not necessary when it comes to creating search patterns for finding file candidates so cats can be allocated. There's no value to be had in Commons (as there is here) for bespoke category names like Tulip (gondola, 2018). Commons is a databank not an encyclopedia. I feel we need to to simplify. The customer is using EN:Wikipedia as their first stop to finding a ship, by looking her up article and or disambiguation page. Therefore we should use the EN:wiki criteria. We should use the launch year first (cos that's when the ship is named) and it's specific, if none available the build year etc. The problem with build completion is there are several different dates that can be used (too many for simple classification), but I would argue if there is no launch date available then there's usually only one build date available. We shouldn't use pennant or hull numbers (they should be in the details). Further disambiguation is to use Yard numbers! Prefixes for Naval ships should stay as is. Foreign navies leave as name only, which incidentally is how Commons should have treated ALL prefixes to begin with... Despite all the arguments flying around; I think you'll find that by far and away the greatest number of cats in Commons are already launch dates, instead of build dates; all the more galling when they are corrected (sic) to build date on occasion. I said earlier that en:wiki is the goto website. It's interesting to note that when Commons debated this issue in December 2008 there were 2000 - 2500 individual ships in Commons and it was thought, that was a near final number as only notable ships would be uploaded. There are now 50,400 ships by name, and that is not the complete number, as there are many ships hiding in single sub-cats, by Navy or country etc., or have never been categorized at all. We should handle this. I have seen examples of ships (on the two wikis) with 2 different dates, when there are other vessels (worldwide or same country) with the same name, in the same time period, also with two or more dates, it becomes a nightmare. The public expects us to be in concord, it's all the same wiki to them... Broichmore (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

"en:wiki is the goto website and that will become only more true as we swallow up every competing shipping site around us". Wow. Didn't know Jimmy was on the acquisition trail. And "goto website" (whatever that means) for whom? for what?

Anyway, regarding the question in hand, better en:wiki and commons to sing from one hymnsheet, whatever its provenance.

By the way, while it may have been broadly true in the past that "[launch is] when the ship is named", it is much less so nowadays. Names can be bestowed and publicised long before the ship is floating, or may be guarded secrets until delivery; launching ceremonies are no longer ubiquitous, especially where the ship finds itself floating because the dock gates have been opened. More and more of those naming ceremonies now take place at convenient time and place post-delivery - but in any case they have never had any formal status, the name becomes official and definitive when the ship is first registered, normally shortly after completion.Davidships (talk) 03:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC) [ps: how do I make that nice green text that is a much more elegant way of quoting from colleagues' previous comments?]

{{tq}} is a bit easier on the eye:

{{tq|how do I make that nice green text that is a much more elegant way of quoting from colleagues' previous comments?}}

how do I make that nice green text that is a much more elegant way of quoting from colleagues' previous comments?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

There I added green for you. Who and Why? I have recently had replies to questions from the IWM and an Australian library, who both used wiki articles as expansions in their replies and I've had an answer from the University of Washington Library who used the wiki to provide their interim answer. No we're obviously not buying websites, but we are replacing forums, and ad-hoc hobbyist sites, which is a pity since we use many of the latter for clues and on occasion referencing purposes; but then you knew that already. Besides that, I agree with you about modern naming, true since ships became things, but I also think we agree that launch is still the best unequivocal and defined (published) date, free from the need for interpretation we have. Best regards. Many thanks also for the Sister Anne answer. Broichmore (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for explanations (especially for the tq hint, sparing my eyes from day-glow-green - hardly "elegant"). Where do I find the colour menu, Trappist? Davidships (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by colour menu. You might start with {{color}}.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft:I.C. Woodward

Another editor created Draft:I.C. Woodward, which has been rejected by several editors. If you have access to resources that might improve the draft to the point where it could be moved to article space, please consider improving the draft. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Linking country in infobox

Is there a policy, guideline or consensus as to if the country displayed in the infobox should be linked or not? We currently have some linked [[7]] and most not [[8]]. I've also been in a discussion with another editor who held like the first example here as the ship was scrapped before 1922 all its service was with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and therefore it is wrong to link to United Kingdom (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)[9]. I love consistency! Lyndaship (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

|Ship country= generally holds information with which most readers will be familiar. Readers will most likely be familiar with United Kingdom so: |Ship country=United Kingdom, but |Ship country=[[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland]] because I suspect that United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is not so familiar. More often than not, we should avoid linking country names in |Ship country= in accordance with MOS:OVERLINK.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't generally link a country unless it's a country that no longer exists (along the lines of Austria-Hungary, Soviet Union, etc.) - the UK is still around, even if most of Ireland elected a different path a century ago or so, so I wouldn't link it. This is in keeping with OVERLINK, as Trappist pointed out. Parsecboy (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Parsecboy, the United Kingdom is not the same as the United Kingdom. The former should be linked, the latter may be. The shortcut UKGBI exists, but I don't know if it will work for a shipboxflag. Mjroots (talk) 12:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is - if it wasn’t, List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom would be a whole lot shorter - you might as well argue that the United States in 1861–1865 isn’t the same country as during the periods of 1789–1861 and 1865–2018, or that the Indonesia of today is a different country that the one that included East Timor before 1999. The UK is in no way analogous to Austria-Hungary – a slight name change does not a new country make. Well, come to think of it, the UK is analogous to Austria-Hungary, in that the Ausgleich did not make a new country, but merely renamed and reorganized the internal affairs of an existing one. Parsecboy (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I've held off following up in the hope that more editors would comment. Would it be fair to say that the consensus is that countries in the infobox should not be linked unless an editor feels that it might benefit the reader to link as the state is now less likely to be known to them? As to changing and linking to UKGBI there is no need as the infobox would just display (if this claim of consensus is accepted) an unlinked United Kingdom which could be regarded as refering to UKGBNI or UKGBI as appropriate. I would also point out that the Royal Navy remained the same organisation after 1922 and that is likely to be linked in the article text Lyndaship (talk) 15:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

The "tl;dr" version of what follows is: "what Mjroots said". For more, and at your own peril, read on.

Rightly or wrongly, but for the sake of argument, I'm going to assume that Lyndaship came here seeking consensus on this issue following an interaction with me, concerning HMS Spiteful (1899). Lyndaship made an edit there that removed a piped link from "United Kingdom" in the infobox that pointed to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.[10] Using Twinkle, I reverted this edit, opting to describe it as a "good faith" edit, and gave the edit summary "Any particular reason for removing a wlink to the UK as it was at the time of Spiteful's existence?"[11] Note that I said nothing about whether the link be piped or in the infobox.

Then Lyndaship left a message on my talk page.[12] Assuming that anyone is still inclined to read this – I did start with a "tl;dr" version – I shall quote that message in full:

Would have preferred if you asked a question before reverting. I changed the country as a)ship pages don't normally link to a country from the infobox, b) common terms should not normally be linked, c) its hidden behind a pipe, d) many ships solely existed when the formal name of the country was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland but they all just say United Kingdom in the infobox. So consistency is my reason but I'm not going to revert you[.]

Remembering that, in the edit summary for my revert of Lyndaship's edit at HMS Spiteful (1899), I posed a question, my response to that post was as follows:[13]

That's a "no" then – sorry to be abrupt but I'm not well. Thanks for stopping by.

Lyndaship followed this with a further edit to the article in question, giving the edit summary "explanation for removing wl, consistency- no other ship links to this state, its hidden behind a pipe (WP:EASTEREGG), its a link to a common term and most info boxes do not link to a country. Left it as you prefer as its not worth an edit war".[14] For the record, which of course is public, I believe that I have never engaged in an edit war, so I did find that last passage rather presumptuous, and mildly offensive. I confess that, again rightly or wrongly, I had perceived the first of Lyndaship's relevant edits to be one of those irritating "drive-by" edits, in which little or no attention is paid to its effect. And, while my "not-wellness" was and remains real, one of its effects is a heightened aversion to "dramah". So, while I apologised directly for my abruptness in my first response, sensing that abruptness itself can intensify dramah, I believe that I also apologised indirectly by thanking Lyndaship publicly for the edit in which the link in question was allowed to remain: that was certainly my intention, and I clearly recall going through the process, but this thanks does not show in the log.[15] Whether or not that is down to "user error", I make that apology again now.

However, the question that I posed in my edit summary was genuine, so a response was only to be expected. But why on my talk page? The proper place would have been on the article's talk page: in that regard, it seems to me that Lyndaship's statement "Would have preferred if you asked a question before reverting" begs the question of why the issue was not raised on the article's talk page in the first place. I do believe that it's fine to be bold, but it's my feeling that Lyndaship's preference for a question before a revert, expressed on my talk page, was both literally and metaphorically misplaced. If you're going to be bold, prepare to be reverted, and expect to be engaged on an article's talk page.

Moving on, I would parse my negative response on my talk page as follows: to "a)", I would merely point to Lyndaship's use of the word "normally"; to "b)", of course common terms should not normally be linked, but I would contend that "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" is a historical term, and hence not common; to "c)", I'm unconcerned whether the link be piped or not; to "d)", merely saying "United Kingdom" in the infobox may be consistent, but I'm not convinced that it's entirely helpful, on its own. Here I would also respond to Parsecboy's most recent post above, which raises a perfectly sound point in citing List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom as an example of the term "United Kingdom" being used to cover that state's history over a period in which its constituent parts changed. Like HMS Spiteful (1899), one of the attributes of List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom is that it's historical, and, as such, I think it is important here to note that the different forms of the United Kingdom are named and linked in that article. This, and only this, is what I want to see at HMS Spiteful (1899).

I said already that I'm unconcerned whether a link there to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland be piped or not. I am also unconcerned whether a link be moved from the infobox to the main text, or indeed to a footnote there. If you are indeed still reading, then I hope that I have made my thoughts and motivations clear, particularly to Lyndaship, who, without the slightest intention to be patronising, I sincerely hope might reflect on how best to assume good faith when interacting with other editors. I'm inclined to apologise also for the length of this post, but I wanted to say what I've said, so I won't. On the other hand, I do apologise for the time it has taken me to post here at all, which I attribute to my not being well, and the consequent desire to avoid dramah. I've come here now to assist in finding consensus. Thanks for reading. If it's worn you out, imagine how I feel about having written it! Nortonius (talk) 12:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Nortonius for your opinion on linking countries from the infobox and the use of UKGBI in the infobox. I agree that UKGBI was the full title of the UK at the time of Spitefuls commission however if we used that every UK ship infobox for ships which were solely in commission before 1922 would have to be changed and everyone which spanned pre and post 1922 would have to have two infoboxs, the first for UKGBI and the second for UKGBNI, ok its done for German Empire/Weimar Republic/Nazi Germany but I don't think its worth it here as the Royal Navy remained the same organisation. This however is a subsidiary point to if countries in infoboxes should be always linked, as per my proposed consensus above I think generally they should not.

As to our dispute on Spiteful I confirm you give a true and complete record of the exchange (I also confirm that you did thank me) but I don't think this is something for the ships board. I am sorry that you are upset. If you or others want to comment further I think my talk page is the appropriate venue and I will respond there Lyndaship (talk) 14:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the engaged response, Lyndaship, in light of which I feel that I've got things off my chest and am no longer upset. But there seems to be a lingering misconception that I give two hoots about whether a country is linked from an infobox. As I said in my previous post, "I'm unconcerned whether a link [at HMS Spiteful (1899)] to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland be piped or not. I am also unconcerned whether a link be moved from the infobox to the main text, or indeed to a footnote there." I'm not the slightest bit interested in the infobox, I just want a link to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to exist somewhere in the article, because I believe that it is historically useful. Here and now, all I want is some confidence that, if I move this link to somewhere else in the article, it shall meet with approval. If no-one objects, and unless a consensus develops to keep a piped link in the infobox, I'm happy to make such a change. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Glad you are no longer upset. I have no problem with UKGBI being linked from the text. Not sure how best to do it without it looking clumsy though, frequently I see "...of the British Royal Navy" so maybe hide the link behind a pipe 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|British' or do you object to British given the Irish Element? The other option I can see is "...of the Royal Navy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|United Kingdom" (not insisting on the pipe - just reads better to me that way) Lyndaship (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Aye, there's the rub – neither you nor I are sure how best to include this link without it looking clumsy! Which, not having an all-encompassing memory, I would assume is why I made the link from the infobox. It's neat, tidy, and, in a predominantly historical article, I believe it makes sense – to that extent, I would dispute that it is an Easter egg. But I really don't have an axe to grind here, so I'll think on alternatives. If anyone has any bright ideas, do share. Nortonius (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I link to countries in the infobox. While I can't speak for people from other countries, the geographical illiteracy of Americans is staggering. I think we're assuming that people know a lot more geography than surveys have revealed by delinking or not linking names of countries and places in general.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Add well deck capacity to infobox ship

Is it possible/desirable to add a field to the infobox ship characteristics template for well deck size? This seems pretty useful for the amphibious assault ships such as the Wasp-class amphibious assault ship for example, or any LHD/LSD ect. I tried adding an ad hoc field to the template but that doesnt seem to work. Ideally, of course, id like something that can be standardized throughout the well deck equipped ships. Any thoughts on this or help would be appreciated. Bonewah (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The correct way to add that custom field to a ship's infobox is to insert:

}}
|-
| Well deck capacity:
|{{convert|81|by|15.2|m|ft|disp=flip|adj=on}} by {{convert|8.5|m|ft|disp=flip|adj=on}} high
{{Infobox ship characteristics |Hide header=yes

I would note that you name to this field 'capacity' but, for a value, give it dimensions. The two are different things.

For the moment, I'm indifferent with regard to adding |Well deck capacity= (or dimentions) to the infobox.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Dimensions seems like the better choice to me. Bonewah (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

USS Fulton (SP-247)

I've been cleaning up all things Robert Fulton, and started on USS Fulton (SP-247) when I realized I don't have the resources to take it further than from where the article currently consists. Does anyone have any source material to prove it's existence and/or expand on it? Only one source here, and it, doesn't have references. One thing, it's claimed that it was built in 1909 by the Staten Island Shipbuilding Company, and so also coincidentally that same year was the very high profile Clermont replica, the replica Fulton ship. 1909 (sic) was of course the centenary year for Fulton in New York, and it was common enough to name new ships in his honour that year. The newspapers are full of Fulton and the vessels named after him, but I find nothing for this. Could it be (wild guess) that the article has the wrong dims and it was the Clermont that was inducted into the USN?. Ownership of both vessels leads to questions; the Day Line company was involved with the Clermont and the celebrations, could it be indirectly involved with the other vessel too? Broichmore (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

CLERMONT (Yd 482, USCG #206719, 155grt, museum ship)

FULTON (Yd 489, USCG #207060, 229grt, steam tug) [16]. Probably the newspapers not very focused on a tug towing rail cars and of no particular public note. Davidships (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I've filled out the civilian career of the tug Fulton (later Catherine Carroll) as best as I can from the wrong side of the pond. In the absence of a DANFS entry there's probably not much more to be said on her couple of years as a local patrol vessel, presumably in New York area. I have only found one non-free image.

During that, I discovered that Fulton (ship) re-directed to USS Dick Fulton (1862), which seemed rather odd, so I converted it to a ship index page, adding those without articles that would be promising candidates, though there are quite a few others. Hope that's OK, and if it should be renamed, please feel free. Davidships (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Relevant AfD

Interested editors may want to comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klein-Flugzeugträger, a deletion discussion on an article in the scope of this project. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Chinese ships w/ USN designations

It seems recently that a number of sources (some RS, others not so much) have been using "CV-16" when referring to the Chinese Navy aircraft carrier Liaoning. This has led to 2 of the images on that ship's article having "CV-16" in their page names, and as such, "CV" had even made it's way into the article at one point (the ship's number; "16" is not in dispute). Does anyone here know if the Chinese are offically using American hull codes, like "CV", as part of their ship identifiers? I've tried asking the editors that uploaded the images, but so far haven't really gotten anywhere.

I realize that "CV" is widely recognized to mean "aircraft carrier" because of the prevalence of US Navy carriers and usage by the ubiquitous American media, and as such, some sources, even RS ones, may use "CV", and other codes, informally and/or incorrectly. This actually led to "CV-17" being added to the Shandong's article for awhile as well. And, aside from the Liaoning amd Shandong articles, I've also seen multiple US Navy hull codes being used on the List of active People's Liberation Army Navy ships, such as "SSN, SSBN & SSK" (now removed) and "LPD, LST & LSM", among others.

This is why I'd like to know if the Chinese gov't or military have officially added these codes to their ship naming nomenclature. I don't know if they have the equivalent of the NVR or any official ".mil"-type webpages. Any information, clarification or confirmation here would be appreciated. Thanks - wolf 08:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye, though not consistently, on the PLAN for over twenty years, and have never seen *any* evidence that they use United States Navy hull codes. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Buckshot06: That's what I thought. Just the same, this could become a problem. I'm just looking to get it in check before it does. Thanks for the reply. Cheers - wolf 10:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Note that the zh.wiki equivalent of our List of active People's Liberation Army Navy ships - https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E4%BA%BA%E6%B0%91%E8%A7%A3%E6%94%BE%E5%86%9B%E6%B5%B7%E5%86%9B%E8%88%B0%E8%89%87%E5%88%97%E8%A1%A8 does not show any USN hull codes (unless they've been translated into Mandarin). Buckshot06 (talk) 10:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

But it does list numbers for each ship - " 舷号" is translated as "side number" by Google. However, these "pennant numbers" (see [17]) do not include type designations, so adding 'CV' to it is clearly OR. Kges1901 (talk) 11:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I've noticed this too. I would be in favor of adding something to MOS or other guidelines advising against using these made-up hull codes for Chinese and other naval vessels. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

HMS Sister Anne

This yacht was associated with Mountbatten, when he was Chief of Combined Operations in 1943. Can anyone confirm that this info: HMS Sister Anne, Builder Camper & Nicholson, Twin Screw Steel Motor Yacht built in 1929 Length 130ft is correct? Broichmore (talk) 09:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, all that would be correct, per Portsmouth Evening News of Thursday 13 June 1929 (apart from "HMS" of course, which came later). Davidships (talk) 03:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Lenton & College in Warships of World War II on p330 have a Sister Anne with a pennant of F47 listed under Yachts used as accommodation ships. Gives a tonnage of 250 and a build year of 1929 Lyndaship (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Not sure which tonnage that 250 is - given it's in a warship context, perhaps displacement of one description or another, though it is spot-on what I get for Thames measurement, commonly used for yachts. As built she was 242grt 155nrt, per Mercantile Navy List. Built for Mrs Reginald A Fellowes. Davidships (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

There's no heading to say what measurement they are using in the accommodation yacht section but the other yacht sections use Thames measurement so I think it would be the same Lyndaship (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Had a shot at an article on this yacht. Main gaps are in her WW2 service, and whatever happened to her after 1951. @Lyndaship, as I don't have Lenton & Colledge at hand perhaps you could add what you can please? Haven't found a free-to-use photo as a civilian yacht. Davidships (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Just for entertainment, here are some photos on commons, all of them the same date and linked commons: Category:HMS Sister Anne (ship, 1929) and commons: Category:HMS Armadillo Broichmore (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I believe that the first of those links should be: commons:Category:HMS Sister Anne (ship, 1929).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

What an interesting little article. I'm afraid what I put above is the sum total of the mention in that book other than as a footnote he says these yachts were not generally commissioned, however as Sister Anne has an F pennant I think shes the exception. In Ships of the Royal Navy Vol 2 p333 again by College he says "Yt 250/29 Hired as accommodation ship 9.1940, purchased 5.41. Laid up 12.45, sold 1946?" Lyndaship (talk) 15:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The earliest photo I can find of her was published in the USA in 1936 Yacht ready for Mrs. Simpson, possible "PD-US-not renewed" candidate? A pristine version of the same photo is elsewhere on the net. -- Broichmore (talk) 10:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The only version of that photo I see is on the Associated Press site [18]. It is clearly sourced to AP in the US publication, though whether it was an AP staffer's photo or one from a local third party in Cannes is not stated. I'll leave the niceties of US law to the Commons experts, but did note the cautionary word at Wikipedia:News agencies and fair use. Davidships (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

That only leaves the possibility of using this image on a fair use basis: Photo taken by Jean-Paul Bascoul (the elder) in Monaco 1936

Did you mean this? Kablammo (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Broichmore (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

For the record, now moved the article into mainspace and added redirect from HMS Sister Anne. Davidships (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Relevant article at AFD

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Politesse (SP-662).Nigel Ish (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Abbreviated month in ship table

There is a discussion at Talk:S-class destroyer (1917)#Reasons for removal of edit on 12 Aug 2018 which editors might like to comment on Lyndaship (talk) 08:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Amazon-class frigate (disambiguation) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Amazon-class frigate (disambiguation). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Link should be Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 26#Amazon-class frigate (disambiguation).

I don't understand all the points being made, but some are suggesting that the existing Amazon-class frigate, which is a set index, be converted to a DAB. Not sure whether that would have implications for the redlinks for two of the Amazon classes. Davidships (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

HMS Pentstemon or HMS Penstemon?

What is the correct official spelling of these two ships? Colledge, J. J.; Warlow, Ben (2006) [1969]. Ships of the Royal Navy: The Complete Record of all Fighting Ships of the Royal Navy (Rev. ed.). London: Chatham Publishing. ISBN 978-1-86176-281-8. who I would normally accept gives them as Penstemon but every other book I have (Colledge- WW2 warships, Conways 1922-1946, Le Fleming WW1 warships and Dittmar/Colledge British warships 1914-1919) refers to Pentstemon. Uboat.net also agrees with Pentstemon, otherwise google results have a mix of the two with probably more for Penstemon. I understand that I can post a footnote about dispute between RS on the article but that doesn't resolve how the SI page should be titled Lyndaship (talk) 08:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The flower is spelled Penstemon. Pentstemon has been tagged as a misspelling since September 2015. wikt:pentstemon hasn't been created; neither has wikt:Pentstemon. wikt:penstemon and wikt:Penstemon both have entries. Can it be confirmed that the ships were named after the flower? Is Pentstemon a legitimate alternative spelling? It's possible that if one source misspelled it that misspelling could propagate to other sources if they use the erroneous source as their source. – wbm1058 (talk) 09:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Pentstemon is a legitimate alternative spelling (see the History section in the article, which explains the difference). The WWII ship appears to have Pentstemon painted on the side. Parsecboy (talk) 09:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

errm - that's WWI not WWII.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Indeed - in my defense, it was early here ;) Parsecboy (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Navy list uses of Pentstemon include [19] and Pentstemon [20] - so it looks like both spellings were in use.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Were there just two ships that used this name, or are there more? Can you sort out which specific ships favored which alternative spelling? I suppose we go with the most commonly used spelling? I can move it back to the other spelling if there is a consensus to do that. wbm1058 (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I think Parsecboy's pic proves that the WWI ship was Pentstemon , it's not the only case of the RN wrongly spelling an original name and sticking with it. Once a name is chosen it can be expected that the RN will continue with that spelling for later ships, in addition to the sources I gave above for the WW2 ship I have now checked Janes for 1944 and Youngs Dictionary of Ships of the Royal Navy of the Second World War - both agree that it was Pentstemon. I therefore ask that the SI page be restored to as it was when I created it. Lyndaship (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

To be fair to the RN, "Pentstemon" isn't wrong, it's just a less common variant of the word. Parsecboy (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, I moved it back. wbm1058 (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

FYI

I have posted a request here to move the "People's Liberation Army Navy" page to "Chinese Navy". - wolf 20:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Avante 2200

The Royal Saudi Navy has ordered 5 Avante 2200 corvettes: [21], but there doesn't seem to be a page for the Avante 2200 class other than the Guaiquerí-class patrol boat page. Should a new page be created or the Guaiquerí-class patrol boat page modified? Mztourist (talk) 09:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Considering that the Saudi vessels will likely become a different class despite sharing the type design, perhaps an article about "Avante 2200" could be created in the same way as e.g. MEKO 200. Tupsumato (talk) 09:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Noted thanks, should it be created now or wait until the Saudi project is more advanced? Mztourist (talk) 06:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Why not? If the Saudi project has been confirmed, the information should be included in the Avante 2000 article before splitting it off to its own article. Tupsumato (talk) 10:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata:Property proposal: ENI number

See d:Wikidata:Property proposal/ENI number. -- Reise Reise (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

[1] Chesnau, Roger and Gardiner, Robert (Ed.) Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, 1922–1946. Conway Maritime Press, 1980. ISBN 0-85177-146-7

[2] Quiroz, Alfonso W (2008). Corrupt Circles: A History of Unbound Graft in Peru. Washington DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press. pp. 229–244, esp243-244. ISBN 0801891280. Retrieved 23 June 2018.

[1]

[2]