User talk:Mjroots/Archive/Ships

MS Explorer

The Explorer and The Explorer II seem to be two different vessels. --Camptown (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

re: HMS Swan (1641)

The infobox was incorrectly making no mention of there being 102 guns on HMS Sovereign of the Seas at some point in her career, but my reference does state 100 after her rebuild (indeed the reference indicates that the 102 guns she possessed at her launch were reduced to 90 sometime after launch.

I looked over the Swan article as you suggested - I removed the comment about being a sister to Sovereign of the Seas, as she was clearly a much smaller ship than she, and the term 'sister ship' would usually indicate that they were ships built to the same draught (in which case Sovereign of the Seas had no sister, and nor did the majority of ships launched before the 1745 Establishment came into being, most likely). Martocticvs (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah I see that now - it reads to me as more of a colloquial term; certainly it is not correct in a technical sense at any rate. It might be interesting for the reader though for there to be a mention of the link between the ships regarding the guns... Martocticvs (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Riverdance (ship)

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Riverdance (ship), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 09:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Blackpool shipwrecks

How weird! Further to your message about the possibility of creating a "shipwreck" sub section on the article, yesterday I was thinking exactly the same thing, and even saved the Blackpool Gazette from yesterday as it had quite a decent article about the various shipwrecks. The article is online and I will add the section this afternoon if you don't mind my doing what was your idea and then if anything needs changing perhaps you could edit it? Would that be ok with you?♦Tangerines♦·Talk 14:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The Gazette yesterday had a special 4 page cover with a double page picture of the scene! I will have a start on it shortly and let you know once I have it up.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 15:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I did say in the message above this one that I would let you know when I had finished adding the "shipwrecks" section to the Blackpool article, which I was in the process of completing. Therefore, in order to add the full content which I have been doing as a preview for the past hour or so, unfortunately I have had to overwrite the content you added while I was editing. Apologies.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi sorry for a further message, but with regard to the Holland XXIV I started to add that in, but then realised it wasn't wreecked off Blackpool, and so left that out as it was wrecked at Cleveleys; and if anything it should really be in the Cleveleys article?♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't move it as I didn't want to just simply remove it without discussing it with you first as you had only just added it, and it seems to be a topic you know much more about than me! And of course, I had absolutely no idea whether you were local or not; you could have also been a "Sand grown 'un" for all I knew!! :) Sure we went to Yarmouth when I was young. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message and no in the end I left it in the Blackpool article rather than moving to to Cleveleys (It was Cleveleys and not Fleetwood), mostly because the wreck seems to have been on the border between Blackpool (well Bispham and Norbreck) and Cleveleys. The Riverdance is now on it's side and certainly an odd sight! Over the weekend even though it is on it's side people were still trying to climb onto it.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about it, maybe it could be done in the same way of other sections where there is a link below the header to the "main article". So in this instance it would mean the Blackpool Shipwrecks section being trimmed right down to the bare information with a link at the top to the "main article" Blackpool shipwrecks or whatever title is apporopriate. However, I am unsure as to whether or not other such articles exist, do you know of any? ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, just wondering what your thoughts are about creating a new article for shipwrecks at Blackpool? I know it was something you brought up recently. Do you think a title of Blackpool shipwrecks would be appropriate and if so then the section within the Blackpool article would presumably then need reducing to maybe just info about the MS Riverdance and perhaps brief mention of some of the other shipwrecks with a link to the main article? What do you think? My only concern would be if another user deems the article to be trivia and/or non-notable? Thanks.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

I notice that you have done a great deal of work on the Blackpool Shipwrecks section. I have discovered another wreck, which rightfully ought to be placed in this section, that is the Brig Favourite, reference

http://www.mightyseas.co.uk/marhist/whitehaven/built_elsewhere/favourite.htm

I would place the information on the page myself, but I don’t know how to accomplish this without making a mess of the page. It looks very complicated with numbered sections, and I would not know how to insert one in the middle and give it a number. You are clearly a technical expert so, perhaps, you would like to insert the information. Leightonmowbray (talk) 11:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

M/S Riverdance

I'm in the middle of trying to restore the article. Please hang on while I get the history back. The article is currently at M/S Riverdance Gwernol 23:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the article to MS Riverdance with its history intact. That seems to be the common way to title articles. In future, using cut-and-paste to restore articles is a bad idea since, as you have seen, it doesn't restore the article history. Thanks, Gwernol 00:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the edit note is really necessary. The move was a one-time occurrence that was easily enough fixed. Other editors are quite entitled to edit boldly and pretty much everything can be undone. I've left a message on User:AxG's talk page. I have no doubt that he was acting in good faith - in fact usually Wikipedia title's reflect the actual name of the subject of the article. So titling the article "M/S Riverdance" is actually completely reasonable. In this case, because other articles use "MS" instead of "M/S" its okay to keep it where it is now, but it really isn't anything to get upset about. Best, Gwernol 00:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If it starts up again, let me know. I've watchlisted the article, but since I have almost 30,000 articles on there I may not spot a change. Best, Gwernol 00:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

SS Gothenburg

Thanks for the heads-up. I also disagree with the section being deleted, but as I am relatively new to Wikipedia, I didn't want to step on anyones toes. Should I refer the issue to my peers? Spy007au (talk) 09:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the issue on the talk page has been resolved amicably. Let me know if you think there is anything else here that requires attention. Best, Gwernol 19:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Eliza Anderson (sidewheeler)

Thanks for support on this one. I was surprised at the stuff that could be written about this ship, there's actually much more. The underground railroad incident alone was a complete surprise to me. I'll have have a look at the naming conventions, to be honest I wasn't aware there were any. I used "Anderson" instead of "Eliza Anderson" because constant use of the full ship's name seemed to make the article harder to read, and the vessel was generally called the "Anderson" for short, even in the older sources.Mtsmallwood (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

MS Riverdance

I have left a note on the talk page of the MS_Riverdance article and hope you can do something with it.

James Brown 17:46, User talk:79.65.242.7‎ 9 March 2008 (GMT)

List of shipwrecks in 1908

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of shipwrecks in 1908, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of List of shipwrecks in 1908. Gawaxay (talk • contribs • count) 15:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Maria Asumpta

Thanks for info - the proper link for the problem pdf seems to be this: http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources/annual%20report%201997.pdf but it is not very informative. Look forward to completed article! --mervyn (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Empire Galahad

Hi. I would just like to let you know that I reverted your recent edit to List of World War II ships. The list is for fighting ships only and Empire Galahad was a cargo ship and ergo not qualified for the list. No hard feelings, I hope. Have a nice day. Manxruler (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that list seems to include ALL ships launched that year, so that work out just fine. By the way, what exactly is the notability of this ship? Manxruler (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That's good and fine then. Add those things to the article and that'll be great. Manxruler (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Good edit. The article is much better now. Keep up the good work. Manxruler (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note about your move of MV Empire Galahad to SS Empire Galahad: Whenever you move an article, be sure to check for non-free images, like Image:SS Murillo.jpg, used in the article's infobox. If the fair use rationale does not get updated, the image na…, er, patrollers may delete a fair use image that's used in the article if it has the wrong links, etc. (I've already updated this one.)

Also, though I tend more towards the all ships are notable school of thought than the opposite, there's no real assertion of notability for Empire Galahad in the lead. Adding something like "she was one of X number of ships built for the World War II war effort", or if she was the first or last of anything could help keep the article out of an unwarranted AFD. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Armed merchant ships

No, they do not qualify to that list. Most merchant ships were armed anyway from a certain point during World War II. Anti-aircraft guns and in some cases anti-surface guns were very common amongst WWII merchantmen. However, merchant raiders and auxiliary cruisers qualify as they were simply merchantmen converted into warships. The reason we excluded merchant ships from the list is that if let them in then the list would potentially include thousands of ships. Also, merchant ships and warships probably should have separate lists anyway. Manxruler (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you were referring to Defensively Equipped Merchant Ships? Manxruler (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Loch Vennachar

Hi Mjroots, thanks for the suggestion & I'll do that in future. How do I create my own sandbox? Cheers Spy007au (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Clipper Point/Pace

My sources for at least the Clipper Point being registered in Limassol are that the Seatruck model of the vessel clearly shows the vessel being registered in Limassol, and photographs of the vessel I have seen show the vessel is registered in Limassol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightoller (talk • contribs) 15:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Loch Line

Hi Mjroots, I have started a new article Loch Line, which I have also listed in the DYK nominations section. If you don't mind, can you proof read and address up any typos etc. Thanks, Spy007au (talk) 09:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Shall do, although I fly out of OZ on Monday for a 5 week O/S holiday and will be off-line for that period. Cheers, Spy007au (talk) 10:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

SS Glitra

Hi Mj. I just stumbled across some fascinating information on the SS Glitra sinking. Check it out. Manxruler (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Yep, the book is in Norwegian. I was reading about the 125 year history of Norwegian torpedo boats when I came across this mention. Go ahead, change the format if you like. I've always had a good relationship with the Harvard style myself, but do as you like. Manxruler (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks correct to me. Manxruler (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of New Giant Hovercraft

I have nominated New Giant Hovercraft, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Giant Hovercraft. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. ukexpat (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

reference: List of shipwrecks 1907

hi, what do you mean, which one? I entered two for 1907 that were not on there.

SS Suevic: "Falling Star" Misadventures of White Star Line Ships by John Eaton & Charles Haas c.1990.

SS Dakota: see the entry and reference section on this vessell in particular the link to Connecticutt Historical page. Connecticut was where this ship was built. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koplimek (talk • contribs) 04:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Esther Jensen

You're right, and I've already changed it. I saw it was built in Denmark. And I distinctly remember thinking to myself that I thought the Danish flag looked different than that one... Thanks for the catch. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ocean Star

Hi, I appreciate your additions to the Ocean Star page. Is there a way to add designer to that information table? Thank you. I will be posting another page for S/Y Argo shortly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailriddle (talk • contribs) 20:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

HHS Glasgow

Thanks for the praise! I'm just adding it to the list now, thanks for letting me know - Dumelow (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Moondance

I am currently Chief Engineer on Moondance and took the vessel out of dry dock on 16th October for the vessel to enter service that evening. Unfortunately further problems occurred and the vessel relocated to Brocklebank Dock in Liverpool. She is expected out of Liverpool docks at 04:00 18th October 2008 and will head to Warrenpoint to commence the service at 20:00 19th October 2008. Pugw$sh (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

List of schooners

Hello! Thanks for tacking some more boats onto list of schooners. I was wondering about the edit you made to the image layout, though. I'd aligned the images along the righthand margin of the page, in imitation of various featured lists which look quite spiffy with that format. No doubt I screwed something up somewhere, but if the page wasn't formatting itself correctly on some browsers or window sizes, I'd prefer to move some things around in an attempt to keep the same layout. Thoughts? --Fullobeans (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

SS Celtic

Great to see a Wikipedia page about her - I am the stepson of one of her owners during the 1970s, and I have many happy memories of days spent aboard her as a boy. My stepdad has a fairly large amount of info about her (captains, engines {Kelvin, not steam, by the time he owned her}, routes) which would be relevant. Unfortunately, he's not really connected to the internet, so I'll dig the info out next time I visit him and my mum in Spain. Once again, thanks for starting this page! Daen (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think the "SS" designation is wrong; you could be confusing her with the White Star liner of the same name built in 1872 - a far cry from the humble Celtic at Sittingbourne! Daen (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

SS Mahratta

Yep, a lot of people have been having confusion about the new system; right now at the discussion page people are working on trying to think of a good system to deal with this, since a lot of people have been thinking their noms were deleted and then re-nominating them. Let us know if you have any ideas! —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 13:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding the 1939 and 1909 redirect pages I made...I just put those up based on the assumption that some reader might have the year the ship sunk in mind, rather than the year the ship was built, and try to search for that. I rarely deal with ship articles, though, so I wasn't aware if there was a standard procedure; if you think it's useful to have those redirects than you can keep them if you want, but if you think no one will ever use those search terms then I don't mind if you leave the speedy deletion tags up. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 13:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

HMS Mahratta

Certainly. While you have done well with the citations for that, the way you have presented the article just seems to have too little for each section with regards to the prose. Also, a bit of advise with regards to the convoys, having a list of the ships that participated does not belong in this article (that is better left to an article on the convoy itself). Condensing all of those one or two sentence paragraphs together or expanding them would do the trick for me. I also see that you've asked Bellhalla, and when he responds you'll really have some great suggestions. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me sticking my oar in... :) I came across it in the new article feed, and I'd agree with what MBK004 said. Ship lists and convoy details are better off in their own article (Convoy SC-7) for example, and a brief note saying where the convoy was going to and when and any significant details regarding this specific ship's actions in it is usually ample. And the stubby sections could be amalgamated together for ease of reading and flow. HMS Quail (G45) (it's one of mine I'm happy to admit) is an example of how these sections can be combined into a few paragraphs, with convoy details trimmed to the bare minimum to keep the information encyclopedic for the article subject. And I'm also sure Bellhalla will be able to give plenty of helpful advice! Benea (talk) 14:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply to my comment on the article talk page. I didn't realise it was possible to watch a page but not its associated talk page! How do you do that? Shem (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've learnt a new thing today! Thanks. Shem (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Arctic convoys

Thanks for that; I've got Arctic convoys on my copious "to-do" list, though I need to finish a few North Atlantic ones first. Thanks for thinking of me. Xyl 54 (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Tonnage

Hello. Good job on the ship articles. One note: Gross register tonnage is a measure of volume, not weight. It therefore is not expressed in long, short, or metric tonnes/tons, nor is there a conversion from one to the other. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 12:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. The confusion between gross tonnage and displacement is probably the most common error in ship articles; others include using the service entry date as the launch date (very common with cruise ship articles), and confusing depth (of hold) with draught. I like how you have handled deadweight tonnage, by putting in the capacity field, which seems most correct. Other articles have DWT in displacement; although obviously related, it is not a figure for vessel displacement. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

One other point: I believe that burthen is not used for modern ships. Your Empire ships should use the tonnage field for grt, and if commissioned navy vessels, the displacement field for that measure. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

HMS Dragon

There's really no need to apologise. I nearly didn't bother undoing the change, until I checked the other T45 Destroyers, and found they mostly did have their Battle Honours listed. Thanks for getting back to me, though. Yours, Shem (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Research source on steamboats

Thanks for the source, it is a good site.Mtsmallwood (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

re: MV Pelikan

Hi Mj. I'm afraid that since: "This list does not include all ships used for military purposes, e.g.; oilers, troopships, landing craft, etc., partly for space reasons and partly since this is a list of fighting ships." Pelikan doesn't qualify. Sorry for the delayed response, I'm on Christmas holiday far away from home these days. I wish you a very Merry Christmas. Manxruler (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely no problem. You enjoy your Christmas as well. Manxruler (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Inherent notability

You say "The vast majority if ships are considered notable enough to have articles by WP:SHIPS," but I cannot find on that project page where they seek to draw a bright line between notable and nonnotable ships. Ship just says one is a "large vessel that floats on water," and that they are larger than boats. I cannot agree that every large vessel that floats on water is inherently notable. Perhaps there is some discussion of this issue buried in the discussion page archives. Do you suppose that if there were a project on locomotives, the members might decide that every locomotive (by engine number, not just model) was notable? Or a project on fire engines might decide that every fire engine in every fire station is notable? Or a project on airplanes might decide that every airplane (or airliner or warplane) is notable? Etc for farm tractors, churches, elementary schools, restaurants, buses, bus stops, libraries, broadcast towers, water towers, etc down to any definable and listable items? People who gravitate to a project tend to like the things the project covers. I do not agree that starting a project gives the participants license to decide which things related to the project are inherently notable and exempt from the requirements of WP:N to show substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, beyond the directory listings which satisfy verifiability. I agree that a great many ships are notable as the earliest of its type (Hunley, Monitor, Dreadnought), fastest, most luxurious, most heavily armed (Bismarck), most unfortunate in its demise (Vasa, Titanic, Normandy), most successful or least successful in battle, because these have all been written about extensively in secondary sources, and easily satisfy WP:N. Many ships were important in commerce, exploration, scientific research, or war, but more were unremarkable other than directory information. A project does great good for Wikipedia in improving and standardizing articles, and listing article in need of writing. I do not envision Wikipedia as a mirror of every directory, with stub entries about every landing craft, merchant marine ship, Liberty Ship, or tugboat, any more than I want to see an article about every broadcast tower or every city street or every other fungible thing with no real "biography" other than directory information.Bloodworth was a "standard Liberty ship" which was in 3 convoys before it was scrapped, and saw action on one. I could write an equal article about any of the millions of soldiers in WW2 who was in 1 battle, or the tank or plane or Jeep he rode in, if similar directory listings were available, but they would not satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Most churches (individual congregations or their buildings) have been found nonnotable and deleted when they came up for a=AFD, as have most broadcast towers (not the radio or TV stations, which if they meet certain criteria are generally recognized as notable). Train stops have generally been botable but not bus stops. Locomotive fanciers have argued for articles about specific engines, without universal success. There is always a reductio ad absurdum, since many things are in official directories, satisfying verifiability, but do not satisfy notability in the view of the larger Wikipedia community. I have been reading through the archives on the project ship discussion page, and the first general question about notability I found was December 2006 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 3#Notability criteria where someone inquired about a cargo ship. Earlier there had been a claim that all navy ships are notable, but acknowledgement that there is no bright line to distinguish "boat" from "ship." Most of the earlier discussion and project work had been on warships rather than cargo ships under control of a navy. I expect that editors from some small countries with only a few small armed speedboats would want articles about the "navy" vessels of their country. It sems up to each project to be reasonable and draw a line somewhere, rather than universal notability of everything which might fall under their jurisdiction. To be avoided here is the ad terrorem type of argument that "If we let them delete the Bloodworth, then next they will be deleting the Arizona!" I really value the work that has gone into improving ship articles by project participants. I found scant additional thought about what was and was not notable. There was an AFD [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Watseka (YT-387)] which kept a tugboat (note "boat") with most of the "keep" arguments along the lines of "ILIKEIT" or "all commissioned naval vessels are notable", which would get us back to a 14 foot motorboat commissioned in the navy of some micronation deserving an article. I do not agree with the sentiments expressed in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 6#WW2 Merchant shipping notability that "All ships are notable" which some project participants disagreed with, and held out for cargo ships sunk in war. In that same archive under "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Watseka (YT-387)" one editor said the project was "a memorial" which clearly violates not a memorial. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 7#AFD Notification says that AFDs up to January 2008 had kept "commissioned ships" but that "there was a strong preference for lumping minor ships with routine service histories together in articles on the class" which I could go along with. I see the multitude of Liberty ships in that category, unless something out of the ordinary occurred, Three crossings with one attack seems ordinary for WW2 cargo ships. Regards. Edison (talk) 18:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Arctic convoys

I've just created HMS Mahratta (G23) which was involved in the Arctic Convoys, maybe there's some info there to give you a start on a few articles? Mjroots (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mjroots - please can you alter the title to HMS Mahratta (1942) to make it fit in with the rest of the articles on M class and other destroyers. Unlike the United States Navy, which used their Hull sequence numbers for construction purposes and retained those letters throughout their lives, in the Royal Navy (and most other European navies) the pennant numbers were subject to change and were not a permanent part of a ship's name - the proper way to distinguish the various ships of the same name is by using the year of launch (in brackets). Rif Winfield (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, according to the naming conventions, HMS Mahratta (G23) would be the correct name. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it wouldn't be. The naming conventions in Wikipedia clearly state: "For older ships predating the modern pennant/hull number system, the most widely recogniseable fact about the ship is its date of launch or construction. This is a unique identifier for a ship with a particular name in navies where names are customarily re-used and is applicable generally to all ships, unlike local naval identification numbers". Whereas the year of launch is easily recognisable and an absolute identifier, the pennant numbers in many navies are assigned (or certainly were assigned up to and including WW2) in a fairly arbitrary way, and were subject to alteration during a ship's life. Pennant numbers would certainly not be known to the general public making an enquiry on Wikipedia. Sadly, this does not seem to be understood by our transatlantic colleagues; the USN series of hull serial numbers are in a different category, and are not similar to the series of pennant numbers used in Britain and elsewhere in Europe; I am very happy that those detailing USN warships use hull serial numbers to distinguish American warships of the same name, I am just very unhappy that they should fail to understand that this system cannot be applied elsewhere.

With WW2 British destroyers, to use this example, pre-war destoyers had flag superior (letters) D, H or F prefexing the numeral pennants. The Tribal class were initially allotted flag L but this was changed to flag F in December 1938, and the flag L was usede for escort destroyers then building or converting (such as ther Hunt Class or the old "V" & "W" conversions. In 1940 the flag superios D and F were changed to flags I and G, and new construction was allotted flag G until the construction of the "T" class, which were given flag R. Post-war, the flag D was allotted to all destoyers and in consequence some re-numbering was required, usually by the addition of 100 or 200 to the original numbers but sometime just arbitrarily re-numbered to use a gap in the range of serial numbers. At no time were pennant numbers allotted sequentially (as is the case with USN hull numbers). The Mahratta avoided a change in pennant numbers, but this was only because she was sunk just one year after entering service! Rif Winfield (talk) 09:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

SS Timothy Bloodworth

Hi, you nom'd this for deletion. Would you like to look at the article now that it has been expanded and decide whether you want to withdraw the nom or not? Mjroots (talk) 08:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

As noted at the top of my talk page I was offline for the last few days and this AFD has been closed in the meantime. For what it's worth a withdrawal would not be in order as there was another delete !vote. Stifle (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Empire ships

Hello. Can you please recheck the urls for the Miramar links on the Empire ships? I have come across three which linked to other vessels, which have now been corrected. Kablammo (talk) 05:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning them up-- I could not figure out what happened. If they keep changing urls it may be necessary just to link to the search page (provided they don't change that too). Kablammo (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Convoy template

Thanks for your post: interesting suggestion; did you have something in mind? (Do you want to discuss this here or there BTW?) Xyl 54 (talk) 10:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I’ve had a look at some templates; The problem I see is what to leave out.
There were about 300 convoy routes in WWII, each running maybe twice a month for years. Most weren’t attacked; we wouldn’t want to include them all, would we?
Of the ones that were attacked, Uboatnet reckons there were over 600. They don’t (surprise, surprise!) include those where the U-boats were driven off or destroyed without hitting anything; they also (less surprisingly) don’t include those attacked by aircraft, or surface vessels, or submarines of another navy. So it’s quite a big number we are looking at.
Still, give it a go! (he said guardedly!) Xyl 54 (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

(copied to User talk:Xyl 54 for continuance. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC))

SS Empire Antelope

Very nicely done article! As you requested, I've added what little information Hague's book contained on the final voyage. Hague's comprehensive subject limits details on individual ships. Thewellman (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

SS Mont-Blanc

Thank you very much for adding the extra category and especially the signal flag graphics. I wondered about finding flags but was too weary after doing the article. Letterofmarque (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Cromer lifeboats

Hi. Thank you for the note, but it's not me. I think you probably wanted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stavros1 and I've copied it there. Best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 11:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely no worries whatsoever! Cheers, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology  stavros1  ♣  19:01 2 January 2009 (UTC)

RE : List of ship launches in 1946

Content of the article is as of follows. As you have mentioned, I also recommend that you seek consensus at your Wikiproject before recreating the article to prevent it from deletion.

• February 18 : Sparrow (UK): 1350 ton modified Black Swan class sloop

- Best regards, Mailer Diablo 17:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally I have no objection to recreation. What you see above is the content of the article, there's really nothing else in the deleted article. - Mailer Diablo 19:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

SS Indigirka

Thanks for the tips.-

A quick question here: when writing about a ship that had many names and is still active, what would be the "right" title, the first name, the current one, or the the one I believe might be the most notable?Ekem (talk) 14:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. I thought you wanted all these names in the article because they were listed in Plimsoll. How do we know that when this happens in Plimsoll or Miramar that we are dealing with mispellings that can be ignored? Shouldn't there be a note at the bottom about this? Ekem (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

re:SS Irma & SS Henry

Thanks for the pointers, I appreciate it. What's the difference with the SS Empire Antelope infobox and the ones I have used? Manxruler (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1948

Sorry, my error, I didn't spot the link. . . Rcawsey (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

SS Superior City

Thank you for the name correction and the helpful link. I helped edit another shipwreck article called Nathan F Cobb Shipwreck. I have not been able to locate an online source for her construction and sailing history before she sank. Do you have any ideas where to look?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Comet (steamboat)

I realized when the history was lost that there had to be a better way to rename the article. Thank you for explaining the better way to correct an article's title. --Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

re: AV2767 Crusader

I've belatedly responded to your message by moving this article to Australian Army ship Crusader (AV2767). AV2767 Crusader is a more common name, but just Crusader is used in many sources, and the new name is much clearer. Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

SS Fire King

Hi Mjroots. Are you planning on writing an article on SS Fire King? Manxruler (talk) 10:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes. SS Rowan is very interesting. Good luck on that one. By the way, to avoid mixing new comments in with the old ones use the "new section" function located just to the right of "edit this page". Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Anderson (lost 1886); Iota (lost 1893)

http://www.plimsoll.org/resources/SCCLibraries/WreckReports/15288.asp is the official report for the first; there is another for Iota in that database but I did not put in a link; there is more about Iota in the Tintagel#Geology#Shipwrecks page (one or two books about Tintagel give additional details of course, e.g those by Dyer and Canner mentioned in References there)----Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

re:SS Corvus

Hi Mj. I would in no mather insist on it being GT and not GRT, I was merely going by the source provided for the information, warsailors.com. That source says GT, so I figured since it was the cited source and that's what it said, then that had to be correct. If you've got a better source that says differently, then by all means go with GRT and cite your source for it. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Your recent change to Morion

Hi I note you have made a number of additions of ship names to redirect pages recently. This is great, and will certainly assist readers in finding the right article. However, your entries don't follow the normal rules for entries on disambiguation pages at MOS:DAB. Is there any reason you think these particular entries require more than one link? Thanks. --Rogerb67 (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Convoy ON 154

The nomenclature of these westbound ON (Outward North) convoys is a bit confusing. Their eastbound counterparts were the fast HX convoys and the slow SC convoys. The ON convoy sequence began 26 July 1941. After a time, faster and slower ships sailed with alternate convoys. The (usually odd-numbered) ON convoys with faster ships were sometimes differentiated as ON(fast) or ON(F) and the slower (usually even-numbered) convoys were sometimes similarly differentiated as ON(slow) or ON(S) or ONS. On 15 March 1943 the confusion was officially addressed by allocating the slower westbound ships to a new series of ONS convoys beginning with ONS 1, while the faster convoys continued the ON sequence above 171. I prefer to reserve use the ONS prefix for the convoy series beginning in 1943 to avoid confusion with earlier higher numbered convoys of the ON series and emphasize chronological continuity of the ON series. Thewellman (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Empire Morn

Hi, if you check the history, you'll see I haven't actually ever edited the List of Empire ships - M article. I did do a redirect for Empire Morn though, just because the article I was writing gave a little more history of the ship. (I didn't do the SS Empire morn redirect though).-- Myosotis Scorpioides 17:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The documents I've quoted from are explained in more detail at http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/bt389.asp and were the official British records of all merchant shipping movements in WWII. They can be viewed without fee by visiting The National Archives (though for the vast majority of people that would cost more than paying the fee for online access), those in certain institutions that subscribe through the Univeristy based Athens authentication system also have free access to the online records.

I agree that the current state of the redirects is a bit of a mess, I didn't create the one from Empire Morn to Raymond Steed, which doesn't make a lot of sense I agree, once there is a an Empire Morn article, the SS Empire Morn one can easily be pointed to that, but for the moment I though that would at least point to the best information available. David Underdown (talk) 09:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I see the redirect isue is now moot as User:Benea has kindly revamped SS Empire Morn into a proper article, and straightened out the other redirects. David Underdown (talk) 10:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:1885 Ships

Hey, MJ, I came across the above category that you created. Just as an FYI, the proper category name is Category:1885 ships—lower case s—which already exists. I moved the sole article in 1885 Ships to 1885 ships. As a further FYI, all of the individual year categories from 1850 on (the cutoff discussed at WT:SHIPS) have already been created. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Dragon's honours

RE: User talk:Saberwyn#HMS Dragon (D35)==

I was always under the impression that only the battle honours earned by a particular ship should be shown, as although inherited honours belong to the same name, they belong to different ships. That said, I haven't been able to find any guidelines or significant commentary either way, so I'm going to raise the question at WP:SHIPS and the maritime warfare task force and see what is said. -- saberwyn 05:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:SS Barøy

Thanks, M! I'll look into that. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, what does Dks mean? Barøy's got two of them, evidently. And the N to the far right of the page, what does that signify? Manxruler (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. My French is pretty much non-existent. :) And the words are quite obscured, will see what I can find out, I'll break out the old dictionary and have a look later. Manxruler (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Queen Mary 2

Oh, no, I was trying to italicize the title like that black mold page. But then I realized that if I did that every boat or jerm and titles would need to do that. Hehe.   The Watch Dude 

Malcolm Miller

Hi, thanks for the question. Good question. The name of the yacht is painted on the stern. To me it looks as if it is the original name - so I wonder if the yacht was ever fitted out as a private yacht? The anti-fouling has been applied roughly - ie not with a nicely lined boot-top - but the anti-fouling is weedy, so the yacht has been in the water for a while. Mystery!. Regards, Simon Springnuts (talk) 07:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

PS - Thanks for tweaking the image. Springnuts (talk) 07:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

PPS - I found photos of the interior when she was being chartered in the Caribbean. Curioser and curioser. Springnuts (talk) 07:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Alexandria (Schooner)

Thanks for your comment. I am quite inexperienced and it takes me a long time to make any changes. I have changed the name of the article as you suggested. Regarding the infobox I feel I do not have enough info to make it meaningful and it would take some time but I will try to find more information and time to insert the infobox. GS3 (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Mjroots. You have new messages at Drmies's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Whodidwhat incident

Hello, Mjroots. You have new messages at Nezzadar's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks

Mjroots

Thank you for all the work that you have done on the Adele (1906) stub and I apologise for any inconvenience that my naivety as to the etiquette associated with the creation of articles may have caused you.

I appreciate you for stepping into an argument that was not of your creating, especially since I have been away from the computer and have only come back to see what appears as the aftermath.

After this I will not create any more pages but will focus on going back and adding some detail

Again sincere thanks
Whodidwhat (talk) 02:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Tuncurry (1903)

Hi Mrroots

I know I said I would hang off putting any new articles up, but something came up to cause this shipwreck to be moved forward, can you please have a look at this article before I move it over User:Whodidwhat/Tuncurry (1903) feel free to edit what ever you like

Thanks in advance Whodidwhat (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

PS can you leave things like catagories off for now so nothing from outside links into it thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whodidwhat (talk • contribs) 08:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

SS Paul

Quite right. I have changed it to SV Paul. You may be interested in my article - Dalgarven Mill. Bedankt, Rosser Gruffydd (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Seatruck

I don't really know that much about the Arrow and Shield. The Challenge is now Clipper Ranger and the Triumph is Clipper Racer. I think the first two have done some work on charter for Norfolkline. Lightoller (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

HMS E18

Thanks for the note. The article does indeed need something of an overhaul - someone helpfully came along a while back and inserted a lot of very detailed material which seems to have come from operational reports or the like, but is annoyingly uncitable. I may have to get the sources out of the library again, see what I can corroborate, and hack it to bits... Shimgray | talk | 11:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of SS Hispania (1912)

Hello! Your submission of SS Hispania (1912) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 10:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Shipboxflag

Hi Mjroots, in case you haven't seen, {{shipboxflag}} is now being used to put a larger flag icon in the title bar of pages that use {{Infobox Ship Career}}. (For example, my recent edit to SS Europa (1928).) I think the idea is that there should be multiple sections for ships with careers under multiple nations, so you might want to split the infobox of the SS Uhenfels article, for example. User:Bellhalla is doing a lot of this update work. Cheers — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

SS Norhauk DYK

Your DYK for SS Norhauk requires reply. Harrias (talk) 09:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Now verified, thanks! Harrias (talk) 09:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

RMS Fort Victoria

Hi MJR-- I don't think this was a cruise ship (and predated the days of dedicated cruise ships), but rather an ocean liner or, according to Miramar, a passenger-cargo ship (and you know where that redirects!). Regards, Kablammo (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

MV Anne Scan

Thanks for updating the article - that's the fastest I've seen an article updated after it was created!Autarch (talk) 13:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

TS Leda

I haven't forgotten about the TS Leda article but I haven't done anything to it recently whilst seeing it through my first DYK. I see you have done over 100 so you are very energetic. Congratulations! I expect it gets easier with practice.

I have a bit more about Leda I can put in the article but I have found and ordered a book which claims to have something about the ship [1] so that might give a good additional source. The delivery is "2 - 3 weeks". Thank you for your infobox. Clearly you have access to some details I do not have (but commissioned 1940 looks odd, or wrong, to me). I'd be happy for the infobox to be in place now and I'd make some changes to the body of the text too. However, you said the infobox still needed a little work and it could be more compact (which would be good) so I do not want to preempt you. I'll leave things for now unless I hear from you or you put the infobox in place. Thincat (talk) 09:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Empire Sandy

Any chance you could have a look at creating a ship info box for Empire Sandy. I've put some facts on the talk page, but the info box will be complicated in view of her total change of ship type! Thanks Viv Hamilton (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hull metrics

Mjr: Here is a useful link from the French Wikipedia on hull metrics. Depth and draught are often confused. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 12:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I replied on my talk, but as I read Lloyd's, the value is "creux", which translates to depth, rather than draught. Are there any other sources?

Nice work on the article, btw. Kablammo (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Empire Leopard

Empire Leopard redirects to USS West Haven (ID-2159). If you have a minute can you have a look at the info box which only covers the USS incarnation. Cheers Viv Hamilton (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Lloyds registers

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you in relation to the File:Abbey (1853).jpg image but I have been away for the last 2 weeks

I have found quite a number of the "Lloyd's Register of British and Foreign Shipping" on line through Google books

Although not a complete set it does have quite a number so if you know the years of construction or service you can do a manual search through the documents eg 1857 http://books.google.com.au/books?id=RkASAAAAYAAJ&ots=IRgB1qew4o&dq=Lloyd's%20Register%20of%20British%20and%20Foreign%20Shipping&pg=PT4#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Hope this is of help

Whodidwhat (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of SS Crown Arun

Hello! Your submission of SS Crown Arun at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Geraldk (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

SS Empire Bairn

Hi there, I've replied re SS Empire Bairn. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of RMS Media

Hello! Your submission of RMS Media at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! MuZemike 18:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Shipwreck

Why can't you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.210.38.209 (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Loch Long

Thanks for that. I don't get to spend as much time on Wikipedia as I use to due to other things going on in my life at present (in the real world). But hopefully at some stage in the forseeable future I'll spend some more time on the article (still in my sandbox). Cheers, Spy007au (talk) 11:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Irish Oak

Thanks for your interest. Last May, I accompanied John Clarke, who served on the Irish Oak to the Belfast commemoration for those who have no grave but the sea, it used to be for the Battle of the Atlantic. After the ceremony we were invited to the Royal Navy club. John was well received. I commented on this, thanking, a RN officer who said: "Don't you realize, he was the only veteran at the ceremony".

I will add some references to the article. Regards ClemMcGann (talk) 12:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If you sprinkle some {{cn}} I should be able to dig up some refs ClemMcGann (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Mjroots. You have new messages at ClemMcGann's talk page.
Message added 10:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I note a review at Talk:SS_Irish_Oak/GA1, He has a point about the prose, in places the reading is difficult, ClemMcGann (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Category (year) ships

Thanks, I wondered about that after I changed it. Bonewah (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

U-607

Hello, Mjroots. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page.
Message added 21:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

SS Empire Bowman.

Can you take a quick look at the award area of the SS Empire Bowman? I attempted to cite it; however, I am not sure exactly who to credit the writing/speech to. It didn't look right to put the King's name there and the name of the individual who reads it is usually never given. Thanks Calmer Waters 18:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You may already be aware, but just wanted to let you know that the double hook has been approved and moved to the prep area. Kindly Calmer Waters

DYK nomination of SS Irish Pine (1919)

Hello! Your submission of SS Irish Pine (1919) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Harrias (talk) 07:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Asgard

ISL ceased to exist over 25 years ago! [2] ClemMcGann (talk) 12:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You are correct to say that ISL were initially managers of the Asgard. thereafter Coiste an Asgard were its managers ClemMcGann (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

SS Hilda

Hey, Mjroots :) It looks like your nomination of SS Hilda is somewhat short of a 5x expansion. Are you still working on it? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 00:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

MV Danny F II

Hello Mjroots. You and I were 'fixing' the same sentence of the MV Danny F II article at the same time (Al Mahmoud Orient). Just letting you know there is a little problem of repetition of data about the deaths. It is now in the first and last para. of the Sinking section. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 12:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It was actually the last few IP edits that put the repeated data in. Was going to fix part of it (which you beat me to) then let HJMitchell know. He and I worked on the "Fort Hood Shooting" 'together'. The Al Mahmoud Orient(AMO) is at least in the right part of the world, HERE. (Didn't know you could track ships on the Internet!) However, I could not find any info re involvement in the rescue (only did a Google search). In fact the AMO is WAY over near Italy! While the MV Danny F II is(was) way over here ! Hope this helps. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Alhambra (1853)

Mjroots I was hoping you could do me a favour I have stuffed up the naming of an article Alhambra (1853) it should have been Alhambra (1855) (it was hard to read the original registry scan that I had and then I found additional info to conclusively show it was launched in 1855) I have put off fleshing the article out till I get this corrected

I do not know how to rename articles once created. Can you either

1 Talk me through how to re name it or

2 If it requires privileges?? Are you able to re name it.

Thanks in advance Whodidwhat Whodidwhat (talk) 04:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You can rename the article by using the "move" tab. If you have any problems let me know but you should be able to do this yourself. If there are any redirects to the old title these will need to be fixed manually, use "fix double redirect" as an edit summary. Mjroots (talk) 04:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks You

"fix double redirect" I have done this for the hard linked stuff (in articles) do you do it for the autogenerated things like Wikipedia:New articles (Australia) (links) and User:AlexNewArtBot/AustraliaSearchResult (links)

Thanks againWhodidwhat (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

No need to fix any of the links to the article. A double redirect is where a previous title redirected to the old title, which itself is now a redirect. Mjroots (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up Best Regards Whodidwhat (talk) 05:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Bergensfjord

Hi. Home Lines was headquartered in Genoa, does that make Genoa a port of registry for Bergensfjord? Manxruler (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll look into those things next year. Cheers and Happy New Year. Manxruler (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep. I know about warsailors, did use that for the article. Should info about the various convoys etc. be added? I'm struggling a bit with Plimsoll, though. Where do I find the code letters and such? Manxruler (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Yes, I've looked at some of the PDF files already, will search for the details you mentioned. I've found Bergensfjord at a Norwegian shipping website as well, they had some code letters, which I have added. I know how to use {{ICS}}, no problems at all. I might have to take a little break from editing today, have some stuff to take care of. Thanks again for the useful advice. Manxruler (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

SS Bessemer

Thanks for the note: done. I should have specified - everything not otherwise identified comes from the main reference, Ch 10 in Bessemer's autobiography. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

LB&SCR ships

Hi MJRoots. I note you have been adding much useful information to the LB&SCR page regarding the ships. There is a certain amount of information on the shipping and ferry services in Acworth's article in Murray's Magazine (1888), pp.91-107 (pages 101-104 cover shipping). This does not always correspond with your information. Would you like me to email you a pdf file of this article? If so what address do I send it to?--Das48 (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I will work through my sources re LBSCR ships in due course although there were some other sections I want to add to the article (accidents, signalling) as well as some expansion elsewhere. In the meanwhile there are a couple of issues I would like to raise:

Firstly there appears to be a mistake regarding the second of the ships named Brighton which according to the table was built 1876 but out of service c. 1870. Klaus Marx, 'Robert Billinton an engineer under pressure' (Oakwood Press, 2008) p. 91 says "In January 1893 S.S. Brighton III collided with the West Pier at Dieppe, sustaining such damage as to sink". How does this statement fit in with the ships in the table?

Secondly, as there is so much information about LB&SCR shipping do you think it would be better to hive off the tables into a new article - List of LB&SCR shipping - where more information could be accommodated - with relevant links from the main article? What do you think?--Das48 (talk) 12:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Carrier

J.T. Howard Turner, The London Brighton and South Coast Railway, vol 3. p.54, says "Eventually the LBSC Rly, which had taken over the Hayling Island Line in 1874, decided to purchase the [Langston] ferry, the deal being completed on 24 November 1886. However, the train-ferry service continued to be uneconomic, and finally ceased on 31 March 1888."

BTW there is a lot of LBSCR ships in Klaus Marx, Lawson Billinton a career cut short (2007) Oakwood Press and C. Hamilton Ellis The London Brighton and South Coast Railway (1960) Ian Allan.--Das48 (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

MV Shonan Maru 2‎

Thanks for the heads up, I'm just in middle of it and intend to use citeweb etc. GainLine ♠ _♥ 18:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahoy, S.S. Irish Oak! Re: copyedit...

I've glanced at the article and I'm willing to help you and ClemMcGann. How would it be if I leave notes for you both when I've finished a section or need further information for clarity? Cheers! Shir-El too 18:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Shir-El too 18:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Very many thanks! Sorry to ask so many questions (and will probably ask many more), but like you I want it to be right. Cheers, Shir-El too 06:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Left two questions and quitting for the weekend (more or less). Hope you have a Good One! Shir-El too 10:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Without further referenced info I'm done on Irish Oak. Will be happy to come back when there's more - let me know. Cheers! Shir-El too 14:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What is the next step? it has evolved a lot from [3] ClemMcGann (talk) 09:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Sneakiness

Hi Mj. Sorry about the sneaky edits. I honestly didn't notice the "do not edit"-bit of the sign until after the last of my edits. I was going to wait until you were done, congratulate you on the brilliant update of the article, and apologize deeply for my unintentional intrusions. So, that's what I'm doing now: I'm sorry, it was completely unintentional. I hope I didn't create any edit conflicts for you. And very well done on the updating of the article. Hope you can forgive my slip-up. Manxruler (talk) 10:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, most likely. Or just plain old luck. As I said, I really do apologize. I'm not used to seeing that specific tag, I usually come across Template:Under construction, and for some reason that's what I thought I saw now as well. Won't happen again. Manxruler (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sludge carrier

On a somewhat related subject; What exactly is a sludge carrier? Sounds interesting. Manxruler (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I can think of two meanings for "sludge".

1. Sewage sludge
2. On the railways, steam locomotives need to have their boilers washed out periodically, in order to limit the build-up of scale. The mixture of water and limescale particles, which resembles mud, is known as "sludge".

A sludge carrier is a mobile tank used to carry the sludge to some place of disposal. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sounds logical. The only thing I'm getting google-wise is photos of smallish coastal vessels. Manxruler (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

SS Ellengowan

Hey there, I was wondering if you could help me with an info box for this page. See here: User:Spy007au/Sandbox6. I was really impressed with the one you helped me with for the article Booya (ship). I have been absent from Wikipedia for a few months due to other stuff happening in my real life, but intend to start working on a few of my older sandbox articles very shortly. Thanks, Spy007au (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. Will complete the article in the next few days. Cheers, Spy007au (talk) 03:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

U-boats

Thanks, I'll use that instead. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

HMS Sir Galahad

Thanks. I only wrote it because of the edit summary by the user who started the page on Round Table class trawlers. Once I started it was quite easy. There are some images, one very good, on the pages referenced but they aren't free :-( NtheP (talk) 18:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Barque Alf

Hello Mjroots

Thank you for making your valuable contributions to the article Barque Alf and for the nomination to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. I will watch with interest for any developments. I was impressed with the inclusion of the image you found of the Alf, well done!. I agree that the article would probable be better named Alf (barque).

 stavros1  ♣  15:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

SS Ragnhild

I've added a response to your comment on my talk page. FerdinandFrog (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

SS Avondale Park

Thanks for the heads up. I have reviewed your nomination. Please have a look. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Park Ships

Thanks for the invitation to participate in the ships list project. However, I must decline. First, my interests are so scattershot, I would not stay focused long enough to see it through, I'm afraid. I tend to dabble, not specialize. I do hope my work on the Park Ships was adequate, however. That was my first foray into the naval field where there are clearly many experts (such as yourself) and much interest. Second - my only source at the moment is a couple of Web sites which other users have thoroughly slammed. Don't want to go there ... Some day maybe I'll look up Syd Heal's book and build up the Parks Ship article. Best wished and thanks for your help with the article. Thanks also for your nice piece on the Avondale Park, BTW.I had never see the Lloyd's material before. Great stuff! Verne Equinox (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

ROKS Cheonan (PCC-772)

I find your implications in this matter offensive. Implying that I cannot count (or perhaps that I cannot read) is hardly the way one user should treat another, much less one admin should treat another. The fact that one person tagged it for merge and that I did the merge means that at least two users supported it, not zero. Besides the discussions included a number of conditional supports as well as some opposes. But most importantly both articles were out-of-date, poorly written and, at some points, wrong. Merging them was the best thing to do for the sake of the encyclopedia. The fact that it was about to be linked from the main page made the matter an even higher priority. I notice and am disappointed that you have restored the article to the same poor condition it was in, without updating it. Rmhermen (talk) 13:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Polar Chief

Was this ship converted into a dummy BB because Audacious had been sunk? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Angele

I have added an entry for a wreck on 12 November 1911 (according to the Doom Bar article another vessel had already sunk but a citation is lacking for that one).--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Chincoteague

Awesome. Thanks! - The Bushranger (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

ST Cervia II (Tugboat)

Hello Mjroots

I do intend to call the Article ST Cervia II (Tugboat) but my research has revealed that there was in-fact another Tug by this Name. ST Cervia I[4](here) had been owned by the same company that owned ST Cervia II, namely William Watkins Ltd. The earlier tug took part in the evacuation of Dunkirk in 1940 returning from there with 230 troops. I have so far been unable to establish her fate.  stavros1  ♣  21:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

RMS Titanic

I'm not sure what you meant by vandalize? I added the word "initial" in front of reluctance, and corrected a spelling mistake in "lifeboats" section. I didn't add anything of significance beyond that, or delete any previous posts... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.42.104 (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I see, I didn't understand that. There are plenty of sources to cite for the passengers reluctance, if it's ok to add. The most famous is probably "A Night To Remember" by Walter Lord, but there are numerous others available.

Take Care —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.42.104 (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Sea Serpent (clipper)

Glad this turned out and appreciate the encouragement. My guess is that one of the reasons coverage of merchant sail is so spotty (especially in the 1845-1860 period) is that we don't have a public domain DANFS source of encyclopedic articles to work from. As was pointed out, the public domain material is not in encyclopedic style.

A question for you: My interest is in digging out the basics on merchant sailing ships from books/websites and providing citations. How do I get a collaborator to work on the "wikify" piece of these articles? Djembayz (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I see that using "New Ship Article" as a sandbox title might do the trick. Makes sense. Djembayz (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

WWII merchant navy gallantry awards

Since you're perhaps the most active editor on Merchant Navy vessels that served in the Second World War, I thought you might be interested to know that Series T 335 in the catalogue of The National Archives can now be searched by name of ship and/or name of recipient, see http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/search.asp and simply enter the ship name in the "Word or phrase" field, and T 335 in the "Department or Series code field". If there are any hits, the file description will also tell you in which London Gazette the announcement of the award was made. David Underdown (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, yours is the name I see coming up regularly at DYK, and asking questions at WT:MARITIME, so if anyone is working on the others, they're not as visible. Simply putting in Empire returns 64 hits, each individual list may then refer to more than one ship of course. David Underdown (talk) 10:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Question on move discussion

Can you take a look again at Talk:MS Caribbean Princess#Requested move? I'm still not seeing where in WP:NC-SHIPS supports using the prefix. The way I read it "A ship not known by a prefix should appear under its name only, if that is unambiguous". As the ship builder website, the cruise line website, and all but one ref in the article all seem to omit the prefix - it seems that this does fall into the category of a ship not known by its prefix. If you're using a different line in that guideline, can you help point it out, because I may be overlooking it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Moscow University

Autochthony writes - I hope this is a relevant part of your talk page; I was one of those made eredundant in 2008 by Novoship UK. I have worked as a Company Security Officer since the ISPS Code came in - having had to deal with another two security events whilst at Novoship [UK], but fortunately none in my present job. Re citadel - it's standard advice - see best management practice - http://www.marisec.org/piracy-gulf-of-aden-indian-ocean-industry-best-management-practice see 4(j). 1945z 6 May 2010.

P.S. cheers - and I note your interest in Mr Allingham. 81.156.52.159 (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks

Yeah, whatever. Which is to say that so far I never had any nee to look into wp-convention on the matter, and my intention was nothing else but to take care of that disamb-issue. Without checking the whole list, am I safe to assume you took care of this distinction on all entries where necessary? Regards, --G-41614 (talk) 09:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. Should I ever create one, I'll keep it in mind. Thnx for the input. --G-41614 (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Doggerbank

Thanks for the link, interessting stuff. Also noteworthy that the 1944 entry still makes no mention of her having been sunk in early 1943. Looks like it wasn't common knowledge yet at the time. Calistemon (talk) 06:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense and goes hand in hand with the German side, where the incident was supposingly covered up and removed from the log of U-43. It also explains while the lone survivor feared arrest, since he had done nothing wrong otherwise and would propably received a heros welcome, had Doggerbank not been sunk by an own ship! Calistemon (talk) 10:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Irish Merchantile Marine in WWII

Back for Irish Merchantile Marine in WWII. Meet you on the Discussion page as before with Irish Oak? Cheers, Shir-El too 17:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:ROKS Cheonan sinking

I note you don't watch article talks, so I thought I'd let you know I responded to your comment on the proposed merge. SGGH ^ping! 21:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

PQ 17

Then that article contradicts itself, as it also says that 11 of the original 34 ships survived - or at least arrived at the convoy's destination. Also, I was trying to make sure the lead and infobox were actually in agreement... (and on second look I see teh same statement is also made in the lead of the PQ17 article itself). David Underdown (talk) 07:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The elven survivors seems to be specifically cited in the Order of Battle article, so I think we need to double-check all the lists and so on (I assume 34 is definitely the correct number of ships in the convoy?). David Underdown (talk) 08:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I’ve left a question on the PQ 17 talk page about the numbers, if you wish to comment. Xyl 54 (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Lady of Mann

Yeah I'll put all the stuff in, apologies about that. All the best, JamesSteamPacket (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've seen that suggested before but somebody keeps saying as it spent more time as Lady of Mann that's what the article should be called, however I do agree with you, we should change the article name. Cheers, JamesSteamPacket (talk) 10:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

On another note, is there any chance we can protect the IoMSPC article, because I have had to sort it out three times because somebody keeps putting incorrect stuff on it, as with a few ferry articles. Cheers, JamesSteamPacket (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the article. I've had a look and most of them seem to be about the Steam Packet Company, and it's a bit frustrating at times having to change it all back. Thanks for the advice, all the best, JamesSteamPacket (talk) 10:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well once I am on my summer holidays I intend to do a lot of work on Wikipedia relating to the Steam Packet. I think the Steam Packet Ships template is much better than what it was, the only thing being with the Seatruck Ferries work was that the Steam Packet have had a lot of ships in comparison, and there's not much information available for the pre-1900s ships, but I'll give it a go. Cheers, JamesSteamPacket (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note about the Lady of Mann; I’ve made a proposal (as it were) under BRD, which you may have noticed. Xyl 54 (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of SS Ernst Brockelmann

Hello! Your submission of SS Ernst Brockelmann at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 05:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

RMS Mulheim

Nice work - thanks :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Mjroots, Thank you very much for helping me with MV RMS Mulheim. I added you as creator to my DYK nomination here . I hope it is OK with you. BTW, if you'd like to change the hook, please do. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Mjroots. You have new messages at Mbz1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I apologize for the fuss. After your comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships, I saw no reason not to correct the issue. As you see, I stand by my opinion about what is correct, but I will not force the issue. Just one qst left now - did you rework all the links (will see into it), and if not, should I take care of it? After all, I started it ... Regards, --G-41614 (talk) 09:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

What?!? Forget it. That wasn't a discussion, that was a short exchange of POV. Dank's position is inadequate. Basically the outcome is, have one writer/journalist/whatever make a mistake, then let all others follow like sheep. This was supposed an attempt at an encyclopedia, not "let's write whatever a mass of Randys comes up with". "Generally, I am in favour of using diacritics where it is verifiable that these were used ..." is the perfect reason to leave the article where I put it (which is why I'm a bit surprised by your action). It is more than verifiable - as you said yourself, there they are right on the stern of the ship, rust notwithstanding. Google as source should not be overrated - most we get from there is articles copied from articles copied - I assume you get my drift. I would at this point like to cite an event that happened in Germany. Shortly after his inauguration, someone changed the name of Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, merely by adding another middle name. Next day, his "new" name was all over the press. Media as sources? Only if nothing else is to be had (like a picture of the object in question). Ok, this point needs to be made elsewhere. But far as I'm concerned, this is a case for WP:IAR, not WP:NC. Despite the redirects, I would like to add a bit about the correct name (like: correct name: RMS Mülheim, or some such) to the intro. Not all readers will come via redirects. In the meantime, I'll look into the links. And just so I'm clear, despite my misgivings I'll leave the status quo as such. I apologize for any inconvenience. You're a bit faster than me. Regards, --G-41614 (talk) 09:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, RL's calling, so brief - ok, think I understand how this came when you think there was another re-naming. Added at discussion. Will look over links later. C U, --G-41614 (talk) 09:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Ok, that copy-paste-thing was a clear f***-up on my part. Next time, I'll just move. In between, I'll just see what happens. So long.

I see. Right now I'm wondering about what to do with the discussion at all. I started out with a general qst, but now it's focused solely on the Mülheim, which should be placed at the talk page of the article. I've added an entry there, so far just for protocol. --G-41614 (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC) With the exception of the templates, which I'm not familiar with, most links changed.

Hi, it's not a bad article, it just has a number of grammatical and language issues; I'd fix them myself but I'm busy at work at the moment. I'll have a look at lunch or this evening if I'm able. I'd also like an expansion on why the chief officer was knocked unconscious. Harrias ^talk 08:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Solved most of the problems I'd come across. Wasn't particularly enamoured with Mbz1's removal of the copy-edit tag, and general attitude, but hey ho, we work with all sorts here! Correct me if I made any mistakes; I essentially re-wrote the first paragraph of the 'loss' section. Still not to keen on the number of times the article uses 'The ship..' to start sentences, but can't really think of ideal alternatives without stretching a point and possibly going beyond my knowledge. Harrias ^talk 18:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

They weren't 'for patches'?! Oh dear, there goes my copy-editing barnstar ;) Despite my apparent negativity regarding this article, I do think it is some good work! Caught my eye because I come from down that way (my Dad used to be, and my brother now is, based at RNAS Culdrose). Harrias ^talk 18:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Ships Signpost Interview

Hello Mjroots/Archive. I noticed you are a member of WikiProject Ships and wanted to let you know that per the request on the WikiProject Desk at the Signpost, we have decided to feature the project on July 5. I will post interview questions here and look forward to your replies. Thank you, monosock 04:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

RMV Scillonian III

Hello, I have edited this today and noticed that the name of the category on "Commons" does not match the article title. Would that be because categories have different naming conventions from articles, or it it something that may need changing. ("Commons" does not have anything for the first two vessels though someone has now added an image of Scillonian II to that article.) Best wishes.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 12:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I think the Scillonian images are in the right articles (though only Scillonian III appears in Commons; Scillonian I & II both do in Wp). I found the different varieties of flags rather puzzling (and practice varies in different countries) so may not have got them all right. I would rather not do much editing of Commons; the regulations for en:wikipedia are more than enough. Best wishes.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

SS Struma

Hi Mjroots, that's fine. My move comment was a typo, I meant to say that I couldn't find a source explaining why it was named "SS Struma" (or its original history as a cattle ship). Also, when googling, I searched for "The Struma" excluding "SS Struma" and came up a with a lot more references than for "SS Struma" alone, so overall the "SS Struma" seems to be far less common than "The Struma". But I have no problem for it to be the way it is now, as long as "The Struma" is a redirect. Crum375 (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

MV/MS Azura

Yes, there was a reason for the change. The person who originally did the move stated that it was to show uniformity with other ships in the fleet. I do not agree with this however, because the company always use the prefix MS to identify the ship, so that should be the one used on Wikipedia. It makes no difference that MS/MV can be used interchangeably, we have to assume that Wikipedia users don't know this, so someone looking for information on MS Azura, may be confused with MV Azura when the company do not use that prefix. Crazy-dancing (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks! Crazy-dancing (talk) 08:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again, I shall remember to request such changes properly in future. But I would just like to ask if you could also change MV Ventura, which should also be MS rather than MV. Thanks one more time. Crazy-dancing (talk) 08:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Flags for Clipper Ship City of Adelaide

Hello Mjroots, Thanks for fixing up my addition of Code Flags, I was unaware of that Code Flag template - very nice. With your second change from to I suspect that change was not correct. My rationale is that the City of Adelaide was removed from the Register on the 7th of February 1895 (after having been derigged in 1893) and so from then up until being commissioned as a training ship in 1922 she was nothing more than a civil 'building' albeit still afloat. Therefore, the Civil Ensign is not appropriate and an 'undo' is necessary. What do you think? Yours Aye, --Cruickshanks (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

SS Ryanna

Ahoy Mjroots, I note that you added "21 January Republic of Ireland Ryanna Cargo ship Ran aground then sank" to the article List of shipwrecks in 1940. Would you have more information on this ship? before I include it in Irish maritime events during World War II - Regards - ClemMcGann (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Rynanna - the spelling explains. I have some info. Before the war she had a Limerick - Cardiff - Antwerp route. (Agriculture from Limerick (sometimes Cork or Galway) to UK, Coal from Cardiff to Europe, Cement from Antwerp) - for Ardnacrusha - she was carrying cement from Antwerp to Limerick when lost - RYNANNA, ex THERESA, ON 128890 - thanks again - ClemMcGann (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I added two other Limerick SS Co ships. - Just wondering - is "Operator" the correct heading? The operator would be a company, rather than a country. - ClemMcGann (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

and thanks for your attention to Irish Mercantile Marine during World War II - someday I'll seek GA for it - ClemMcGann (talk) 11:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

SS Nomadic (1911)

Can this tender (with almost no freeboard!) really be classed as an "ocean going" merchant ship? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

surely not!! - where is that written? - ClemMcGann (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

MV Dubai Moon

Thanks for pointing me towards the Fakta om Fartyg information. I haven't been around much for the last couple of months but I will get around to adding it to the article. Best wishes. Jll (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

MS Pride of Rotterdam

Do you have a translation of the Swedish text used as a source for that article? I think you added it [5], and per WP:NONENG when citing a source in a different language, without quotations, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors. I found several Dutch sources; one a news article from 20/04/01 saying that the ship would be christened on the 27th[6], and one a magazine piece saying it was indeed christened on the 27th[7] so I would be interested to see a translation of the Swedish to see where the disparity lies. Apologies should I have gotten the wrong editor. Cheers. Weakopedia (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I see - I wasn't sure if the site was inaccurate, but it seems ok. The problem was an incorrect representation of it's text. Cheers. Weakopedia (talk) 08:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

offical -> official

I notice that in many of the Empire ship pages there is a recurring "United Kingdom Offical Number". I correct it when I see it, but I suddenly got worried. As this is so prevalent, can it be that this is actually a valid spelling in this context? It almost seems like a template of sorts. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it was a typo in my sandbox which kept getting repeated until I fixed it. Mjroots (talk)

Blackpool shipwrecks

Hi. I came across Blackpool shipwrecks doing B-class assessments and it struck me that it might be better named List of Blackpool shipwrecks. Any feelings on this? Haus^Talk 03:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)== PQ 18 OOB ==

Hello Mj
Regarding the PQ18 OOB/Jonas Poole/ Spits/zbergen row; I’m presumably either the “asshole” or the “dumbfuck editor” he’s referring to (or maybe both); am I supposed to comment anywhere? I'm bothered if you're taking some flak over this: any thoughts? Xyl 54 (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

PS: I reverted another change that came in under the wire; I trust that's OK for me to do. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

We have now created an internal inconcistency which mean that the Wikipedia article on Spitsbergen states that the article on PQ18 OOB contains false information. Rather than change the article on Spitsbergen, which has a source to say why Spitsbergen is the correct spelling, could you please expand on the evidence you have for Spitzbergen being the common name. Could you do it over at the PQ 18 articles talkpage please, because right now that page has an administrative declaration saying that Spitzbergen simply is the common name and warning all who disagree, despite this being at odds with Wikipedias coverage of the topic, and the reliable sources. Weakopedia (talk) 07:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello again;

I notice you’ve reverted my revert of Jonas’ revert of your revert, with the edit summary “RV to spelling "Spitzbergen" per talk page, my talk page and pending RFC”, which leaves the spelling as “Spitsbergen”.

Were you wanting it that way round? Is the edit summary a spelling slip?

I would suggest that putting it that way round makes a nonsense of the ref notes, which point to sources that say the exact opposite.

And if its under discussion, Shouldn’t it be at the status quo ante ( which would be this)?

On the substantive issue, I've replied here. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I’ve raised this issue again here, as I think it needs resolving, at least temporarily.

Ideally I’d like the old spelling restored, if only because I think bad behaviour shouldn’t be rewarded: But if it makes more sense to you to remove the notes we should do that.

I suppose the other consideration if the spelling is changed is that in a week the whole thing could blow up again; but that may be no bad thing in the long run.

Anyway, I've left a new section over there about it. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair point (and I apologize if I’m being too pushy/ putting you on the spot)

I thought I'd try the bold thing with the RfC but am unclear .a) how to go about it (never done one before) or .b) what exactly is it I want comment on. I’ve made a start here; any advice, comment, a rescue bid, welcome! Xyl 54 (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

East Indiaman Albemarle

Hello, The Albemarle is mentioned in the Polperro article as being wrecked there, probably in 1817, but I have not been able to find verification. Can you suggest a resource which might help with this? I put this on the talk page for Polperro "Parts of the harbour were rebuilt after destruction by a violent storm in 1817. The East Indiaman Albemarle was blown ashore near Polperro with her valuable cargo, although the precise location of the wreck was never established." Presumably the shipwreck was caused by the same storm but it would be useful to have more detail and a reliable citation.--Felix folio secundus 09:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)--Felix folio secundus 09:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice; I suspect the original newspaper stories may be quite hard to find as so far as there is no date. Perhaps there would be a good book on the history of East India Company shipping which might mention it; and I will try Couch's "History of Polperro" which I have only in an abridged edition.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 08:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Albemarle, cont'd

Hello, It was only the position of the text that gave the date 1817 and I have now found that 1704 is more likely. Only one Albemarle/Albermarle is listed in Sutton's book. Access to the Cornish newspapers would be difficult anyway as I am not in Cornwall but Manchester. Couch's "History of Polperro" would probably mention it. "The East Indiaman Albemarle was blown ashore near Polperro with her valuable cargo, although the precise location of the wreck was never established.".--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 07:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Lists of Royal Navy ship names

Hello, Mjroots. You have new messages at Arsonal's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 07:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Mjroots. You have new messages at Arsonal's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 18:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

MV Mariam

Hi. Pending the AfD discussion, I've made a WP:DYK nomination for MV Mariam. As a contributor to the article, I've listed you as an author on the nomination. I'm not 100% sure of the etiquette here, but if you would prefer not be be on the nomination, please feel free to remove yourself, or leave a message on my talk page and I would be happy to do so. Haus^Talk 12:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Ships and buildings

I adore ship articles, and have a particular fondness for the age of fighting sail. A fifty passernger ship that is hardly described on the stub page seemed a little beneath the usual standards to me. I would think that it needs a little substantiation. and when I tried searching news and even web excluding the term"gaza" to get some idea of what the ship had done before this purchase as an aid ship, I found nothing at all. With buildings, many new buildings are notable for their architecture, and many old ones for historic roles not recognized by listing agencies. I would have no objection if the ship had actually done something, like sailed as a blockade runner. But at this point it seems more like an effort to hype publicity for a planned event that may never occur.AMuseo (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The only Bolivian cargo ship? Well, I did did look after you or someone asserted that ships never get deleted, and could find very few contemporary merchant ships, although there must be tens of thousands of such ships. Other modern work ships like tugs and ferries also seemed to have scarcely any articles. The person who put up this page is a fairly obvious recent sockpuppet (or if a genuine new user, an awfully fast learner.) He has put up a series of articles that have been speedily deleted. Look at his talk page [8]. I doubt that you see this much in ships, but in Israel/Palestine we get a constant flow of articles like this one, often form new users. They pretend to be about all sorts of things, but are merely coatracks upon which to hang propaganda for one side or the other. It gets tiresome. And I suspect that we are about to have propaganda articles about every ship that gets leased to sail to Gaza. I really believe on the merits it would be better to give each a paragraph in the Free Gaza Movement or some similar collective article. Especially, the ones that, like this. gor leased (or was it purchased?) and now look unlikely ever to sail on this mission.AMuseo (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. That is the problem with Israel/Palestine on Wikipedia. Too few non-propagandists editing in this area. So the propagandists have an open playing field.AMuseo (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ship AfDs

How would you like to order the list? I think chronological was your first idea and alphabetical was mine. It doesn't matter to me, and I'd be happy to reorder it, but I'd rather not do it twice. :) Cheers. Haus^Talk 13:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Golfo Azzurro

Yes, I still want a userfied version of this article. Thank you, UB65 (talk) 05:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Avrazya

You did so much work on the Mariam, that I hope that you will help edit an article for the Avrazya, the ship that was hijacked by Islamist militants in the Black sea in 1996 Black Sea hostage crisis.AMuseo (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I used google translate, but while it has this ship being converted for use as a car ferry, sold to Trukey and sailing out of Trabizond, which was the port form this the ferry was departing when the hijacking took place, the sale was in 1997. the hijacking was in 1996. Moreover the name is wrong. It says "1997 05th Sold to Karden Line, Istanbul, Turkey. Renamed KARGEM." Further down the page we find "2000th Sold to Trabzon Birlesik Denizcilik ve Ticaret, Turkey. Renamed AVRASYA II." So it looks as though this was the second Avrasya owned by a Turkish shipping or ferry-operating firm. And that we are looking for a different ship that was already in Turkey and called the Avrasya in 1996.AMuseo (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant. Variant spellings appear in reports of the hijacking. But you have found the ship. Will you now edit this material in? If you're doing that now, I'll go do something else.AMuseo (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Left note for you at AMuseo's talk- think Avrasya is same ship. Djembayz (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Added photo links, wikilink. Called it C-class for now, will leave it to others to assess coverage / NPOV. You've done a lot of work! Djembayz (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for finding that information on the MV Avrasaya.AMuseo (talk) 11:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It should be MV Avrasya. See http://www.faktaomfartyg.nu/avrasya_I_1953_b_1.htm, read the name on ship in the image. I think it's the same ship here, it's registered Aydemirler transportation company:http://www.aydemirler.com/default.asp?current=nak&lang=tr We should move it to MV Avrasya again, an admin can help. (Btw, I have added the names of hijackers) Kavas (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Turkish press and television used the name Avrasya in 1996. Here is a scan of 18.01.1996 issue of Turkish daily Milliyet: [9]. Although it is a low quality scan, you can see the name Avrasya on the ship as you look at the photo which was taken in 1996 carefully. (I can see only 7 letters, but I cannot see 8 letters on it.) Once again, I have read Milliyet newspaper from 17 to 20 January 1996. The newspaper used Avrasya name on these issues, indeed on any issue. Kavas (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

A note: According to Milliyet (issue on 10.07.1992), a ship named Avrasya was hijacked without any political reason on 10.07.1992. The ship was hijacked by its passengers who had been kept hungry and thirsty by crew on a voyage between Venice and Kuşadası. Kavas (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

MV Mi Amigo, at DYK.

Hi, just wanted to let you know I've reviewed your submission to DYK. I think it's good to go, but I've moved it from under the September 3rd header to under the September 2nd header, based on the article's history. Thanks for contributing to DYK! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

As asked I had a small go at cleaning up the "Early History" of the Mi Amigo - checked the refs and they are still good.

As for the rest of it ...... Much looks valid - a general re-write might not come amiss. Unfortunately I havent time. I see some pl_nkers' had a go with Ronan O'Rahilly and the {{cn}} marker --Keith 14:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ship naming discussion

I thought you might like to know that the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships) has moved on considerably since you contribution on 15 September. After reading your comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Italics_in_article_titles on 23 September, I thought you might appreciate a quick pointer. Shem (talk) 09:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Belgica

Hi Mjroots, Yep, the source you used says that between 1916 and 1917 she was called Isfjord, but a number of Norwegian sources I've looked at (here's a newspaper article, for example, here's another mention) say that in 1918 or so she was renamed back to Belgica by her new owner, Kristian Holst. The scuttling cause is probably the correct one, though, as I can't find info on the ship being sunk by German aircraft in the book Flyalarm by Sten Stenersen, which is a recognised work on the air war over Norway. Harstad was bombed on the 19th, but she is not listed among the sunken ships. She might have been damaged that day, though, which may have led to later misunderstandings. I now also think she was scuttled, in June 1940 when the Franco-British forces pulled out of Norway. WIll go and change that.

With regards to the linked article, I couldn't agree more. I was thinking about splitting them myself, and then expand the original Belgica.

By the way, there's something I been thinking of asking you for a while now, what system do you use when you name ship articles where the ship has had more than one name? That's something that often causes me some headache.

Cheers! Manxruler (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with regards to ship names. I keep finding sources that say Belgica was sunk in Brurvika Bay near Harstad on 19 May (an example with a reference, so I think the present solution, with both possible causes of loss presented, is the best one. Manxruler (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Great work on the Belgica article. One very important thing, though: The ship wasn't scuttled by the Franco-British Expeditionary forces when they evacuated from Harstad on 19 May because they didn't withdraw from Harstad on 19 May. The allies only left Harstad around 7-8 June 1940, when they withdrew fully from Norway. So that combination of sources (one for the probable scuttling and one for the date) doesn't work. We have to find another way of doing that section. If scuttling is the way to go, and I think both causes really should be mentioned, then we can't use the 19 May date. Manxruler (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. What I'll do then is to search for sources on the Allied evacuation of Harstad (the evacuation was linked to Operation Alphabet), and see if the date of the evacuation can be added. I'll also keep on looking for sources on Belgica in 1940. I too believe the likely course of events to have been that she was bombed on the 19th (probably damaged, beached even), and then scuttled when the Allies withdrew. Manxruler (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ship collision

Wow, that and the danube toxic sludge - the european media have something to feed on this weekend - some weekends leave them scratching to find stories - cheers for the tip SatuSuro 08:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Sort of reads like an april fools joke story - the ship name for a start - Sky news source. SatuSuro 08:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

None of the wire services that are used for and or bay the main Australia media are not even carrying the story yet ... SatuSuro 09:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

They are now SatuSuro 10:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

QE

You added an edit war warning to my talk page without good reason. Since you obviously have difficulty counting beyond the number two (I have only ever made two edits to the QE page, and not on the same day or even on successive days) the warning about edit wars and three reverts per day was both inappropriate and aggressive, since a study of the record will show that I have never, ever made three edits on any single day to any article. You are reminded that even administrators are obliged to show good faith. You should apologise for a hasty and unwarranted intervention.

Afterwards you might turn your attention to the text of the QE article. Much of it (and esp the service history section) reads almost like a PR handout from the shipping line. I do sometimes wonder if some contributors (unlike myself) are Cunard or Carnival employees or PR staff. George.Hutchinson (talk) 13:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK - SS Vestris

Thanks Mjroots, that's kinda cool. I feel unaccountable proud of my first article now :) Sladew (talk) 06:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for help SS Dresden

Bit of a novice in the ship department but have just created SS Dresden (1897) any help with infobox and the like appreciated. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

FV Athena - Inquiry at WT:RUSSIA

"Are they relevant?" - yes. Are they worth inclusion (apart from database numbers and dates) - not really. It was a grand fraud and a can of worms, no doubt, but the texts are not reliable from BLP standpoint (or any other). East of Borschov 10:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Irish Oak

The name of the Irish State for that period was Éire. As can seen in the painting of the Irish Oak, Éire was painted on the hull of the ship. Thanks--MFIreland • ^Talk 13:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Tankers

Hi Mjroots. There's something I've been meaning to ask you for some time now. Regarding tank ships, what prefixes are we meant to use? I've seen several variants in use, so I'm unsure. For example, what prefix do we use for a diesel engined tank ship? MT? MS? MV? The same thing goes with steam tankers. SS or ST? Some advice would be appreciated. Manxruler (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Useful feedback. Very good point about the ST prefix. Manxruler (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

SS Persier

I added it to the assessment requests page for review. Wild Wolf (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Always happy to help! Kalmbach (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Quest

Thank you for your e-mail about the Quest (ship). The RV Belgica (1884) consolidated infobox looks like it is put together well. One factor to keep in mind is that the Quest work up until now has utilized the flags actually flown by the vessel, including the boat's right to fly the White Ensign independently of its port of registry. Bigturtle (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the infobox, which is seriously superior to the boxes currently posted. Please make the replacement, but also consider making the following changes: (a) "Name" In the current infobox draft, the ship's final name Quest is credited to the ship from 1946 until 1961; consider making this 1946-62; (b) in the current draft, the ship is identified as being in service as a "sealer" from 1946 until 1961; consider 1946-62; (c) for Fate "sank", consider "sank (or "foundered") in Labrador Sea". Also - was the Quest still schooner-rigged after it was dieselized in 1939? I'm not sure. Bigturtle (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. Bigturtle (talk) 19:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Lancs & Yorks Rly vessels

Hi Mj: would like your opinion re this edit - good or bad? --Redrose64 (talk) 14:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK help for Sunny South (clipper)

Hi Mj: I want put in a DYK for Sunny South (clipper). Here is my hook so far. Not sure about nominating and reviewing DYKs yet or writing hooks, can you assist?

The Sunny South (also called Emanuela or Manuela), captured in 1860 with a cargo of over 800 slaves, was considered the fastest ship sailing out of Havana, and one of three American-built clipper ships in the 1850s slave trade?

SS Alesia

Superb job, BTW! Toddst1 (talk) 07:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

SS Cotopaxi

Hi Mj, nice work on SS Cotopaxi. Just as a heads-up, I tried a google news search with a date range of 1925-1927 and found several freely available articles on the ship. Crew names, owners, manifest, build dates, etc, etc... I'm not sure that I'll have time to devote to the article, but that search seems like plenty to stave off deletion. Cheers. Haus^Talk 07:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

HMS Constance

Hello, Mjroots. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
Message added 06:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello

Hi, I should like to thank you for all your work on the Constance. I recently came across an interesting story on a Spanish galley which was a part of the Armada. There were a mutiny during the storm and it lead to another mutiny on another galley in the fleet. I have but one source thus far, do you think this would make for a notable article? I do not want to have to have another AFD. I am watching your talk page so as to see any response, thank you. Tentontunic (talk) 09:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't say whether or not you have enough material for an article. Would the info be suitable for inclusion in the Spanish Armada article? Mjroots (talk) 10:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I found another source, there is a poem based on the incident. I shall write it up in userspace, perhaps if you have a moment you might take a look? Tentontunic (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Comus class template

Mjroots
I've taken the liberty of reverting your change to Template:Comus class corvettes. I don't think the distinction by rig is supportable here; although the article says they were built as ship- and barque-rigged vessels, the only difference is a couple of yards on the mizzen, and captains on distant stations did as they pleased when it came to details of rigs. See Note 11 in the Comus class corvette article. The picture of HMS Cordelia (1881) shows her ship-rigged, although she was of the later batch. I suggest this makes the distinction purely academic, if you see what I'm getting at. Shem (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind note. Shem (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Akra Aktion --> Empire Strength

I prodded Akra Aktion but later found Empire Strength. They seem to be the same ship but I'm not sure if there is anything in the Akra Aktion article that could be salvaged for Empire Strength. Brad (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Railway Company ships

The Great Western Railway has an article on ships: Great Western Railway ships, which includes a list of ships but all red-linked. So no category warranted (yet?). Of the four companies, only the the LNER does not seem to have had any ships Hugo999 (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

SS Great Western

Hi, I would like you to revert your move of SS Great Western to SS Great Western (1838) and to instead create SS Great Western (disambiguation). My reasoning is that a rather large number of articles link to SS Great Western and they will have to have their links changed now. The SS Great Western was Brunel's first ship and is the best known ship of that name. My reading of the guidelines on disambiguation is that the main (and only article) should remain unmoved and the disambiguation page (with a suitable hat link on the SS GW page) would be the best solution. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

West Saginaw

On SS West Saginaw if you could expand the lead section the article would be an easy B-class. Thanks. Brad (talk) 03:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I've expanded the lede a little, although ledes are not my strong point. Mjroots (talk) 05:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; it's better. Brad (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of MV Portaferry II for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article MV Portaferry II is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MV Portaferry II until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sadads (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

MV Anne Scan

[10] Moldova or Moldavia? 91.85.165.78 (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Moldavia as far as I know. Unfortunately, Miramar is now subscription only, and I don't have a subscription. Will ask at WT:SHIPS for confirmation of this. Mjroots (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Batavia

Thanks. I stumbled upon it & didn't realize that it was already being watched before I did the first edit...so I didn't revert. But, I'll let you take care of it now! :) Hal3ko (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Convoy OB 318

Hi
Thanks for your note; I've had a go at referencing this (though it isn't my strong suit; I'm never sure how much is enough) can you have a look and let me know what needs doing? Thanks. Xyl 54 (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

SS Empire Deed

Mjroots - the b2=no on the article is due to the length of the WWII section (not to gaps in its history). I believe this article could rise up to be rated a B class but the majority of the editors who assess the B class nominations do not like long sections. I would recommend making subsections of WWII into maybe voyages or years. (Not to up on the seafaring terminology). Also note that we are internally debating using the c class designation and maybe this time those of us who support it use will receive the vote. Many articles are above start and the writers should be recognized for their effort. Plus with a C-class rating hopefully many more could be pulled up to B-class. From what I read; this article could make that cut with a little fine tuning to what the majority of the editors who due the B-class stuff are looking for. And of course a good heavy dose of inline-citations. Bottom line this article is easily in my opinion a C-class with a little love and effort making it to B-class.Oldwildbill (talk) 10:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No way they like the details especially signifying its military role. From what I have gather as long as one section fits the screen they are happy. If they scroll the mousewheel eeek!!.

What I was thinking was kinda like this - renaming history to Construction. Making WWII a main heading then sub heading under it kinda like 1943 - 1944 - 1945; then flowing into main heading Post war. I am willing to work this with you (as long as one does not mind constructive criticism). They are pretty rough on the B class (sometimes they can be full of themselves laugh) but once it makes through it ain't that hard to get a good article. (I see that you have a lot DYK's) and an are admin but like I say this has potentional. Some believe only the big news item should make it but it was a the little cogs that made the big story possible.(plus anyone who worked those ships during convoys ahould get a pat on the back) So the details are good. Its the eyecandy and the flow that makes the article.Oldwildbill (talk) 10:45,9 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I am getting towards the end of a 24 hour shift. Let me take a look at it later today after some sleep. I am pretty good at re working what people are trying to put down (plus the doc says it good for me to get back into the things that interest me). Yes it is time consuming but when the burden is shared it makes it a lot easier. Also I like finding out about these little facets of history and time is running out for the WWII guys. Hopefully that online site that you mention comes back up. Naval is not my strong suit but I am always willing to learn. You also got a lot of articles - I don't - I usually work in the trenches with the writers to improve them - don't need the glory - just the enjoyment. Give me about 36 hours and see if you like the way I take the article.Oldwildbill (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for MV Empire Dawn

Gotcher message—good to hear from you again. Will make adjustments. While the sinking location is indeed more southerly than that of Cape Town, the map makes it look due west. Checking the latitudes and longitudes shows that it's about 5 nm south, but 1,000 nm west, of Cape Town city hall (the actual cape may be farther south...). That's pretty much west in my book, especially if you're using a 32-point compass rose. Keep up the good work! --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Burntisland Shipbuilding Co Ltd

I'm drafting an article about Burntisland Shipbuilding Co Ltd. The Burntisland.net website includes a history of the company and shipyard and a very useful complete list of ships built. However, I have been unable to resolve discrepancies between Wikipedia material about two ships with details of them on on the Burntisland.net list.

• Burntisland.net lists hull 298 as being launched in 1945 as the MoWT type B coaster SS Empire Pacific. However, WP's List of Empire ships (P)#Empire Pacific entry gives a different coaster that William Hamilton and Company in Glasgow built in the same year.

• Burntisland.net and WP agree that hull 336 was launched in 1950 as the coaster MV London and spent the next 16 years as MV Winsor Trader. WP adds that she then traded under four other names until being renamed in 1998 MV Adolphus Busch, which is the name under which her WP article appears. However, WP has also a redirect for MV Winsor Trader that leads to the US Navy ship Empire State V, which seems to have nothing in common with hull 336 apart from being launched in about the same year.

Many merchant ships get renamed, many names get re-used and this sometimes creates potential for confusion. However, in these two cases I am unable to verify whether everything on either WP or Burntisland.net is correct. Please will you help me to resolve the apparent discrepancies for these two ships? Thanks, Motacilla (talk) 11:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou for your help with these queries. I have now created he article as Burntisland Shipbuilding Company, drawing mainly on Grace's Guide and Burntisland.net. I've created a number of links to the article and also one to its counterpart on German WP.

A spate of cancelled orders suggests the Burntisland company must have faced a serious crisis in 1959–60. Do you know if was a wider crisis in British merchant shipping or World shipping at about that time? Half of the cancelled orders were from Power Steam Ship Co, associated with someone called O. Gross. I don't know who this is but I wonder if Gross's business interests went into receivership at that time.

The company's financial crisis over the MV Ohrmazd in 1967–69 seems another rather fraught tale that deserves further elucidation. Hansard includes various comments on Burntisland's plight, particularly during and after the company's liquidation, but it will take a while for me to sift through the Parliamentary comments and see what they can add to the shipyard's history.

Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou for all your suggestions on sources. I've now sifted Hansard from which I've been able to add a 20-year saga of political anxiety from 1959 to 1979 over the future of the Burntisland yard and the town that so largely depended on it. As to individual ships, I've given the article what I hope is a strategic selection of redlinks to some of the ships that may be of particular historical interest and therefore perhaps deserve individual articles in due course.

I've now spent as much time on Burntisland as I dare. I must urgently get back to my work that I've been neglecting in the real World!

Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

SS Elbe

I’m afraid I cant help you with this one as I know longer have the postcard of this ship. It seems to have gone missing when I recently moved house!Stavros1 (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) In my experience, this often happens; and unpacking after a move always turns up stuff that went missing two or three moves ago. I recommend that you move house again. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah well, never mind. Mjroots (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Irish Hazel / Empire Don

is this useful ? [11] Lugnad (talk) 09:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Found it!!! :) its in Frank Forde's book: [12] - Lugnad (talk) 12:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Shipwrecks

Sorry, I didn't notice that AWB had moved the flag icon to the start just for UK & US for some inexplicable reason. It wasn't something I did intentionally. I've repeated my edit but without thise two changes. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

SS Ava

Hi - I have made the changes suggested by you. Can you check to see that I have done everything right, as I've never used that template before. (I'm not sure that the references are now appropriate for a Dab page, but I'm reluctant to lose them until the other ships have articles. If that ever happens). Cheers. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

MV Arcadia

Apology, slipped through the net whilst using AWB. --palmiped |  Talk  08:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

New Holland-Hull ferry

Hi, I've added some stuff to Hull Victoria Pier railway station - one of those curiosities like Dartmouth railway station of a railway booking office but neither platforms nor tracks. The MS&LR, succeeded by the GCR and then the LNER, operated the ferries - but what happened after nationalisation? I've put "Sealink" into the routebox. Edit at will! --Redrose64 (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Ross Tiger

Hi there. Your comments on my Ross Tiger article are bang on. I've let my concerns for the subject carry me off and bent the rules a little. I'll investigate more sources and fix it. Regards, Dornsby (talk) 11:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

RFA Wave Chief (A265)

Hi, the information on the page is from more than Colledge Vol 2. The "full" entry in Colledge is WAVE CHIEF (ex-Empire Edgehill) Harland & Woolf, Govan. 30.8.46 BU 1974. I don't have the same edition as is referenced in the article but if you want to change the citation it's

• Colledge, J.J. (1989) [1970]. Ships of the Royal Navy: An Historical Index Volume 2: Navy-built Trawlers, Drifters, Tugs and Requisitioned Ships (2nd ed.). London: Greenhill Books. p. 235. ISBN 1-85367-028-6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nthep (talk • contribs) 12:27, 30 July 2011

Re: Ship articles

Hi there - no problems, I will do that in future. Thanks JamesSteamPacket (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hyphens again

There's a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Punctuation_and_ship_classes that I think you should know about. Yours, Shem (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Shipwreck lists

Hi Mjroots. I see that you are making good headway with converting the shipwreck pages to list format. Fine work. One thing, though, do you have to add "World War II:" in front of every single ship that was lost in connection with the Second World War? As I see it, it looks extremely repetitive and tedious. When a shipwreck list deals with the years 1939-45, most shipwrecks are bound to have something to do with the war. Do we really need to repeat that statements hundreds of times? Manxruler (talk) 07:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess it's better when there's an action/campaign mentioned in addition to the war. Still, that's one awfully large number of "World War II"s. And the flags of the ships doing the sinking still has a cluttering effect, in my opinion. Manxruler (talk) 07:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Nah, mate. Having given it some thought, I guess it's fine. If we can get loads of campaigns and actions mentioned, then that's nice. I was never one for initiating reforms anyway. Manxruler (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

MV Kronprinsen

I just wanted to let you know that I tood a look at your recently created article MV Kronprinsen--However, I noticed there are some holes that may need filling: some of the article's Wikilinks are broken. Amy Z (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was going through articles rather systematically, and the actual nature of the red-links didn't quite click. I'll pay more attention next time. Thanks, Amy Z (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Concerning MV Empire Faith

MJroots,

Upon review of the article MV Empire Faith, you are correct that I incorrectly assessed the article. I apologize for the confusion. I was working on reducing an un-assessed article backlog and it appears I made a mistake.LeonidasSpartan (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

SS Empire Duke

Thanks for the grammar sort out. However, do you know if it had first a 4-inch then a 4.7-inch (or vice versa) or did it have one or the other but no-one knows which ? GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Awa Maru renaming

I disagree with your rename of Awa Maru (1943) to MV Awa Maru (1943). The MOS ship naming convention doesn't use MV when the ship is known by a single name. The second word, Maru, is also an indicator. The Awa Maru is an infamous ship. NSA does not us MV: see http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/cryptologic_spectrum/sinkingawa_maru.pdf - Glrx (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

HMS Empress

Don't be so quick to jump in and fix a problem. I'd already noticed that I'd forgotten the year and was adding more material when you caused an edit conflict and I lost all my changes. Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

SS Ruth Kellogg

I was looking at some of the type and ran across the Ruth Kellogg piece. There was a cite error that I cleaned up. There is a remaining problem you as prime contributor should be able to clean up easily. In the body, where I cleaned up the cite, MBSA is given while in the table "Code Letters MBSN (1929-34)" covers that period. Probably a typo. Palmeira (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Ships lists

Wow, you sure work fast! Looking at your layout I am having second thoughts about my approach. I had wanted to use 'wars' for sections with an informative small lede for each war, but have reservations about having all the 'Captured Ships' lists being so different. What are your thoughts in that regard? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

See response to your previous message to me here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

1940 shipwrecks

Thanks, Mj. I'm very interested in the 1940 shipwrecks, as I'm sure you know. Right now I'm on the road travelling, so I don't have very much time to spend on the project.

One thing, though, please don't put much confidence in wrecksite.eu. The site is full of errors. Amongst many other examples, wrecksite places the sinking of Rio de Janeiro on 8 September when she was in reality sunk on 8 April. The sub that sank her disappeared in May 1940. Also, they list Rio de Janeiro as a steam ship when she was a motor ship. Just one reason why I deeply distrust that site. I can't for the life of me believe that that site is a reliable source. Manxruler (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they're better than nothing. What I usually do is completely disregard the actual information on wrecksite (except the ship name and year of sinking), then double check navalhistory against Miramar Ship Index (which also contains some errors) and books (where there are a couple of errors from time to time too) to make sure. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Adding captured ships

Hi MJ', found a ship for the List of ships captured in the 18th century, posted it on the talk page in the format (+ -) used by the page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I see you removed the 'do not edit' tag so I went ahead an added 'Croyable' to the 1790's section, using page's format. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Cymric (schooner)

ta very - Lugnad (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm cooking another Arklow schooner James Postlethwaite, similar to Cymric (schooner) and Mary B Mitchell. I would value any advice or suggestions Lugnad (talk) 12:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed - the date you gave in the hook was 1929, It should be 1921 Lugnad (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Costa Concordia

Would you please add a note regarding the Manual of Style to the invisible note asking editors not to add the weekday to Friday the 13th in this article. Your tone in this comment is encouraging another editor to abuse the invisible note system and dictatorially warn others off mentioning the size of the ship on the grounds that doing this has something to do with the Titanic. Without your explanation why the weekday should not be there it is hard to stop them from doing this. Britmax (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm just concerned that if abuse of the invisible note system (by anyone) becomes common and editors complain about it we could lose a useful editing tool which avoids the bad faith created by having misunderstandings corrected. Britmax (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Australian archived newspapers

G'day Mjroots. I am not sure whether you are aware of this project that the National Library of Australia is undertaking here and has lots of ship info. Regards Newm30 (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Creteboon

Just noticed your template - ships lost on maiden voyage - and wonder if the Creteboon would qualify? It was when they were experimenting with concrete rather than steel ships. Creteboon was built with the intention of sinking her as a Blockship (to keep a harbour open). Unfortunately she hit a sandbank - and is still there. - Also : email sent - Lugnad (talk) 12:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Completed 1919 and traded until 1930s! Name was CRETEBOOM (pity National Maritime Museum of Ireland cannot spell!) Davidships (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Maiden Voyage

A query on your Maiden Voyage Template. I don't like adding a red link without cites. But can a cite be added to a template? I added Crescent City (of great interest to treasure seekers) and placed the cites on the talk page. I assume that it was valid to add this one, strictly speaking she foundered on the return leg of her first voyage. Lugnad (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

re:Empire Endurance

Hi Mjroots. This brings up an important, fundamental, point. Are newspaper stories from the Second World War-period reliable sources for details of events that happened back then? Having worked with such sources during my studies, and The Times specifically, I'd say no. Newspapers and such are not the best of sources today, and during the war years, with propaganda and censorship and all, it was worse. The Times wrote that SS Monte Rosa was sunk in an air attack, should we believe that? I know you've used The Times frequently, but you must surely agree that as a source for factual information (unlike its possible use as a source of how things were portrayed in the media back then) it leaves a lot to be desired. And when said source claims that Alster was a troopship (it wasn't) and that it carried among other things, toys, I'm deeply skeptical. She carried hay and coke to conceal her military cargo, why should she also have carried cigarettes and toys? What do you think? Manxruler (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. What filtered through from the military to the newspaper back in those days, and was allowed to be printed, is to be taken with a grain of salt. You're right in that it was even worse with the Axis side. They're not really sources for factual information, just a view of what the general audience was told. In my view, newspapers from those days shouldn't be trusted, unless reliable sources confirm the information. And if other sources confirm the info (not just repeating it), then why use old newspapers instead of the other sources? I think the general unreliability of newspapers in those days should prevent us from using them as sources for information. Let me give you some further examples. I wrote most of Battle of Hegra Fortress, and when I did that I found plenty of old newspaper articles on the action. I didn't use said articles as sources, other than to point out that Hegra Fortress was in the attention of the media back then. Had I used the newspaper articles I would have ended up claiming that Hegra Fortress was a large army base (it wasn't, it was a small border fort), manned by 100 or 150 men (really manned by 250) and which was bombarding Værnes airfield relentlessly (it was out of range and could not interfere with the airfield), that the Germans were on the retreat in Mid-Norway in late April 1940 (they were really advancing) and that Canadian troops fought in Norway in 1940 (no Canadian troops took part).

As for toys and cigarettes as cover for weapons transports, that would have been the first I've heard of it in the context of the invasion. The book source I've used says coke and hay was used as cover on Alster. Coke was used on several of the transports I've read and written about, the advantage being that it could be used to cover the entrances to the cargo holds and not be easily removed during inspections. Ships that were sailing in Norwegian waters were inspected, and an officer encountering "large amounts of toys" blocking the entrances to the cargo holds would ask questions and likely remove said toys to look inside the holds. The reliable book which I've used says nothing of toys, cigarettes, flour or sugar. Of course, these things might have been "liberated" by the Royal Navy at Skjelfjord, but if the newspaper article is correct, why no mention of guns, ammo, radio equipment, coke and hay? And would the RN folks take loads of toys? I completely get the cigarettes, and to some extent the flour and sugar (although those things would have really appreciated by the Norwegian administration), but to take large amounts of toys? Did the newspaper article also say that Alster was a troopship? There were no troops on board. Manxruler (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm mostly done. Thinking about adding a few more things, will probably do so later today. She suffered her first casualty under Allied control on 26 May, during a German air attack on Harstad. Just digging up some more detailed sources for that. I think that a GA nom is a good idea. Let's do that. Manxruler (talk) 09:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Didn't get to the library today. Will use what I have already, more to come. Manxruler (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Being annoyed about not getting to the library in time, I checked my personal library and discovered I've own plenty of books covering the ship. Work commencing now. Two issues: 1. Why is the page numbers missing from the The Empire Ships book? 2. Is Empire Endurance really the right title for this article? She was only called that c. 10 months and didn't really do much out of the ordinary, other than being sunk. Manxruler (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'd presume the name she was sunk under would be the most commonly known one... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Mjroots: Could you perhaps find that book again, and add the page numbers? I think that's significant. If not, where should we ask to find the page numbers?

Mjroots and Bushranger: How do we check which is the most common name? I'm not sure sinking is the defining factor of a ship.

In Norwegian sources, which naturally are somewhat biased towards what happened to the ship while in Norway, Alster is the most common name, by a very good margin. She was launched as Alster, sailed for 13 years as the Alster, served as a Kriegsmarine supply ship as the Alster, was captured as the Alster, used as a repair and supply ship by the British in April 1940 as the Alster, used as a ore carrier by the British in May 1940 as the Alster, attacked by a British sub as the Alster. As the Empire Endurance she was a member of five convoys and was torpedoed and sunk by a U-boat, while carrying tow motor launches. . Manxruler (talk) 13:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

There. That's all I've found on-line or I got in my personal library. I'll head over to the unbelievably tiny library where I live and have them order a couple of more books which I know have more info. How are you coming along with finding those page numbers? Manxruler (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I've ordered a book that I know has some really nice stuff on Alster. The library it can take up to two weeks, so I don't know when I'll have the time to use it, seeing as Easter holiday is coming up with all the travelling, sunshine and away-time from the internet that it involves. The GA review has started now, I think your input is needed with regards to some questions regarding horsepower and images and such. Manxruler (talk) 11:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I too am hesitant with regards to fair use images. I don't have any in my books, but I did find this which seems to confirm that the picture you found is "our" Alster. I just remembered from looking at the GAN that I have info on her speed, from Miramar. Will fix that. Manxruler (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

A possible FAC sounds exciting. I do have the article watchlisted, and I'm planning a trip to a museum in Bodø to acquire a book with more info quite soon. Manxruler (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the article's talk page, I've ordered a German book on German merchant ships during the Second World War. There is some technical information on Alster there, which I'm now adding. In this regard I have a question you might be able to answer. Regarding horsepower, how is that measured? Lloyd's says 1,000 nhp, while the book says 6,500 "horsepower" (Pferdestärken). Any idea why the vast difference? Manxruler (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

That's what I thought as well. The problem is, the book does in no way at all specify which sort of horsepower it is. I think we might be stuck on that point. Do you know of any kind of hp that 4.5 times more than nhp? Manxruler (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

One could be a calculated figure, the other a figure which is actually measured. For example, in Britain until about 1949, cars were taxed according to their "horsepower" which was a calculated figure based on the number of cylinders and their bore (see RAC horsepower). This bore no relation to the actual power available at the tyre tread. Another possibility is that both figures are measured, but one figure is measured at the propeller, the other at the engine crankshaft. The latter would not take into account frictional losses in the drive train, or engine-driven auxiliaries such as generators and compressors. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mj. I have today received the loveliest German book in the mail. Plenty of Alster info. Turns out the "horsepower" is "PSi", what is that short for? Hopefully not Pferdstärke. Also, she was launched on 5 January 1928, so we need to change the redirect, could you do that, and delete the 1927 redirect? Manxruler (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Evidently PSi stands for indizierte Pferdestärken. What might that be? Manxruler (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks. Does this do anything at all with regards to the 1,000/6,500 issue? Manxruler (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) See Pferdestärke. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

So Pferdestärke isn't exactly the same thing as horsepower - the plot thickens. Manxruler (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

re:List of Empire ships (U–Z)

Re- your long pending request for archival references, I suggest I post a citation for my recent article on 'Cold War Whaling' in POLAR RECORD. That contains 20+ onward citations of items at the UK National Archives. I'm afraid that working through every Vikingen/Viking whale catcher on the page in order to supply direct citations would be too much for me. There is also a problem with adding citations to the page as a whole, because it covers so many vessels. Thanks, Nargoon (talk) 09:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Surviving ocean going ships

Have you seen the template

Hamish59 (talk) 00:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, Mjroots, but have you missed any of the ones in "National Historic Ships" that ought to be added to "Surviving ocean going ships". I note, for example, HMY Britannia Hamish59 (talk) 10:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

List of Ships

I'm starting to work on the list of ships in pt.wiki and have one question: On the 'list of ship commissionings' are added all the ships, included cargo or only military ships? Fabiano Tatsch (talk) 10:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks of Cornwall

Hello again, In the World War I section of the list some of the German submarines have names which have turned out to be the commanders of them. Having edited two I am not sure of the best way to make further changes and link to articles for the vessels where they exist.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 10:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice; I only occasionally contribute on Cornish shipwrecks topics but will check up on that list occasionally. Jowaninpensans is doing a good job in building up very informative lists for Cornwall and for Scilly. (An image for Torrey Canyon would be very useful if one could be found in public domain.)--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 09:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to move SS Valbanera back to Valbanera

You moved "Valbanera" to SS Valbanera a while back without discussion. The ship was never known as "SS Valbanera". As a Spanish owned and registered ship, it was referred to in Spanish as "vapor Valbanera", but all of the English sources I've seen refer to it as "Valbanera" without any prefix. I therefore propose to more the article back to "Valbanera" in seven days. -- Donald Albury 10:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Sarensen

Miramar says nothing about a Sarensen or Sorensen. I can't find anything of that name anywhere in my sources. Manxruler (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Don't hesitate to ask for other ships too. I just ordered a book on the ships of Norddeutscher Lloyd from Germany, btw. Manxruler (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

A problem

I was doing some editing on List of shipwrecks in May 1940 and came across a problem I couldn’t fix; can you suggest a remedy? The entry at 12 May for SS Ranheim has a link {{HMS|Zulu|F186}} which redlinks to HMS Zulu (F186). I can’t se why, as the other one {{HMS|Carlisle|D67|6}} is fine. Any thoughts? Xyl 54 (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, now I'm looking at it in daylight, I can see the problem; idiot! I'm sorry to have bothered you with this.

Also, I've just seen/taken in the note at the top of your page; I'm sorry to hear that, and I hope things resolve themselves soon. I appreciate you being here, and wouldn't like to think you might have to give it up. Good luck! Xyl 54 (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It's OK, I'm the idiot who left the pipe out in the first place! I don't intend to disappear if I can help it. Mjroots (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Beat me to it! (servers of treacle!) Thanks! And I'm glad to hear it. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Uganda in 1918

Hi Mj. I saw that you needed a dab for the Uganda which was sunk in 1918, and decided to look it up. Miramar has a Uganda which was torpedoed and sank in 1918, however this was on 8 March 1918. When I checked the reference you used for the entry I couldn't find any mention of a Uganda. Did I miss something important? Manxruler (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there's yet another Uganda which was sunk in 1918, on 27 May. Popular name for a ship, that. Manxruler (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think there's a typo in DANFS. The sentence "On 27 May 1918 while she was escorting a convoy from " is incomplete. After the October bit it continues: "Cythera searched for the submarine, and rescued the crew of the stricken ship, arriving safely at Gibraltar 28 May." I think it's a bit hard for a ship to be sunk on 3 October 1918, with the survivors reaching port on 28 May 1918. And there was a Uganda sunk on 27 May. Manxruler (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm just about to have a late evening dinner, so I'm up for a while longer and I'll deal with this. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Creating a Uganda shipindex page makes good sense. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ames ships

Template:Ames ships has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jenks24 (talk) 10:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

WW2 shipwreck lists

I unlinked Atlantic Ocean because it's so well known it doesn't need a link at all (see WP:OVERLINK - "Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations"). Colonies Chris (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Either of those locations seems appropriate for a discussion. My feeing is that even though the ocean names are particularly relevant to shipwrecks, the links aren't useful. It's hard to imaging anyone clicking on such a link - and someone with an interest in shipwrecks isn't likely to be ignorant of the basic facts about the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean. Colonies Chris (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

re:Bio-Bio.

Yep, Miramar has the details. I've added them to the list. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 08:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Empire Byron

See that manager of Empire Byron in infobox given as Haldin & Philipps Ltd. Lloyd's Register 1941/2 has J & C Harrison as does Hocking "Dictionary of Disasters at Sea...". Can you clarify source please? Perhaps Mitchell & Sawyer 1995 (my 1990 ed doesn't give managers)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidships (talk • contribs) 14:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks reply. Then its just an error. I think you've copied the manager from the previous entry (Empire Baxter) on your link. Incidentally, I cannot find any trace of a 1995 ed of "Empire Ships" - 1990 was the last I can find (perhaps there was a reprint?) - all the hundreds of Google hits appear to just refer to these WP pages (or are derived from them). Best wishes.Davidships (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Ensigns vs jacks

Hi, can you offer any more assistance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template#U.S. Navy "Don't Give up the Ship" Flag? In particular, I can't find where in WP:MILHIST it is recommended to use ensigns not jacks. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Official Numbers

I'm a bit bothered by the standard entry "Official Numbers were a forerunner to IMO Numbers". To me it implies that they were part of a global system (which they were/are not) or that they have been superseded (which they have not). On the other hand it is of course correct chronologically. They serve different purposes and have different coverage - a ship may have one without the other for a wide variety of reasons. There is a Official number page which is starkly wrong and I will start an edit there - if it reaches a satisfactory state a link from "Official Number" in the Infoboxes is perhaps all that is needed. what do you think? Davidships (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks your reply - I'll see what I can do with the ON page. I remain puzzled why you refer to ONs always in the past - they remain a fundamental part of the legality of ship-owning/operating - it would be virtually impossible for any country to run a shipping register without such - though they vary greatly in form. Davidships (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I can assure you that Official Numbers most definitely remain fundamental to the flag state's registration - and for the thousands of vessels that are not allocated IMO numbers that is all they have - but let me have a go at the ON article first, when all might become clearer.Davidships (talk) 08:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Malcolm Miller

Hi - [13] what an inspired edit - thanks! Springnuts (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

TSS

Hello MJ. I posted this comment to your discussion with Andrerabbott, and also posted on the subject to the Ships project talk page. There were no turbine-powered merchant ships before the twentieth century, so the use of "TSS" is incorrect. And I cannot find any historic use of that prefix to mean twin-screw steamers. Are you aware of any?
"TS" and "TSS" seem to have been used at the dawn of the marine turbine age, for some short-sea trades around the British Isles. I am not aware of any usage other than that. Can you let me know if there was such usage?
Regards, Kablammo (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

USS LSM(R)-190

G'day from Oz; I have just come across USS LSM(R)-190 in my hunt for instances of "air craft" instead of "aircraft". Ships aren't really my thing, but it seems to me that there is a heap of info in the article that should probably be better off somewhere else, or at least not in the article about the vessel itself. See what you think. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 07:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

1926 wrecks

Hi Mjroots. That was a bit of a challenge. As it turns out, I can't find a Kwaian Maru No.2 at all, but I did find a Kwaiun Maru No.2 sinking on 15 August 1926. I've just added that ship to the list. Manxruler (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, although I did have some problems figuring out where Tsaofeitien Light was. It's somewhere in the region of Dairen, which was occupied by the Japanese back then. Manxruler (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

General McPherson (ship)

Hi, can you add some categories to this? Hope you are feeling a bit better.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1952

Hi Mjroots - I didn't unlink Piraeus. I only corrected the spelling - it's still linked. The changes to the spacing inside the template are not anything I do explicitly myself, they're part of AWB general fixes. If you think they shouldn't be made, I suggest you raise the matter at WT:AWB. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for giving me another source for the Quanza article--much obliged for the look. Khazar2 (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Redirect for HMY Alexandra

Hi Mj. Could you delete the redirect SS Prins Olav (1907)? There's no need for the year dab in the redirect, as there was only ever a single SS Prins Olav. I've already created a new redirect without the year dab. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 12:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Mjroots (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Manxruler (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Category discussion

Since Twinkle broke trying to add the notification to your page (you might want to archive some, it timed out due to the page size), letting you know about this discussion involving two categories you created. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done - I'll try to keep on top of it from now. Mjroots (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

What ship?

Hello Mj, I hope this finds you well
I am writing with a bit of a problem (well, more of a conundrum really) and I thought of you!
I was watching the BBC documentary on the Tank Regiment in WWII, and the programme had a brief clip of (what I assume is) a British battleship, but I am stumped as to which one. Have you any idea?
The doc is on the BBC iplayer (here) and will be available until Sunday 20th January; the clip is at 08.54 to 08.57 ( a brief flypast, but a nice stern to stem shot).
Any thoughts? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks; I'll try that. And thanks for looking, anyway. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Somewhat odd clean-up request at List of shipwrecks in 1944

Hi Mjroots. Great work (as usual) on the various shipwreck lists. I just dropped by List of shipwrecks in 1944, and ran across a clean-up request I didn't quite understand what was about. Apparently the list requires clean-up/improvement because it's "[r]idiculously inconvenient for obvious reasons" (helpful feedback, right?). Any idea what that might be about? The requester seems to be a regular. Manxruler (talk) 04:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Good call. There really wasn't much in the way of constructive input in that tag. By the way, excellent progress on the shipwreck lists. 18th century now, what could be next? Manxruler (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Ships of Ceylon

Category:Ships of Ceylon, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Inquiry

You have mail waiting here -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Reply -- Gwillhickers (talk) 11:14, 4 April 2013

Ping! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1802

I note that you have added Retreive to the List_of_shipwrecks_in_1802#December
I don't have access to your cited source:-
"Shipwrecks". Bury and Norwich Post, or Suffolk, Norfolk, Essex and Cambrigde Advertiser (Issue 1072). 12 January 1803.
Could you please check it really is Retreive and not a misspelling of Retrieve? - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 08:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Plimsoll down again?

Hi Mjroots. I'm doing the last touches on a ship article I've been working on for a little while. In connection with that I've noticed that I'm unable to access Plimsoll Ship Data. Do you know if it's been down for some time, should we be worried? Manxruler (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I guess we'll have to do without for a while then. Thanks. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Two things: 1. Plimsoll's back up. 2. What does "tons under deck" mean? Any idea? Manxruler (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks of Gibraltar

Thought you might like to add to this. Hope your illness isn't too serious!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Found some more on Alster/Empire Endurance

Hi Mjroots. I just found some more on SS Empire Endurance. Manxruler (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Uhm, how come? Manxruler (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Aha. I see. That makes perfect sense. Thanks. Manxruler (talk) 08:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The Astrid

Hi Mjroots. I've started an article today about The Astrid. You added it to List of shipwrecks in 2013 yesterday, saying that it was Dutch and that after running aground it broke up and sank. Would you mind adding references to either or both articles for those bits of info, please, as I've yet to track the refs for that info down? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Ships year categories

Is the convention here that the correct category year is the year of launch? I had supposed that year of completion was more appropriate, rather than the time of a half-built ship. What should one do about ships whose launch dates are not known? Davidships (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I wasn't asking about dabs in particular, but those "ships of 1982" type categories. I'll get used to it, I suppose - but in all modern databases and registers that I know (LR, Equasis, Sea-web, national ship registers, other class registers, Miramar and the like) the year of build for the ship is the year of completion. Davidships (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Barracouta

Have you had any more luck tracking this one down? NtheP (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Astrid (brig)

Hi again - hope your computer problems are over! Could I convince you to have a look over Astrid (brig) to see if there's anything you can dig up about her that I haven't managed to find? Now that the ship's been salvaged, and its fate seems to have been set, I'd like to put the article up for GA status sometime soon. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Move of Grecian (1812)

Hi Mjroots. When you moved Grecian (1812) you should have moved her to HMS Grecian (1814), not HMS Grecian (1812). Grecian entered the Royal Navy in 1814, not 1812. By miss-naming her, you risk causing confusion. In this case, as there wasn't an earlier Grecian, the confusion is slight. However, in many cases the predecessor vessel may still have been active in the period between the launching of the successor and the year of the Royal Navy's acquisition. I would appreciate your reversing the move. If you feel that you must move her, please move her to HMS Grecian (1814). Thanks, and regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Ta. Acad Ronin (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Togo/Svalbard

Hi Mjroots. Yes, you're right. That is an interesting ship. I should give that article a tweak or two. Good edits on your part, btw. I did a few edits on that ship myself 3+ years ago, it should be nice to have another look. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Template troubles

Hi Mjroots. I just created Template:Norwegian torpedo boats. For some reason I can't get to display correctly on the pages where I add it. None of the View, Discuss or Edit functions seem to work. When I push either of them I get "Template:Norwegian torpedo boatss", with an -s too many, for some reason. Do you have any idea how I've managed to mess the template up, and how to fix it? Manxruler (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Looks like I fixed it here. Chris857 (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Chris. That was typical of the silly little mistakes that sometimes makes a mess of things. Well spotted. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The template name and raw name must be exactly the same. C&P is you friend here. Nice to see another stalker come out of the woodwork! Welcome to the club, Chris. Mjroots (talk) 07:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Yep. I think I did copy-paste, but evidently my finger seems to have slipped slightly during the paste bit. Probably didn't help being seriously tired either. Ah, well, all's well now. Thanks all. Manxruler (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

talk:Minesweeper (ship)#Requested move 2

I have renewed the proposal to move Minesweeper (ship) to Minesweeper, due to hundreds of links to Minesweeper referring to the ship. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 01:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hadlow (ship)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadlow_%28ship%29#cite_ref-CM220324_24-0 forgive me if i seem a bit rusty on all this but the mystery of over 20 refs that are unreachable in current format - is there something i am missing - how are the refs verifiable ? lost with all hands - how verified (or not?) - anyways happy new year and all... satusuro 09:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

excellent - highly likely that libraries that i belong to can give me the access i need - thanks for your reply - cheers satusuro 11:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

SS Maasdam (1921)

Hi there, I saw that you formatted the ships for the Maasdam (disambiguation) page and I'm a bit confused why the new SS Maasdam (1921) article isn't showing up in "blue" on the page. I see that it's a cool template that will italize the vessel name, but not the year, so I didn't switch the format.

Maybe I'm the only one seeing red? Any insight would be much appreciated! You don't have to TB to my page, I'll watch this page for the short term.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It's showing in blue for me and the link works. You've made a start on the article but the flags need to go per WP:MOSFLAG. Add {{Infobox ship begin}} and fill in details as appropriate. Further info on the ship may be found at Plimsoll Ship Data and Convoyweb (enter Maasdam in search box). Mjroots (talk) 07:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, great! It's showing up blue for me now, too. Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of RNOV Shabab Oman

Hello Mjroots,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged RNOV Shabab Oman for deletion, because it doesn't seem to have any encyclopedic content.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. BiH (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1829

I gather the ship "Perseverence" is spelled correctly and shouldn't be "Perseverance". If so, you should put a {{Not a typo}} or similar template on it. It stops the bot/AWB idiots like me and the Grammar Nazi's from "correcting" it. Bgwhite (talk) 08:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Pic for SS Alster

Hi Mjroots. Look, there's a photo of SS Alster now. Manxruler (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Lingediep

I was having fun browsing on a marine tracker website and spotted Lingediep. I'm not sure if you have a ship project criteria for notability but it probably doesn't cut the mustard. It looked a fair sized cargo ship but is probably too generic for wikipedia. If so I'll db author it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you think so, I wasn't sure. I think wikipedia would be a much better resource if it contained more articles on things like cargo ships. Can you add a n empty box and I'll try to fill it in.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

San Esteban (1554 shipwreck)

Hi, I was thinking of taking this to GA. I wanted prior approval though, do you think it's sufficient for GA?♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: - It's certainly looking in pretty good shape. You might consider moving the inage of the carrack into the infobox. The date format of the first source isn't consistent within itself and the rest of the dates. I dislike the ISO 8601 date format, but it is allowed to be used. I've had a hand in two ship GAs - RMS Magdalena (1948) and SS Empire Endurance, the latter jointly with Manxruler. Mjroots (talk) 07:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Me too, I prefer 11 July 2014. But that's Aymatth2 for you :-).♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@Aymatth2: - what are your thoughts on a change of date style? Mjroots (talk) 07:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• I changed the dates in the source descriptions so they are all 1995-05-05 format. I don't think they have to be consistent with the 5 May 1995 format dates in the body. To me the source list holds very compact, technical definitions, not meant to be read as normal text. I don't feel strongly though. Aymatth2 (talk) 10:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• I've given the article a read, and have a few comments. I'd keep the date styles of the body and the sources consistent, if I was writing this article. Further, "It was said that a priest in Mexico predicted that there would be a disaster before the ships set sail, but his warning was ignored." Who (at the time) said that? The claim is sort of without context is it is now. Manxruler (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@Aymatth2: any idea?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I tweaked the wording. The source just attributes the priest's warning to "oral tradition" and does not give the origin (place and time) of the tradition. I saw it in other sources. It seems sort-of relevant, even though it was probably invented after the fact. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. MJ, what happened to the infobox in MV Kuzma Minin?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SS Fort Stikine

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SS Fort Stikine you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jonas Vinther -- Jonas Vinther (talk) 13:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SS Fort Stikine

The article SS Fort Stikine you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:SS Fort Stikine for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jonas Vinther -- Jonas Vinther (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

MS Bulk Jupiter

After all your help with MV Hoegh Osaka, I thoght you may be interested in this recent shipwreck article too. I just created it as a stub with an infobox (getting better with those) and any expansion is welcomed. Thanks! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1815--recent style edits

When you have a chance could you look over this article to see if the location edits are up to WP standards? There are also some typos but those are minor so let me know if there should be changes and I'll take care of it. Hope you are feeling better. Get well soon! 66.74.176.59 (talk) 05:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping shipwrecks going!!!

I have archived 2007 - 2013 of the shipwrecks project talk page, although it is indeed entertaining reading... - lets hope for a better year for the project this year, HNY.. satusuro 12:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@SatuSuro: - I noticed, as I've got the WP watchlisted. Might be an idea to archive by year rather than the generic Archive 1, 2, etc. Mjroots (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

NP - will do I understand where you coming from on that one - sheesh - I think this talk page needs an archiving in parts too :) satusuro 12:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Mjroots (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

SS Eleni

Hi Mjroots! How are you doing? I read the article about the SS Eleni (1947), very interesting! Where did you get the information on this boat? Did you know that the Ragnild was a passenger ship and not cargo ship? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.170.20.174 (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2015

@82.170.20.174: See the references section of the SS Eleni (1947) article. That's where the info came from. Which SS Ragnhild did you mean? Mjroots (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Tug Diomedes

Thanks for your message. I didn't add to the shipwreck list precisely because I could not find a secondary source. The tug was positively identified when I raised a query on the Warsailors Forum, but I suppose the response there - and my Mk 1 Eyeball reading of the postcard (which I have in my tug collection) are OR. [14]

Quite possibly there is an entry in a volume of Gröner - I have asked Theo Dorgeist, who provided the info in the first place. What was that Belgian publisher thinking? Davidships (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Nordstjernen - does it count as a "shipwreck"?

Hi Mjroots; I noticed that you added the "2013 shipwrecks" navbox to the article MS Nordstjernen. However, fortunately the grounding didn't have too grave consequences, Nordstjernen was repaired again (finished repairs in January 2014) and is now in fine shape, see this page at the Norwegian Directorate for Cultural Heritage (Riksantikvaren). She was used for various events in 2014 and will cruise Svalbard this summer. So, I wonder... List of shipwrecks in 2013 where the navbox links to says "ships sunk, foundered, grounded, or otherwise lost during 2013", but Nordstjernen wasn't "lost". But I'm not sure what exactly counts as a "shipwreck" for the purpose of this list and the navbox. Gestumblindi (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Gestumblindi: Nordsternen was a grounding, which is why she is listed in the lower section of the navbox. Where a ship has an article and is involved in an incident, it is normal practice to include her in the relevant list of shipwrecks, which is what I used when creating the navbox. If you feel strongly that she should not be included in the navbox, feel free to remove from both article and navbox. Mjroots (talk) 07:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Well... at a closer look, maybe the issue is a more fundamental one? What irritated me is a navbox called "Shipwrecks in 2013" in an article about a, I'd say, non-wrecked ship. Only if one expands the navbox it becomes clear that this ship is listed under "Other incidents". That, of course, doesn't just affect Nordstjernen. So... maybe we could rename the navbox, what do you think? E.g. "Shipwrecks and other maritime incidents in 2013"? Or just "Maritime incidents in 2013" (including shipwrecks)? Gestumblindi (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Gestumblindi: - Yes, we could retitle the navbox header. How does "Shipwrecks and maritime incidents in (year)" sound? Mjroots (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me! Thanks! :-) Can I leave the retitling to you? Gestumblindi (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Notable?

Thoughts on this as an article, related to notability? Either regarding the ship, or the sinking? 54 dead, and BBC is a pretty reliable source. [15] Let me know what you think, thanks, as always! Juneau Mike (talk) 03:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to start the article, if it gets moved, etc., we can deal with that later. Juneau Mike (talk) 03:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Article: Sinking of the Dalniy Vostok Juneau Mike (talk) 03:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Irish Willow

I would value your advice on this: Talk:SS Irish Willow (1918)#Lucky is it trivial, or a source of DYKs? Lugnad (talk) 11:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

SS Kronprinzessin Cecilie

Your recent spelling correction created a circular link even as I'm trying to untangle the spellings. When I moved the bare SS Kronprinzessin Cecilie>SS Kronprinzessin Cecilie (1906) that left the redirect to the bare, correct spelling. Today I began working SS Kronprincessin Cecilie (1905) and am in the process of correcting that to SS Kronprinzessin Cecilie (1905). I created an index page with the alternate, Anglicized spelling, with the intent to move that page to the correct spelling as index. Then I got the message I cannot do that because the old redirect exists. If you can, the big help would be to delete the bare SS Kronprinzessin Cecilie redirect so I can move the alternate spell list to the correct spell list. Palmeira (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Palmeira: - I've deleted the original title and its talk page, although I don't see why you couldn't edit the redirect page to convert it into a shipindex page. No matter, it's done now. Mjroots (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I did not just edit that page, respecting the big red warning to not do so—even though for such a page that seems meaningless. That was my fall back option. Thanks. Palmeira (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Lists of maritime disasters

I've left the listings for the pre-1700's on the original 20th century page for the moment. I didn't think there were enough entries for a stand alone page at this time. I suppose that I could move them to the 18th century page which has already been slapped with a stub tag. What are your thoughts? Shinerunner (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I changed the original page from a redirect and added the pre-1700 content there following your example.Shinerunner (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Sinking of the Oriental Star

Just began this article in the past hour. It is almost midnight here, and I am beat. I will continue this later, but thought it may interest you. Sinking of the Oriental StarJuneau Mike (talk) 07:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Michaelh2001: - there's already an article at MV Dong Fang Zhi Xing! Mjroots (talk) 07:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Saw that just a bit ago. That article mostly relates to the ship itself. I have renamed the sinking article. Thank you.Juneau Mike (talk) 07:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

HMS Cricket

Seems the R.N. doesn't consider Cricket a War Loss. U-boat list the damage on June 30 & the declaration, but she sank while being used as a target (bombing by RAF? artillery by Royal Army? or as an attack formation practice target w/o actual bombing?) in August 1944 or 1946-7 off Cyprus. Sinking off Cyprus is comfirmed. she was stripped of parts & equipment, but not scrapped as some reports say. http://www.proscubadiver.net/dive-sites-cyprus/cricket-wreck. Seems listing in August '44 would be more appropriate.

Scotia

Congratulations on opening a noce little article on the ship. I still have all the sources for the SNAE, but I'm not sure that this part of your article needs expanding. However, if there is a particular area on which you'd like a little more information, please let me know. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: - I wasn't sure whether on not to go into the details of the ship's conversion, so I left them off without prejudice to inclusion. Any of her previous and subsequent history would be nice. Was the refit carried out in the Falklands (per my sources) or BA (per SNAE article)? Mjroots (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Almost forgot, UK port of registry. Photo shows it has four letters, but unable to make it out. Mjroots (talk)

I can't see any indication in either Speak's book, or Rudmose Brown's, that the ship was refitted in the Falklands. What particular source says this? Both my books describe in some detail the work done in Buenos Aires; the Falkland visits, it seems, were more for R & R. Like you, I can't read the registration port from the stern; the ship was converted for polar work at Troon, but that's five letters. Brianboulton (talk) 16:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: It's ref#2 (online), but if there are better refs stating BA then use them. A telegram from BA was mentioned in The Times, which could indicate that the ship was there for refit. Mjroots (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "could indicate" – the refit in Buenos Aires is a fact, described in the books I mention: Speak, pp. 90–92, Rudmose Brown p. 98. The bibliographical details are as per the SNAE article. Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Re apparent 4-letter port of registry, Mercantile Navy List indicates only Glasgow (1902-1905) and Dundee (1905-1916). I wonder whether it is the expedition initials SNAE. Davidships (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

USS Sable (IX-81)

Sorry to see that you're having some health problems Mjroots. When you're up to it I was wondering if you could look at the USS Sable article. I've been expanding the content along with the references but I think another set of eyes on it might be helpful. Thanks. Shinerunner (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@Shinerunner: Thx for you message. I'n not too bad, good days and bad days. I sometimes have to stop editing for a while, timing is unpredictable. That's the main problem on Wiki.

Article needs more about Greater Buffalo. Plimsoll Ship Data has a fair bit on her. Don't forget her Code Letters will have changed in 1934. Mjroots (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

There are currently problems with the website, 1930-34 files are returning as not found. Have notified them of this. Mjroots (talk) 07:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Re SS Meriwether Lewis

Sources cited at SS Meriwether Lewis 67.101.6.98 (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I've raised a discussion at talk:SS Meriwether Lewis, as you will be aware by now. Mjroots (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in the 1720s

Hi. Could you please review the June 9 entry under 1727? It appears that something is missing at "wrecked off the...". Thanks. --LilHelpa (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Category merger

I got a little lost on the WP:CfD page; I just merged the B-class destroyer into a renamed A- and B-class destroyer article (formerly A-class destroyer (1929)) and now need to merge their two categories. Can you walk me through the process, since I'm unsure if they qualify for speedy merging or not?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: Not 100% sure, but looking at the A- and B-class destroyer article, there is a redlinked category which needs to be created and populated, then the relevant A and B class destroyer categories need to be redirected to the new category. BTW, the hatnote needs expanding to cover the earlier (1913) B-class destroyers.

It might pay to double check this. Not doing much on Wiki atm due to a family illness - a question of priorities mostly. Mjroots (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

MV El Faro

Hi. Could you move the article to SS El Faro? It's a steamship, after all, and is referred as such on the shipping company's website. Thank you. Tupsumato (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Tupsumato: -  Done - that'll teach me not to read the bleddy article first! Must have been one of the last steamships in commercial service. Mjroots (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of SS Berne

Did you mean the SS Beme?
Wiki-psyc (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Wiki-psyc: - yes, but it is SS Beme (1945), not SS Beme (1904). I've now fixed this. Mjroots (talk) 04:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Arpenteur

Thanks for you kind words, infobox is added now. This is my first effort at an article on a ship and I have no expertise in the area. If you notice anything that is incorrect, or have any advice on how to improve, could you please let me know? I want to write a couple more articles on wrecks in my local area. Best Regards Hughesdarren (talk) 10:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in February 1945

hello Mjroots, i've noticed, that in the List of shipwrecks in February 1945 there are 3 landing crafts (Siebelgefäß) listed to be sunk on 6 February 1945. But opposed to this info, another source says they were all lost on 6 February 1943, see here http://www.historisches-marinearchiv.de/projekte/landungsfahrzeuge/infanterietransporter/ausgabe.php?where_value=62 for IO 16, http://www.historisches-marinearchiv.de/projekte/landungsfahrzeuge/infanterietransporter/ausgabe.php?where_value=70 for IO 30 and http://www.historisches-marinearchiv.de/projekte/landungsfahrzeuge/infanterietransporter/ausgabe.php?where_value=71 for IO 31. cheers --Agentjoerg (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Agentjoerg: I've taken a look, and they are referenced to Navypedia. Not a site I am familiar with. By all means remove them and add them to the February 1943 list with the references above which do meet WP:RS. Mjroots (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Agentjoerg: Mjroots (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC) I mess up the reply to template, sou you won't have been notified.

ok, I'll do that. thanks for the quick response. --Agentjoerg (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

British Ensigns

Hi mjroots, The use of white and red ensigns on pre-1864 vessels to distinguish between naval and civilian vessels is a useful anachronism. Per British Ensign, post-1864 the Blue Ensign undefaced today is worn by masters of vessels in possession of a warrant issued by the Director of Naval Reserves, and by the members of certain yacht clubs. Pre-1864 the white, red, and blue ensigns designated different British naval fleets. However, as naval vessels would transfer between fleets, trying to keep track of which ensign HMS Pinafore flew when would be pedantic and uselessly laborious. I am not aware that any of Hadlow's masters was a naval officer. There were cases where the Admiralty would appoint a naval officer to be captain of a civilian ship. The hired armed vessels represent one case. I recall that on certain occasions local naval commanders would put a naval officer in command of a civilian transport hired to support a military expedition. In these cases I suspect that the vessels might have flown the Union Jack while under military command. Otherwise, like all merchant vessels, they would have flown the red ensign. Or at least that is my understanding. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miramar

Thought you would have signed up for this!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Thanks, but I don't really need it. Not creating many ship articles atm as working on lists of shipwrecks. Know who to ask if I need to. Let someone more active in that area have the access. Mjroots (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Indian indenture ships to Fiji

Seems to be a good result with SS Santhia. I am a bit concerned about the referencing for the Fiji voyage table, and was surprised to find it now cited to George Blake's book on BI - I don't have the book (and Google's snippets are not very extensive) but I had assumed that the data was taken from the unreferenced source of the table in Indian indenture ships to Fiji, with the slightly strange addition of the "deaths" column - so far as I can see none of the individual ship pages have a source for their part of the table. This table doesn't cover just BI, so I am puzzled as to why other company's data would be covered by Blake. The full table was added by in IP, and FWIW I have asked on User talk:62.129.121.63. Where can we go from here? Davidships (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Davidships: Hmmm, I assumed that it came from the book, as it didn't come from any of the other sources. No objection to the book being moved to a further reading section and the table being tagged as needing a reference. Mjroots (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

SS Indigirka

You have a new talk page message.

I noticed you had reverted this editor and thought I should let you know that they have made numerous edits like this to various ship and milhist article infoboxes. I've had to revert literally dozens and dozens, where they did test edits with markup, added unsourced info, or tried to tailor or add non-existent infobox parameters. I've tried communicating with this user repeatedly; I've left messages, a welcome template, multiple notifications and warnings, but they refuse to engage on any talk page and just continually blank their user page. I wouldn't call it vandalism as I believe they're trying to help, but they create just as much work for others as they contribute. If you could help out here that would appreciated. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 00:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

As you can see, this editor is still at it, making multiple edits to ship infoboxes, many of which have to be corrected. (for example; his edit, and your correction) If you could help keep an eye on his contribs, it would be appreciated. They are almost exclusively to ship article infoboxes. Perhaps if you could post a word of advice on his talk page, it might help? I've tried ad nauseum, but any comments, notices or warnings that anyone adds to his talk page, are blanked without a response, so it's been impossible to engage this editor in any constructive dialogue (this might have something to do with it, but I'm not sure). There is potential here for this editor though, after many requests, he has finally taken to adding edit summaries, so there is some responsiveness there. Anyways, if you think you can help, that would be great. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 20:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

German submarine U-1102

This article was categorized under Maritime incidents in 1945. The sub was scuttled, to me that doesn't seem an incident. The category U-boats scuttled in 1945 would seem appropriate but the category page says it is for U-boats only scuttled in May 1945. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me either. Can you please give me some input? Thanks....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: - a scuttling qualifies as a maritime incident. The correct category is Category:Maritime incidents in December 1945, which I have added to the article. As for the Category:U-boats scuttled in 1945, it may need either renaming or its scope changing. Mjroots (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Cheers!...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

SS Hopestar

Hello, You recently helped with the article SS Hopestar and I would like to ask your help again. I would like to put the crew list on the page. I got the info independantly from The Newcastle Chronicle but also from FIND MY PAST. i Have 2 jpegs from FMP and asked them if I could use them. Here is their reply;

Dear Edward

Thank you for your email.

As this would be classed as 'educational/personal' purposes, there shouldn't be any issues with reposting the information, given that you provide a correct citation to the page at FMP.

We do have to approve uses of records in for-retail products, but given the nature of Wikipedia's work, you can amend the article accordingly.

I hope this resolves your query.

With kind regards,

Brett Murray Findmypast Support Team

Did you know? The 1939 Register is now included within both the 12 month Britain and World subscriptions, allowing unlimited access to 30.5 million people’s records.

If you would prefer to speak with our Customer Support team, please call us on +44 (0) 20 3326 6300 between 9am and 5.30pm (GMT) Monday to Friday

My problem is I dont know how to prove to the censors that I have permission to repost. Can you help nplease. Thanx Sherlockh22 (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Re:Shipwreck templates

I got your note about the 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 shipwreck templates I eventually will get to. (I have done 1962-1968 and plan to work backward toward 1945 from 1962 over the next few days, and I also still have to go back to 1989-2016 to add shipwrecks to those templates per your earlier request, but I eventually will get to 1945 and earlier years.) I had already thought about 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 needing to go month-to-month, but I had not thought about how to handle "unknown date" shipwreck and incidents. Would you suggest one kind of annual template for them and separate monthly templates for the rest? Or would a single template that lets a user go to each month and to the unknown-date ships somehow be better? (If the latter, I am pondering how to design it and would welcome any suggestions you might have.) Meanwhile, I′ll keep thinking about it. Mdnavman (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)mdnavman

I got your suggested navbox for 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 shipwrecks. I think it is excellent. For maximum ease of navigation, I'd like to allow users to be able to jump from year to year as well as from month to month whether they are in an article that falls under the monthly or annual navboxes. (One-stop shopping, if you will.) I think your suggested format would serve that purpose for articles requiring access either to the monthly or annual boxes, maybe with just a modification or two depending on which type the article in question falls under. I'll mull that over to see if I am missing anything. Meanwhile, of course your further comments are welcome. Mdnavman (talk) 14:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)mdnavman

@Mdnavman: - Not sure that will be necessary. Full navigation is already achieved by the shipwreck lists for WWI and WWII. Mjroots (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

SS Heinrich Arp

Godd morning Dear Sir,

I have to inform you that the sources of this article are:

• The story Christened, that is realy can be used as reliable source and very interesting the conditions in the engine room of the ship and customs of the seman on this shep described in the story.
• Internet talking between Russian seamen and they added one another to collect as possible information about this ship. I sure that seamen's information also reliable du to they have not sence to fib as the Soviet Union and RIssian official sources able to fib to describe the situation as the Goverment needs.

As example I have to inform you that the Soviet Union ship Bratstvo collided the Soviet Union submarine in 1980s and in all official sources were mentioned that that was fire in engine room as the sea water flooded the engine room. This information was a secret for long time and due to seamen Internet discussion the situation was described really. It is means that the seamen of that ship, including the captain, described that situation more really that the Soviet and Russian military sources and press. I intend to write the article about it also. The ship Bratstvo is the Leninsky Komsomol class of cargo ships (it is my article) and I already wrote some articles about some ships of this class. My English is not exelent and I will glad if you will read and correct my mistakes in this articles also.

Can be we will able to make good team if you will make article about any ship that was used by the Soviet Union also and I wil try to search information about the ship to translate it from Russian language. As you sea the article SS Heinrich Arp became more interesting. Also my article SS Karaganda includce Russian and US sources and very interesting for US readers - you may correct mistakes in this article also

Can be You have interest to any ship now and I can assit you to collect and translate information from the Soviet Union and Russian sources. Let me know.

BRGDS Грищук ЮН (talk) 10:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

SS Heinrich Arp

Remain to describe last years of this ship. And the sources, internet talking between seamen, are in doubt regarding the las Shipping Company of the ship Лиза Чайкина. And, any way I will try to describe it like the situation is not clear and seems like this. You will sea and I needs the time only to investigate it myself also. Грищук ЮН (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

SS Heinrich Arp

Good evening, Like I completed to add the article. Can be I will add ship's patticulars also.

This ship was mentioned in two books of Soviet writers. I described it. From the 1953 the job of the ship is not clear - in 1953 she started to carry out prisoners and can be demobilazed militaries. Later she was not mentioned in the Far East Shipping Company and still we have not information in which company she was from 1953. Can be the ship was used for the prisoners and other military aims from 1953 to 1963 due to was small (already was bigger ships) and in bad condition for the planing of the voyages.

BRGDS Грищук ЮН (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Soviet merchant ship histories

Good morning and Many thank Dear Sir!

As You see all seamen talking wia Interned confirmed by the mentiond by other more really sourses which I searched also. And is better if the readers will understand that Sovier press, books often distort reality to bring all information to the Sovit norms. I still translating the article SS Bratstvo (1963) and this article will looking more really due to ship's captain and crew information via Internet (forusm, captains letter) as during Soviet Union period was only military version do not show that the Soviet military guilty. Also I will ajust some previous my article to show difference in Soviet press and books information and thir discrepancy. It will be article SS Leninsky Komsomol when I will write new article SS Metallurg Baykov due to the construction of the ship Metallurg Baykov had to be completed and handed over before New Year celebration to compleat Shipyard yearly plan in 100%. But due to previous ship Lenisky Komsomol had plenty defficioncies the ship Metallurg Baykov construction was completed after New Year. And in the same book (book about Kherson shipyard) mentioned that the ship Lenisky Komsomol had not defficiencies. Often the Soviet Shipping Companies had to take any ship from Soviet shipyard to show good yearly shipyard plan and the shipyard had to assit the shipping company if futire with this ship: after firts year in operations or earlier the ship visited shipyard again to close defficiencies if it was possible.

I try to write correct information only. If any information in doubt I write it with remarks: like it is position of any person, or it is in doubt, or legend, e.t.c. But any legend is really information partly or fully.

The same time I am traning my English also. It is another side why I have interest to write articles in English Wikipedia.

If you see my mistakes (wrong translated phrazes, missed or wrong characters in the words, e.t.c.) correct please.

And the article SS Liza Chaikina is looking better now. I tried to describe all searched by me information and what was in doubt I described also correctly - like no any good information and only some sources say opposit information. Can be anybody in future will found out the truth.

BRGDS Грищук ЮН (talk) 08:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Грищук ЮН: - please would you comment at WT:SHIPS. I will copy this over there. Mjroots (talk) 08:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

SS Nezhin

Good afternoon Dear Sir, Can be can give advise to me what to do in this situation. One time (about one month ago) I wrote the text in the article SS Nezhin where was mentioned that the ship had other name before 1974 due (two attached photo in this article confirm this). The text about othe ship's name on English was deleted. Now I found out confirmations and proved this but somebody (one file directly Russian man and I and Ukranian) wants to delete both files.

I already sent messeges to Russian deleter, to see below:

 The photo maden by me due to my search via Internet. It is Internet search to confirm that ship's name and city name НЕЖИН was written in another manner as Nezshin and not as Nezhin today. I tried to prove it before and only by this search it possible and I afraid that later will not possible to confirm that same. It why this photo placed in article SS Nezhin as if later this search will not possible to do can be will not possible to prove that the ships with Russian name НЕЖИН (built in XIX century) was named on NEZSHIN on English. And Soviet ship НЕЖИН (built in 1954) had nema NEGIN or NEZSHIN before 1974. It delete this confirmation - somebody will delete again the part of text in article SS Nezhin due to absent confirmation. One time I already wrote the same text about and the text was deleted due to confirmation absent. Now the confirmation present, but declared to be deleted. What to do??? How to confirm???

I already described more information in File description part. Can the photo of my Internet search is not good vissible but in case it will be deleted again will not possible to prove that the ship had other English name before 1974. She had name NEGIN before 1974.

Can be You abvise will assist me and my article SS Nezhin.

BRGDS Грищук ЮН (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

SS Nezhin

Here is aiusted by me description o the other FILE:Protocol....

Due to You have interest to the article about the ships here is good information and can be will assit You to search the samen Soviet ship which has some names due to Protocol dated 1974. It is not secret. Now everybody know this extraction of Protocol as everybody in Russia whe receive foreign passport has in this pasport English na,e also and everybody know which rules used for this translation. It is not secret.

Extractions from the Protocol of Third Soviet-American Session regarding maritime shipping dated first part of 1974, the crew members names in English crew lists and ship's names had to be ajusted on English before 1st of June 1974 as per agreement. The copy of this extraction was given on each Soviet ship to ajust properly ship's name and crew full names in Crew List on English. It is not full text of Protocol.

It is confirm that some Soviet ships had other English name before 1974 what I want to say in the article SS Nezhin. It can assist to search information for other articles about the Soviet ships. As example can be SS Leninsky Komsomol due to this ship possible to search by three names.

Also before 1974 Russian family names and names was written not like today due to was not this Protocol yet.

For example:

• Russian name Evgeny and after 1974 Yevgeniy.
• Name Alexandr and after 1974 Aleksandr.
• Ship's name Leninsky Komsomol and after 1974 sometimes Leninskiy Komsomol. And new ship with the same name was built in 1980s has exactly name Leninskiy Komsomol.
• Ship's name Negin and after 1974 Nezhin.
• The ship Toyvo Antikaynen received name in honor of fin kommunist Toivo Antikainen and now You understand why the ship/s name and person's name have differences.

On my opinion it will assist in information search for articles.

If you will found out this extraction on English can better.

BRGDS Грищук ЮН (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

SS Klio (1924)

Good afternoon, I wrote more information about this ship. This is information from Rusian sources.

Also some photos adreses mentioned. Грищук ЮН (talk) 11:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Alaska cruise ship accident

I know these issues interest you. While I don't believe the incident is notable enough for its own article, the video of the accident is pretty dramatic as you will see. I have added the incident to the Current Events portal, and made a small entry on the Celebrity Infinity page. See the news article and video here: [16] Juneau Mike (talk) 10:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

RMS St Helena (1989)

There was an item on BBC Breakfast today, just before 09:00, about RMS St Helena (1989), which they said is the last ship of RMS status, and will soon lose that honour. But our article says "one of only four ships in the world still carrying the status of Royal Mail Ship" - which were the other three, when did they lose the RMS status? Some updates needed, I think; but I have no sources. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I don't know which the other three are off the top of my head. However, just because the BBC said it was the last does not necessarily mean that it is the last. I've asked for help over at the Ships Nostalgia Forum. Mjroots (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

USS Jeannette

Not according to the article. I have not gone back to sources on this, but the article is not the only place I have seen the RN service. It's been a while. If I have it wrong the article needs serious revision.Dankarl (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Having a hard time finding anything really authoritative online but DANFS (Hazegrey) confirms built as a RN gunboat.Dankarl (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Only if by merchant ship you mean "non-governmentally owned". We do not generally classify either yachts or research vessels as merchant ships.Dankarl (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1819

March 3rd is messed up. Bgwhite (talk) 06:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Bgwhite: - Thanks, it was caused by a malformed wikilink. Would have fixed it quicker but was butlering the cats. Mjroots (talk) 07:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Categorizatiion issue

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello.

Please see Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, section "Redirects whose target title is incompatible with the category".

If what you say is true, then I guess several shipwreck articles need an update, and a few redirects need to be created.

Cheers.

HandsomeFella (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@HandsomeFella: - I don't understand, Category:Maritime incidents in 1628 is not a redirect. Nearly all other vessels involved in shipwrecks / maritime incidents are suitably categorized by year (or month + year for WWI and WWII). That's why I undid your edit. Mjroots (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, it is not the category that is a redirect. You may have read the guideline a little too quickly. It's about how we avoid placing articles in incompatible categories by creating appropriate redirects. See for instance the sinking of the RMS Titanic article, which is in the "maritime incidents in 1912" category. The article about the ship itself is in "ship-compatible" categories. The article about the sinking is not in ship categories, and the ship article is not in incident categories, just as it should be (I just removed the incident category from the ship article; it was both a miscategorization and a duplication).

Per Wikipedia:Categorization, categories are either set categories or topic categories. Set categories are always in plural. In order to belong in a set category, articles must fit into the category; it must be an instance of what the category describes. A ship is not an incident, thus it does not belong in set categories about incidents. In this case, both the ship and its sinking are notable, and both have articles, and that's all good and well. In the case of Vasa, there is only an article on the ship. While the sinking of Vasa may also be notable, there is still no article. We can't just arbitrarily place the ship in an incident category, just because there is no article on its sinking.

Similarly, editors sometimes mistakenly place articles on people in categories on scandals (following news reports). (I would call that "categorization by association".) People are not scandals, and thus this is wrong. If the scandal isn't notable enough to have an own article, place a suitably named redirect (to the involved person) in the appropriate categories – categories in which readers can be expected to search for the scandal.

For another example, please read the section "Redirects whose target title is incompatible with the category", especially on the 24 Heures French-language version of the 24 Hours newspaper. The former can't obviously be placed in English-language newspapers categories, and the latter can't obviously not be placed in French-language newspaper categories.

Hope this wasn't TLDR.

Cheers.

HandsomeFella (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@HandsomeFella: I think I've got it now. Because there is a redirect (Sinking of the Vasa), you're saying that the ship shouldn't be categorized in the Maritime incidents category?

Unlike the Titanic example you gave, there is little likelihood of an article on the sinking of the Vasa being created. IMHO, the redirect should be deleted, leaving the ship in the correct category, per many other ship articles. Mjroots (talk) 06:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

You almost got it. It's not because there is a redirect; it's because a ship is not an incident. The sinking of a ship is an incident. The redirect was recently created by me, as a place-holder if you will, since Vasa is not an incident, and since it's needed in the "Maritime incidents in 1628" category. 1628 is in Sweden kind of like what 1066 is in England, I guess, and since both the ship and its sinking are notable, the 1628 category is needed.

I agree, there's little likelihood that an article on the sinking of Vasa will be created (but you never know). That's not the question at hand however. There's also little likelihood that the 24 Heures article will be created, and it's still a valid redirect, even referred to in the guidelines. The question is that the Vasa is miscategorized as an incident, while it was a ship.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but unlike me, you don't seem to have a guideline that supports your views. Or do you? If, as you say, this type of categorization is widespread, then I think we need to start a discussion somewhere. Do you have a suggestion?

HandsomeFella (talk) 07:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@HandsomeFella: I think this does need wider discussion than just us two. I will copy the above over to WT:SHIPWRECK and post a notice at WT:SHIPS and WT:MILHIST as the shipwrecks project isn't as active as it should be. Mjroots (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Bristol Packet (1801 ship)

Thanks for your edits & comment about Bristol Packet (1801 ship) I have added a (historic England) ref for the length, but I can't find where I got the figure for the width.— Rod ^talk 08:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

EIC ships

Hi Mjroots, I am aware of the site you mentioned, but there is nothing in it that isn't in either Hackman's (2001) book on the EIC ships, or in the National Archives, which provides part of the base for both the website and Hackman. Furthermore, I have often found them incomplete, or even wrong, which compromises info based on them. As for the EIC flags, I use them generally, but there was a point in the early 19th century when the EIC switched to the regular British ensign. At one point I had the year, but I've mislaid the reference. I now generally use 1814 as the cut-off for switching because that was the year the EIC lost its monopoly on the east of Cape of Good Hope trade. This gives rise to an additional issue: a vessel may be sailing east of the Cape of Good Hope, but without being a vessel belonging to the EIC. It might be under contract (an "extra ship", even for as many as six voyages), or after 1814, licensed, or under a special exemption. Thus convict transports to Australia might backhaul for the EIC, or whalers go into the South Pacific, or in one case, be carrying missionaries to the South Pacific, and although in the first and third of these categories, their logbooks may be in the National Archives in the EIC section, they were not EIC ships. (And sometimes EIC ships became licensed ships.) So often what flag to feature is a bit of a judgement call based on my best guess as to what was going on at the time. I would welcome any info that you might have on when the changeover in flags occurred, or anything that in particular cases would provide more accurate info. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: IMHO, contemporary sources are best. Do you have access to The Times online? That's the sort of thing they would have covered. Mjroots (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mjroots, Sorry, am not following you. As far as the website you recommended is concerned, it is using the same sources I use, except that I update the info with other info that is contemporary to the period, or contemporary in the sense of recent, especially when it is reflects some historian's detailed research. Both contemporaries have their weaknesses; I tend to go with the preponderance of the evidence. If you mean with respect to the flag issue, I don't have access to The Times. There may have been an announcement, but I am not aware of it. One source I have started to think about is paintings. A painter painting an EIC ship in 1820, for instance, will paint the then relevant flag. That may solve the switch-over date, but it still doesn't solve the problem of what flag a non-EIC ship is flying. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: - I meant that The Times would likely have covered the EIC losing its monopoly. I get my access to the online archive through my library's website. As you appear to be in the United States, it is a possibility that you could get access that way. Otherwise, it is a question of paying for access directly through The Times. Mjroots (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Re HMS Pearl (1762)

Hi Mjroots, thought you might be able to give me some advice as an admin who has an interest in the subject matter. I am working on HMS Pearl (1762) in my user space. I am not quite ready to move the article yet but the move will be complicated by a redirect which is currently occupying the title page. I could simply cut and paste the finished article over the redirect but I assume this will result in loss of the edit history (whether that matters or not, I don't know) or I could request the current page is deleted and then move my article to the user space. Is there any guidance on this or do you have an opinion on what's best? As I said, it is still a work in progress so doesn't need moving yet but would like to know in advance. Best regards--Ykraps (talk) 09:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ykraps: As you're the only editor who has edited the proto-article all you need to do is edit the redirect by cutting and pasting the proto-article in. Use an edit summary of "convert to article" or similar. Mjroots (talk) 09:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks--Ykraps (talk) 09:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ykraps: Should the situation change, ping me when you are ready to move the proto-article and I'll G6 the redirect for you. Mjroots (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

By which you mean, if others edit the proto-article? Incidentally, have I posted this at the right place? I've just noticed at the top of the page where it says, "If your post is an Admin-related matter..."--Ykraps (talk) 10:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Ykraps - yes, and don't worry about it. This is not an admin matter as such, but the post could have gone in the Ships section. I'm almost finished with a major project then this talk page will be sorted out and archived. Mjroots (talk) 10:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah okay, thanks. I'm not sure what is and isn't an admin thing as I don't seem to get involved with too many. I consider that a good thing. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Speedwell (ship)

There's a discussion at Talk:Speedwell (ship) that might interest you Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

SS Brita (1908) question

I've left a question on the talkpage of SS Brita (1908), which you created regarding the ship's build date.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Notability of ships

Hi Mjroots, I noticed your recent great work on this list, and I see that you wikilinked all of the ships. I recently wrote a couple of articles about ships, including a ship from this list, and I'm wondering what's the standard view on notability of ships? (Couldn't find anything in the rules.) For example, if the following is available from reliable sources, is the ship notable?

1. Launch date, ship's maker.
2. Ship's fate
3. Successive owners
4. Successive captains
5. Ship's type
6. Tonnage, Length, Beam

Was an individual 19th century ship ever determined to be not notable? Thanks, 凰兰时罗 (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@凰兰时罗: Generally, ships over 100 tons (undefined) / 100 ft long should be notable. If you have all the info you state above from reliable sources, then you should be able to write a decent enough article which will demonstrate the notability of the ship. I'd say that most ships from the mid-C19th are going to be notable enough for an article. For older vessels, it's very much a case-by-case basis. The stranger the name, the easier it will be to find souces and demonstrate notability. Naval vessels are easier than merchant vessels. Mjroots (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! That's good to know. 凰兰时罗 (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Lairdsfield

Hello. Do you think that this adds too many words? I see that while many entries are fairly short, a few have a bit more detail. I thought this was a candidate (the BOT's cause of the accident) for adding a touch more, or maybe the fact that she sank very quickly about ten minutes after disembarking the pilots. What do you think? Cheers DBaK (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: - I'd lose the "and stowed" bit. Mjroots (talk) 05:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Done it, thanks - reads much better. Cheers DBaK (talk) 07:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

USS Texas (BB-35)

Why did you add a Navbox for the 2017 incident but not for the 2010 and 2012? Either none or all makes more sense. Pennsy22 (talk) 08:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@Pennsy22: navboxes and cats added. Mjroots (talk) 09:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

ACX Crystal

Thanks MJR for your message, but cannot see where I have left out a ref. Davidships (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes. Must have lost during busy time with multiple edit conflicts - restored it now as still needed for a couple of details in that sentence.

Incidentally, do you think that the chart is legit? Firstly it is clearly from MarineTraffic.com, yet claimed as "own work"; secondly it looks like a straight lift from the attributed version used by the BBC here. A version produced independently later would be different as the same historic track would be overlaid on the map showing current ships at that time. Davidships (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

On a different aspect, I am surprised that you moved the page from ACX Crystal to MV ACX Crystal "Per naming convention for ship articles". WP:SHIPNAME doesn't say that at all. "An article about a ship not known to have a prefix should use only the ship's name". A Google News search for "mv acx crystal" produced just one RS in English - apart from that, virtually all of the tens of thousands use the unadorned name. Davidships (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Lists of shipwrecks

Hello. I'm sure you've noticed me filling in parentheses and removing stray brackets on the lists for 1836-41 (AWB has that tendency to only tell me of the first instance parentheses are unbalanced rather than all cases), but I've also noticed they're becoming awfully long (maybe alongside many other lists of shipwrecks, but I only focused on these six, specifically). Would it be possible to reduce the size of these articles by instead transcluding the larger tables as separate templates or editing the descriptions for brevity? I don't see a reasonable method of splitting them anyway. Thanks for any other suggestions of reduction. Regards, jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 01:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jd22292: Yes, I had noticed you fixing brackets and wikilinks, thank you for that. Yes, the lists are long, (five of the seven longest pages are shipwreck lists). They could be split by month, as has been done for the lists covering 1914-18 and 1939-45. However, I don't see a need to split them. Having them as complete years makes it much easier to edit them - if they were split, it would mean constantly shifting between thirteen different articles per year, thus considerably slowing down progress. It's currently taking me about 3-4 weeks per list to work through the sources and add the info. The issue was also discussed recently on Jimbo's talk page, where another editor (JFG) also agreed that there was no need to split. Mjroots (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Category:Standard WWI ships

Category:Standard WWI ships, which you created, has been nominated for speedy merging to Category:Standard World War I ships. See WP:CFDS if you wish to comment. – Fayenatic London 22:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I would like your input in a discussion

Hi,

I would appreciate it if you could give your input regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_naval_ship_classes_in_service#Split_this_article_into_multiple_articles Thanks in advance Dragnadh (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of HMS Shamrock for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article HMS Shamrock is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HMS Shamrock until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bbb23 (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Maritime incidents in 18xx

Hi Mjroots, I support what you are doing in getting around the template problem in the "List of shipwrecks in..." problem. Do you have any suggestions for how I might simplify the search for a vessel when I don't know if she wrecked in a particular year, let alone a particular month? Often when I am researching a ship I will discover that she was last listed in year 18xx. I then check for a few years before that to see if there are any candidate ships lost in that/any of those years. Unfortunately, I usually have no other info than the vessel's name. A general search using "shipname" and "ship" should yield a series of possibilities, but that could be more laborious than simply going to the year and searching within that, then going on to another year, etc. Not a big problem, but I would appreciate any bright ideas, especially if they are a forehead-slapper, i.e., an obvious solution I should have thought of. Could you be kind enough to ping me when you have time to respond? Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: It might help to add in the captain's name to search terms if the captain is known. Mjroots (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but generally the Capn's name isn't in the list of wrecks, and the two registers often have stale or incorrect data. Usually I use the name as a clue when looking in the index of Lloyd's List, but that only goes to 1826, and frequently that doesn't have it either. Just tuck the issue into the back of your mind. Perhaps you or I will wake up some morning with a bright idea. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: - I take it that you are making use of the free online newspaper sources listed at WP:SHIPS/R? Also, do you have access to The Times online archive, Gale News Vault or British Library Newspapers? I get online access to these via my library card. Mjroots (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for this; I was going to ask you where you got the info you added to Irlam (1813). I do have access to The Times (which unfortunately is pretty spotty), but the others, especially the WP, are new to me. Unfortunately, my library card(s) are US, and so probably do not have agreements with the database providers. I will see what I can find out. Acad Ronin (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

By-the-way, I found that searching WP using "shipwrecks" and the vessel name works very well with rare names (such as Irlam); but unfortunately I suspect not so well with Eliza or Elizabeth, or the like. Still thinking about that. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I found that an unusual name was an advantage when writing the article on Hadlow (1814 ship). I don't include a url to the newspaper articles as each would be several hundred characters and only of any use to the very small number of editors and readers who have a Kent County Council library card. Those readers in Kent who fall under Medway Unitary Authority would find such a link to be as useless as the rest of the world's readers would. Mjroots (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1840

Hi Mjroots: I am working on Golconda (1815 ship). We/WP have her lost on an unknown date on her way from India to Canton. However, the ref states that the Chinese captured her and 300 men of the 38th Madras Native Infantry. Everything I am finding is that she foundered in a typhoon between 22 and 24 Sept 1840 with no trace. She had the HQ and 350 men of the 37th Native Infantry on board. The Bengal Government declared the date of loss as 24 Sept for pay and record keeping purposes. When you have the time could you please check the newspaper account. I am concerned that we have a transcription error, or possibly a conflation of two separate incidents. If it is just an erroneous newspaper account then no problem. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Probably an erronueous account given the other sources you've found. Have move the entry to 24 Sep and corrected it per article. Also tweaked the article a little as the Philippines did not exist at the time she was lost. Mjroots (talk) 05:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Ta. Also, good catch re Philippines; tunnel vision on my part. Acad Ronin (talk) 10:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1825

List of shipwrecks in 1825 has become a bit of a mess, and fixing it isn't as simple as correcting the "Unknown date" target. Right now, List of shipwrecks in 1825 is a dog's breakfast of mixed links and formats. Someone – I don't know who – did a good job of splitting List of shipwrecks in 1861, List of shipwrecks in 1862, List of shipwrecks in 1863, List of shipwrecks in 1864, and List of shipwrecks in 1865 into monthly articles (e.g., List of shipwrecks in January 1862, etc.), and I recommend that whoever is working List of shipwrecks in 1825 follow the same format, i.e., one article for the year as whole with each month's subsection providing a "main article" link to the corresponding monthly list article, and an "Unknown date" section below the months in the yearly list that the calendar at the top of the yearly list links to. (The yearly "Unknown date" section is for wrecks we don't even have a month for, while the "Unknown date" sections in the monthly lists are for wrecks we know the month of but not the specific date of. Make sense? Mdnavman (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)mdnavman

@Mdnavman: - you're advocating splitting the 1825 list into months, right? It could be done, but taking all lists for the 1820s decade, I don't see that the lists are all so long that splitting them is justified. I was trying to address POTW's concerns re that particular list being on the long side and harder to navigate. The other was to overcome the navigation problem is to go back to a standard TOC, but that puts the list out of kilter with other lists. Mjroots (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, if the list is indeed too long – I could go either way on that – I am saying that splitting it into monthly lists is a tried-and-true way to do it that has worked well for other years and seems to be standard now for otherwise overly long years. I don't know of another effective way of doing it, and I think using the monthly-listy format would overcome the pther problems you are experiencing. Yes, it takes some work, but whoever did it for the 1860s lists might be willing to take it on; after all, he or she did a good job on the 1860s list. If someone has an other way of doing it that is just as effective, I am fully open to it. But what we have right now for 1825 strikes me as a mess, and it has no precedent on other shipwreck list pages.Mdnavman (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)mdnavman

Need your help urgently...

@Mjroots: if you are so inclined. A small ship article I wrote has been nominated for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irlam (1813 ship) by someone who at least once in the past has done the same thing, but gave up. If you agree that even minor, but well-documented ship articles have value you will comment to that effect on the page. This particular vessel's article's main notability was that it shows up on two of the "List of shipwrecks in..." pages. Thanks, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Re your comment on my talk page. Yeah. I have been warned off by an admin and have apologised. This being the first time I have canvassed, and possibly one of only two or three articles I have worked on that have been Afded, I didn't know the rules, which I will follow in the future. In any case, many thanks for the additions to the Irlam (1813) article. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

No idea where you get the "100 tons is noted at WP:SHIPS, it doesn't seem to be noted there anywhere, and would have no importance anyway as Wikiprojects can put whatever they like on their project pagse, it has no validity in AfD's anyway. You raised the Streisand effect in the ANI discussion, as if it was something I should be afraid of. I am quite well aware that posting an issue at ANI brings in more attention to the issue, which was the exact and stated purpose of my note there. "Streisand effect" is the exact opposite. That the editors who join the discussion may vote "keep" because apparently being mentioned in the shipping news now counts as an indepth source is evidence of the sad state many AfD discussions are in nowadays, but not something I somehow fear. Not your smartest post. Fram (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Fram: The 100'/100t threshold for an article falling under the remit of WP:SHIPS has been well discussed over the years. If you think that a ship being mentioned in a newspaper doesn't count as in depth coverage, then you'd better go and nominate the several hundred shipwreck lists that exist on Wikipedia. If you care to look, and as I stated at AfD, in this case, it is possible to write an article on Irlam giving her whole career, including where she was and when, what cargoes she brought back from the West Indies, including quantities of each commodity etc, etc. Mjroots (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Something that has been well-discussed within a project but isn't even stated is even worse than the usual project-based notability guidelines. Please refrain frpom bringing up such arbitrary, undocumented local "rules" in the future as they have no value whatsoever (and, even ignoring the size historically, does the project really believe that every 100-ton ship existing "now" is notable? Sheesh...). And there is quite some difference between an article on one shipwrecked ship, and a list of all shipwrecks. Bundling barely notable information into one comprehensive list is acceptable; basing individual articles on it (like some else said at the AfD, a "notable incident", really?) is much worse. What you have is what is normally called "routine coverage", nothing more. But there seem to be enough ship-spotters to swamp the AfD, so the project can continue its creations of such articles. Wikipedia is really getting worse and worse, and AfD is becoming a totally useless vehicle where partisan editors outnumber uninvolved ones in too many cases. Fram (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Fram: - The 100/100 thing was discussed as long ago as January 2011, and has been many times since. A vessel that fails 100/100 is outside the scope of WP:SHIPS, but may still be capable of sustaining an article. Mjroots (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

It is an established principle that each WikiProject has the freedom to set its own boundaries, and determine what may or may not fall within its scope. Hence, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Project Scope we find that "The scope of articles for this project is wide ranging. Essentially any article about a civilian or military ship and ship classes are welcome. ... Some exceptions are: Civilian ships that are under 100 ft (30 m) in length or tonnage of less than 100.". This is not the same as a local notability guideline - it simply means that WP:SHIPS would prefer that the {{WikiProject Ships}} banner should not be placed on the talk page of a small craft, no matter how notable that craft may be. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, and nobody at WP:SHIPS would argue for retention of a ship article where GNG cannot be shown to be met. In the case of Irlam, GNG has been shown to be met by references from several independent reliable sources. Mjroots (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem with the Ships project deciding that +100 is in scope, -100 is out of scope for them. What I do object to, is that is being presented as or understood to be a notability guideline. From the AfD: "First, WP:Ships takes the position that All ships are notable." (which is an even stronger claim), " I understand it the ships project deem any ship over 100 tons (by any measure) to be notable and worthy of a page. " and "WP:SHIPS does indeed hold that ships over 100'/100 tons (undefined) are generally notable enough to sustain an article. " (your claim there). To claim now that this is not the same as a local notability guideline contradicts what was said by Mjroots and two others "keeps" at the AfD, and which is very frustrating to argue with, as it gives the impression of a project putting itself outside or above the generally accepted rules. Fram (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Fram: Yes, I did state that ships over 100'/100t are held to be generally notable enough to sustain an article. This is not the same as saying that every ship over 100'/100t will be capable of sustaining an article. The more common a name is (Elizabeth, Mary etc), the harder it will be to write an article. I also said that it must be demonstrated that GNG is met for an article to survive. Our record at WP:SHIPS/AFD shows that we do delete articles where it cannot be shown that GNG is met. In this case, GNG is met. Mjroots (talk) 06:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I have closed the AfD. Thank you in any case for adding sources about the ship. As far as I can tell, these aren't available online? Which, don't get me wrong, is absolutely not a requirement, but may show why I only found the Lloyds sources, which aren't really sufficient to base an article on IMO. Anyway, like I said at my AfD close, I'm off now to write an article about a (truly!) notable ship with some good, lengthy sources. Fram (talk) 07:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Fram: they are available online, but are subscription required. I explained the situation at AR's talk page, but the gist of it is that if I provided an url, it would be useless to 99.999% of people who wanted to check it. Where a newspaper source is available online freely, I do provide urls. Thank you for the close. Mjroots (talk) 08:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

As promised: Rainbow (1837 ship). Whatever one may think about the Irlam and the AfD, I guess you'll agree that this ship is considerably more notable! Any help in expanding and improving the article (and checking the basics, I'm not really used to writing about ships, as you may have guessed by now) is more than welcome. Fram (talk) 10:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Fram: - per WP:NC-S, you might want to move the article to PS Rainbow (1837). Mjroots (talk) 11:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

That seems to be hardly in use[17]. The naming convention says "However, if a ship is best known in combination with a ship prefix, include the prefix in the article name." but in this case, the ship is usually known as "Rainbow" (or the iron steamer Rainbow), very rarely only as PS Rainbow. I won't stop anyone from making such a move, but personally I wouldn't do it. Fram (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in June 1840

Hi Mjroots, You have a Hector being wrecked in Davis Strait on 23 June. Actually, I believe that the vessel that was crushed against the ice was HMS Hecla, the famed exploration ship that became a Greenland fisheries whaler after her sale in 1831. Do you have any other sources that might clarify the issue? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't see anything naming "Hecla" amongst the various newspaper sources. Have made an amendment which should cover the situation. Mjroots (talk) 18:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. That does cover the situation. Annoying that the loss of a vessel as famous as Hecla in her early incarnation didn't make it into The Times. Acad Ronin (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Shipwreck info?

Hi Mjroots: I have just finished Dublin (1784 EIC ship). My source states that she was lost c.1800 on her first voyage as a West Indiaman, after years of service as an East Indiaman. I have not been able to confirm the loss. I found nothing in Lloyd's List, or by googling generally. Do you have anything? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I didn't find anything when going through the sources for that period. Mjroots (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Mermaid

Hi Mjroots: I am working on the East Indiaman Travers, wrecked 7 Nov 1808. That led me to create an article about Diamond Island (Burma), which led me to discover that Mermaid wrecked there in 1801. Do you know anything else about Mermaid? I can't find anything in my usual sources re British vessels operating in the area. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: - unfortunately the library of local newspapers I have access to only covers the years 1800-1900. Most references to a ship named Mermaid in 1800 and 1801 refer to the HMS Mermaid of the time. Mjroots (talk) 09:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, have started working on Skelton Castle. You have her being lost at the mouth of the Bengal River in 1809. However, that appears to be incorrect, or a different ship. Skelton Castle was lost in Dec 1806 off the Cape of Good Hope. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 11:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Most likely a different ship. Mjroots (talk) 09:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

FYI re shipwrecks in 1825

Hi Mjroots, two things I tripped over. First, there appears to a case of duplicate entries. There was a Mary lost at Holyhead on 19 October, and one lost at the same place on 20 October. I don't know which entry is correct and so cannot consolidate/remove. Second, Lloyd's List 6061 was published on 4 November 1825, not 5 November. The link is OK, just the ref is wrong. I was looking for the Mary, Reed, master, lost on Jarvis Island, and found the above two issues. Am working on the article now so have red-linked her. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Found the correct date of loss and moved info to it (20 Jan 1825) from unknown date in 1825. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Faulty coordinates

In editing List of shipwrecks in October 1846, you introduced a set of impossible coordinates. In the entry for the Razalama, under "Unknown date", you entered 47°70′N 37°40′W (minutes of latitude greater than 59); I assume that's a typo, but I don't have access to the cited sources. Could you check the sources and correct the error? Deor (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Never mind. I see that you've already fixed it. Deor (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@Deor: coord given originally was in source quoted, realised it must have been wrong and corrected it to the most likely, given the similarity between 1 and 7 when written. Mjroots (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1817

Hi Mjroots: there appears to be a duplicate entry for Catherine wrecked on 22 Jan 1817. Both entries appear identical, modulo some voyage details.Acad Ronin (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: - Two different vessels. Mjroots (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Son-of-a-gun. :-) Acad Ronin (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1823

Hi Mjroots: Could be another duplicate, or not. You have an Aurora being wrecked at La Beye, Grenada, on 4 February. Then on 4 March there is again an Aurora being wrecked at La Beye, Grenada. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Barossa (1811 ship)

Hi Mjroots, I am working on an article about Barrosa. I have a reference that she was lost in 1847, and her entry in the 1846 Lloyd's Register has the notation "LOST" by her name, but I have been unable to find anything else. Do you have anything in your sources by any chance? She also appears in sources as Barosa, Barrossa, and Barrosa. Thanks for any help you can give. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: I'm currently ploughing through the 1847 newspapers. Will keep an eye out. Mjroots (talk) 05:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. It'll be a miracle if you find anything, but it would enable me to tie a bow on her tail. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 11:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

By chance I found a report in The Spectator for 13 Feb 1847, p.155 that Barossa had wrecked at Port Morant while carrying coolies from Madras to Jamaica. Unfortunately the item does not specify the date of the loss. Acad Ronin (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

10 January 1847. I have added the info to the list of shipwrecks for that day. My entry is rough and the refs need formatting, but the basic info is there. Acad Ronin (talk) 02:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: I've copyedited the entry but left the refs for now. Do either of the articles have a title. If so, that needs adding in, then I can format the references. Mjroots (talk) 05:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Apologies. I was blinded by delight. In The Spectator the item is in a column titled "EAST INDIA SHIPPING". In the Illustrated London News the column is titled "EPITOME OF NEWS – FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC". Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 11:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1823 - possible dup

Hi Mjroots, we have a Blucher wrecking on 13 Feb and apparently again on 18 Feb. Same national origin, same description. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 13:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

HCS Auckland

Quick and dirty: "AUCKLAND. Steam frigate. 1840. 946 bm. 9.1.1840: Launched by Bombay Dockyard. 6 guns." That's all Hackman has. I will fiddle around a little further and will revert with anything else I find. Acad Ronin (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

So far, all I can find re Auckland is that she was a paddle steamer and that she was put on harbour service in 1863 and sold in 1874. There is nothing in Low's history of the Indian Navy about her at all. There was an Auckland that was a Harwitch packet in 1817 and that continued to serve as a packet out of Dover in 1820. I can also find two mercantile Aucklands - both launched at Sunderland, one in 1836 and one in 1838. Can you give me any more info? Cheers Acad Ronin (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: I've only got what is at the List of shipwrecks in 1847#Unknown date at the moment. Hopefully when I go through the Australian newspapers I'll be able to find more info. Mjroots (talk) 07:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm.... Definitely not the Indian Navy vessel, and not a Royal Navy vessel. No such vessel in Colledge, and no British warship named Auckland lost between 1650 and 1859 (Hepper). At this point, my best guess would be a Royal Mail Steamer (RMS) Auckland. Mail steamers were sometimes/often referred to as His Majesty's Steamer. There was a contemporary mail steamer Auckland, but I have no further info than that she existed. Acad Ronin (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Kingston

Hi Mjroots, in the 1818 shipwrecks list we have Kingston wrecking on 4 March and again on 5 March, depending on the source paper. Regards,Acad Ronin (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Severn

Hi Mjroots, where can we add this: Severn (ex-HMS Camel (1813)) had sailed from Calcutta on 13 December 1840 bound for China. As of 28 August 1841 she had not been heard from. Her entry in Lloyd's Register for 1842 is marked "Lost", but the actual year of loss is ambiguous. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

References

@Acad Ronin: - put the entry in on 13 December 1840, as that is the last definite date. Something like ...departed form Calcutta, India for China. No further trace, presumed lost with all hands. Mjroots (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Found her there with that info. I linked her to Camel and left it at that. Acad Ronin (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Shipwrecks in 1822

Hi Mjroots, I believe that the Robert lost on 7 March is the same vessel as the Robert lost on 27 March. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Allison

Hi Mjroots, I have just put up Allison (1795 ship). Lloyd's Register for 1846 has the annotation "Lost" by her name, but I have not been able to find anything, including in The Times. When you get the chance, could you check the UK papers to see if they have anything? I would like to add her to the list of shipwrecks. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

wow

so the marauding ships eds and the travails of the damned leaky ship of wikipedia hasnt put you off in all this time - you must be the most persistent editor in the nautical realm that wikipedia has! wow. In case that was misread - well done for your persistence on the shipwrecks project material after all these years!!! JarrahTree 07:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Don Juan wrecked 1837

As the page doesnt appear to have any watchers I noted that the steamship "Don Juan" that was wrecked on 15 September 1837 is listed as Spanish. It was built by Fletcher, Son and Fearnall at Poplar, London and was owned and operated by P&O so would British be more likely? MilborneOne (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I've got that page watchlisted by my own system. Have checked the Ships List and verified your info. List has been corrected. Thanks for bringing this up. Mjroots (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1829

Hi Mjroots, the listings for Betsey on 29 April and end of May unknown date appear to be the same ship. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1840

Hi Mjroots, Vine appears to have been listed for both 22 and 23 November 1840. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in October 1849

Hi Mjroots, I am working on Cumberland (1826 ship) and believe she is the Cumberland wrecked on 26 October. However, I have no "smoking gun" to support my belief. Is there anything in the articles that might support the link? The last master I have for her is J. Lewis. Also, the item in the List gives the place of loss as Bali in the Spanish East Indies. If it was Bali, it was in the Dutch East Indies. If it occurred in the Spanish East Indies, the location was probably not Bali. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 04:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: - you're in luck. It is the same ship, as "two passengers (one being Mr. Dawson, the owner) and 28 men were saved, but the captain and five seamen perished". The ship was on a voyage from "Bally" to Hong Kong with a cargo of rice.(Standard, 21 January 1850). Mjroots (talk) 06:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes! It is always a great pleasure when two pieces of the Great Puzzle (as another Wikipedian calls WP) fit. Thanks for looking. Acad Ronin (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I like Bally! It sounds like my uncle nearly-swearing ... :) DBaK (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The inference is that Bali was pronounced differently in the mid-C19th to how it is in the early C21st. Mjroots (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of SS Beme

A tag has been placed on SS Beme requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. wumbolo ^^^ 13:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1822

Hi Mjroots: First, let me wish you a happy new year. Second, I read "The Times" mention of the loss of Coldstream as having occurred on 10 November. The article was dated in December, but referred to her sailing on the 8th, "ult.", which I read as meaning in November, parting in a gale on the 10th. Do you agree? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: Yes, "ult" is shorthand for "ultimo mense", Latin for "last month". Mjroots (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Queen Charlotte

The mention of Queen Charlotte in the list of shipwrecks in 1833 links her to New South Wales, but there is nothing in the description to explain the link. I am working on Queen Charlotte (1813 ship) and strongly suspect this is the same vessel. Was there anything in the Caledonian article that might support or refute my conjecture? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: - I presume you mean the Queen Charlotte listed under June 1833. The entry in the Caledonian Mercury of 16 November 1833 reads "Sydney, June 30. The Queen Chalotte, of this port, and Dragon, of Hobart Town (whalers), are supposed to be lost. It is stated that their source was Lloyd's List of 12 November 1833. No captain's name given. Mjroots (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I did some more research in the AUstralian papers on line and was able to pin that she was indeed a NSW ship.Acad Ronin (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing List of shipwrecks in November 1828, Mjroots.

Britishfinance has gone over this page again and marked it as unpatrolled. Their note is:

Great article!

Please contact Britishfinance for any further query. Thanks.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Britishfinance (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (List of shipwrecks in November 1828) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating List of shipwrecks in November 1828.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Great article!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Britishfinance}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Britishfinance (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: - OK, I'm confused. Why are pages that I'm creating showing up as needing to be patrolled? I was granted the autopatrolled user right many years ago. AFAIK, it also comes with the tools granted to admins. Still, there's another 119 out there if you are lacking something to do. All linked from {{1820s shipwrecks}}. Mjroots (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mjroots: – Hi, I did not see this on the new pages feed, it came up another feed (the User:AlexNewArtBot/IrelandSearchResult) for Irish linked articles. When I opened it, the new page curation tool appeared! In fairness, it is an easy page to pass (given quality). I would say the issue is with the BOT feed, and I will not it for future reference. Sorry about that and lovely article! Kind regards. Britishfinance (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Unknown date shipwrecks for 1821

Hi Mjroots, the article lists a "HM hired brig Mercury" being destroyed by lightning at Curacao. Hepper, who has the most complete listing of RN ship losses, has no mention of her. Furthermore, the National Maritime Museum's database (now no longer available but I downloaded it before it disappeared), has no suitable Mercury. I am wondering if the news from Jamaica was referring to a transport rather than a naval vessel. It is, of course, possible that she was hired locally and that news never reached official records in the Admiralty, but it is curious. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Shipwrecks in 1816

Hi Mjroots, the list of 1816 shipwrecks has two listings for Eagle, one on 10 November and one on 16 November, that appear to reference the same ship. (As an aside, I am working on Asia/Sir Francis Drake/Dona Maria ii, which, as you mentioned, has an interesting, and complex history.) Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1808

Hi Mjroots, there appears to be a duplicate item. The list has Mary Ann foundering and her crew being rescued by Brook on 24 September and October (unknown date). For the October listing I corrected Brook to Brook Watson, and that's when I found the 24 September listing. I checked the Lloyd's List entry for the October loss and it is clear that the rescuer was "Brook Watson," not "Brook, Watson". Furthermore, I checked in Lloyd's Register and there were two vessels named Brook Watson at the time, I just haven't been able to figure out which one rescued the crew. (I am currently interested in the whaler Brook Watson.) Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: - in which case, it's likely that 24 September is the correct date. Would you make the necessary adjustment please. Mjroots (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Roger, wilco. Acad Ronin (talk) 12:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Done. Acad Ronin (talk) 12:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1817

Hi Mjroots, the Dutch ship Ceres is listed as having been lost on 6 Jan and again on 10 Jan. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

SS Mary Luckenbach (1941)

I would have preferred if you messaged me before reverting my move of the above article. As always it seems the guidelines are ambiguous. Under merchant ship in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) guidelines it states "When the name is ambiguous, append disambiguation information in parentheses. The date of launching can be used if there are several ships with the same name" but then confusingly in the Disambiguating ships with the same name section it states "In instances where a ship was captured or otherwise acquired by a navy or shipping company, or simply renamed, and the article is placed at that title, use the date that is in agreement with the name and prefix (such as the date of capture or entry to the navy or fleet, or the date of the renaming) rather than the date of launch." Given that the former says May and the later says Do not I hold that the correct dab is the first year by that name. To use the launch date is confusing when there are ships of the same name when one acquired the name later but was launched earlier under another name than the one which was launched under that name. We can see this on this ship as there was a Mary Luckenbach launched in 1920 and bore the name until 1936. If you do not agree with me can I suggest we take this to wt:ships for a decision? Lyndaship (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Lyndaship: - AFAIK we do normally disambiguate by year of launch. It is possible to further disambiguate where two ships carried the same name and were lauched in the same year. Am happy to see this discussed at WT:SHIPS and it would probably be better for it to be discussed there. Mjroots (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in July 1852

On List of shipwrecks in July 1852 (18 July) there is a dab link to Rundle Stone. I was going to point this at Runnel Stone but for a voyage from Devon to Dorset this doesn't make sense. Any ideas?— Rod ^talk 17:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Rodw: It was the Runnel Stone (fixed it). It does make sense as sailing ships go where the wind blows them, which not necessarily where you'd expect them to be on a journey from A to B. Mjroots (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in March 1838

Orient appears twice, first in 20 March and again in "Unknown date". Re4gards, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed Mjroots (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Great. Thanks, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1815

Favorite, prize to the American privateer Warrior, appears both on 27 January and in "Unknown date". Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed Mjroots (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in February 1830

We have George Green (1829 ship) wrecking on 6 February. However, The Times already carries the story on 3 February, and the site I have used for the info for the article on her has the wreck occurring on 30 January 1830. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed - feel free to make any necessary corrections yourself - especially where you have other sources to back the info. Mjroots (talk) 06:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I will be a little more aggressive in fixing errors then, at least when I have what i believe is better info. Often though, I don't have access to the original sources and so cannot adjudicate. In those cases I will continue defer to you. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

November 1944 Shipwrecks template overstretch

I have been troubleshooting the overstretch on the November 1944 shipwrecks template. Here's what I found:

• I wondered if there was hidden typo in the template format somewhere that was causing the problem, so I copied the top, middle and bottom formatting text (i.e., everything except the dates and lists of ships) from a template that works properly (December 1944 shipwrecks) and previewed the November 1944 template with that formatting copied in. The overstretch persisted, so that's not where the problem lies. Obviously, I did not publish that preview.
• Given the above, the overstretch problem had to lie somewhere among the dates and ships listed in the template. To start, I looked for the longest line in the the template, which is "10 Nov" under "Other incidents." Removing the entire 10 Nov list and previewing the template without it shows that removing the entire 10 Nov line cures the overstretch problem, so the problem lies in that line. Again, of course, I did not publish that preview.
• I began adding the ships listed on the "Other incidents" 10 Nov line one by one, previewing each time and then not publishing the preview. Each time I added a ship, there was no overstretch until I added USS Piedmont. When I did, the overstretch appeared. I did not save that preview.
• I did not see any formatting error anywhere among the ships. I experimented with hitting ENTER (RETURN) at the end of the 10 Nov list to see if there was a missing RETURN or something, but that had no effect. I also tried deleting the later dates (13 Nov and beyond) to see if there was some problem there, but that did not cure the overstretch.
• As a least a temporary fix, I added a page break between USS Petrof Bay and USS Piedmont. I understand that hard returns like that are frowned on because they can interfere with proper presentation on some devices, but it did solve the overstretch problem completely, at least on my laptop.
• Perhaps someone more tech-savvy than I am can come up with a better fix. But at least it presents properly now. Meanwhile, I have no idea why it chooses to overstretch on the 10 Nov line. I have not encountered that problem before, and see no obvious reason for it now. Maybe Wikipedia needs to provide some tech help to figure it out.

Mdnavman (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Redrose64 is pretty tech savvy, maybe he can help? Mjroots (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Which template is this? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

{{November 1944 shipwrecks}}. Mjroots (talk) 05:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mdnavman and Redrose64: Eureka! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs) 13:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Your last edit didn't notify me (nor Mdnavman) because you didn't sign it. As it stands, the navbox uses lists inconsistently. I've worked up a demo using nested lists, at Template:November 1944 shipwrecks/sandbox. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Ship name dab

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

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

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

@Murgatroyd49: SHIPDAB seems to be out of line with established practice. The one thing that does not change is the year a vessel was launched, no matter how many times it changes name. What SHIPDAB says is correct insofar as it applies to naval vessels captured and put into service with the capturing navy. Am happy to further discuss this at WT:SHIPS where more editors can join the discussion (this thread can be copied over). Mjroots (talk) 10:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Not sure how you move the discussion, could you do that? It would be useful to get a concensus that could be added to WP:NCS to clarify what is an increasingly common occurence. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Murgatroyd49: You do this and this. The templates involved are {{moved from|link to old location|~~~~}} and {{moved to|link to new location|~~~~}}. In the edit summaries, the comment "get this the heck off my talk page" is not mandatory, but the links are per WP:CWW. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

some odd items in shipwreck category talk pages

I am mightily fascinated by the inclusion of 'disaster management' in 19th century maritime incident categories, and somewhat also by transport/maritime - I would have thought ships/shipwrecks/years would have sufficed... any thoughts ? JarrahTree 10:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: can you point me to a specific example please? Mjroots (talk) 10:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/JarrahTree - of my most recent 25 edits, 20+ adding 'shipwrecks' as imho missing project tag,

and somewhat curious about disaster management and transport (which I have not touched, pending yours or any other responses) I fail to expect for the 19th century that disaster management is relevant, and would expect of maritime incidents that are not wrecks to be minimal JarrahTree 10:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The project tagging seems OK to me. If you have any doubts, you can always ask at the talk page of the relevan WP. Mjroots (talk) 10:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

If thats the case I will leave whatever I find, without removing anything else then, and simply add what I consider a major omission - shipwrecks. Thanks JarrahTree 11:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1836

The Blenheim lost on 29 November and on 30 November appear to be the same incidents.Acad Ronin (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you by any chance have the name of her master? The Times article doesn't. The reason I ask is that I have a Blenheim, Wilson, master, listed in Lloyd's Register in 1837 and no longer listed in 1838, and I wonder if the Nov Blenheim and mine are the same. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Hard to read, but it seems to be Watson in The Standard. Wilson is a possibility. Mjroots (talk) 05:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. Unfortunately there is also a Blenheim, Watson, master, from Sunderland sailing at the same time, and although the locus of the loss is more consistent with her than with my Blenheim, the Sunderland Blenheim remains in Lloyd's Register for some years, albeit with minimal and stale data. For now the verdict is, "Not proven". Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Shipwrecks in February 1826

Hi Mjroots, it looks like we have a duplicate listing for Albion on both 2 and 3 February. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1819

Hi Mjroots: we appear to have a duplicate listing for Aberdeenshire. There is a long mention on 23 November, and a short mention under "Unknown date". Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 03:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

List of naval launches 1897

Hey there. I noticed that you reverted my split on the list of naval launches 1897. I agree that its a bit odd to do so when almost all other lists haven't. However, the reason i did split the list was because of the 1892 list which had been split. You might want to check it out and change it if you so wish :P ShaDoW 03 (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@ShaDoW 03: Thanks for the D part of WP:BRD. I've had a look at the list of ship launches in 1892 and its history. That one will have to be manually reconfigured. Will get round to it in the next few days. Mjroots (talk) 03:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1813

Hi Mjroots, we have Bellona being lost on 12 November, and on 13 November. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Shipwreck question

Dear MJ,

I am almost done completing the year 1923 for individual shipwreck articles. Is there any years I should be focusing on or should I just do the entire 1920s? AmericanAir88^(talk) 15:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@AmericanAir88: There's no specific year that needs focusing on. If you want to carry on splitting each of the years for the 1920s then that's fine. Are you also expanding the month lists? Mjroots (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Alright, will do. How do I expand them? Are there shipwrecks missing? AmericanAir88^(talk) 15:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@AmericanAir88: - there are probably shipwrecks missing. How to expand the lists depends on which sources you have available. Don't worry too much though, every little helps. Mjroots (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Ok, thank you. Also, is splitting the lists up benefiting the articles? Are we just doing more than we need to or is it benefiting? I am curious to know. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It's benefitting the articles because the lists don't get over large (<500k has been achieved in the past). A general rule of thumb should be at least half the days having entries, but this is not hard and fast. As you're probably aware, I'm working on the 1856 lists at the moment. When I split 1857 next month, initially most days won't have entries, but I know that I have the sources available to populate them in the month following their creation. It is easier to split at the beginning than to split an existing full list, as I know from personal experience. Mjroots (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Excellent answer. I will try to help you as much as I can. AmericanAir88^(talk) 17:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate entry

Hi Mjroots, The entries for Amelia for 24 October and 27 October 1829 appear to be the same vessel/event. Unfortunately, I have no way of resolving the discrepancy on dates. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Shipwrecks in Oct 1849

Hi Mjroots, FYI: I have a website source from South Australia (see Asia), that states that Pandora was a P&O ship, and so British, not Egyptian. I cannot confirm that via Lloyd's Register, and the P&O database does not list her, so the SA is probably wrong, but I thought you ought to know. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what P&O database you use, but mine doesn't list a Pandora. Will stick with the info gleaned for now. Mjroots (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Shipwrecks in January 1807

Hi Mjroots, we have Balance being wrecked on 22 and on23 January. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Shipwrecks in 1810

Hi Mjroots, we have the American vessel Venus being lost off Islay on 30 January and with unknown date in March. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Shipwrecks May 1835

Hi Mjroots, we seem to be carrying the loss of Alexander on both 9 and 13 May, Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Dynameme

Hi Mjroots, we have her wrecking on 13 September 1845 and 13 October 1845, and on Sestos Rock and on Sesostris Rock. Sestos Reef is off Africa, which is consistent with her running into trouble on the Grain Coast. Sesostris Rock used to be off the entry to the Yong River (Guangxi), which leads to Ningbo. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that, now at 13 Sep. Mjroots (talk) 05:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

18 May 1842

Hi Mjroots, we have Ariadne striking a rock and being pulled off by Sesostris. Both of these vessels apparently belonged to the Indian Navy, which was the Bombay Presidency's marine arm at the time. Sesostris was INS Sesostris. I haven't written her up yet, in small part because I can't figure out what flags are appropriate, and in large part because I am drifting out of my preferred lane (1793-1815). Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 03:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: I don't know of any other flag being used in India at the time apart from the EIC flag. Mjroots (talk) 05:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. That's what I used for INS Ariadne (1839) and what I'll use for Sesostris if I ever get to her. Acad Ronin (talk) 11:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Shipwrecks in 1804

Hi Mjroots, we have Neptune being wrecked on both 23 & 24 September 1804. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Waterloo

Hi Mjroots, we have two Waterloos being wrecked in India in 1827 - one on the Malabar Coast with unknown date, and one on 6 December at Madras on the Coromandel Coast. Do we have the name of the master for either or both of these? I have one source that mis-identifies the Waterloo lost at Madras (it was not Waterloo (1815 Sunderland ship)). After the battle the name became popular and for some of these I am having difficulty sorting out which ones sank where, if at all. Thanks and regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Lloyd's List of 11 April 1828 has Waterloo having foundered off the Coromandel coast. The next issue, 15 April, has her lost off Madras. Seems like the same vessel as in the shipwrecks lists. Unfortunately, That's all I have. The relevant issues are not available online, at least not to me. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: - The Standard, 11 April 1828 "Accounts from Havre have just been received of the 8th April. They announce the arrival there of the Chouqua, from Bengal, which place she left 25th Dec. Just at her departure the master was informed, that during a violent gale of wind five out of seven English ships foundered of the Malabar coast, and that the fate of the other two was unknown. The Waterloo was one of the ships that foundered."

The Standard, 14 April 1828 "We have received further details of the loss of vessels in the Madras roads. The names given are the Hope, Security, Felicitas, D. Malcolm and Waterloo; and two others are supposed to have foundered."

The Caledonian Mercury 21 April 1828 "Bengal, 21st December. The Felicitas, Campbell; the David Malcolm, Messiter; and the Waterloo, Williams, were wrecked in the Madras Roads during a violent hurrican, 5th inst. The Malabar, Oliver and the Gunjava, Taylor were driven out to sea."Ship News". Caledonian Mercury. No. 16641. Edinburgh. 21 April 1828.. The misspelling of hurricane is per original. Mjroots (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mjroots, thanks for getting back to me with all that detail. Unfortunately, I cannot find a Waterloo with Williams, master, in Lloyd's Register, the Register of Shipping, or even the East-India Register and Directory for 1827. I wonder if she was registered in America. She does not appear to be any one of the vessels I am looking at. The other thing that is clear is that we are looking at one incident at Madras, on the Coromandel Coast. The Malabar Coast mention in the 11 April article appears to be a mistake. I have been able to identify Felicitas and Security as British vessels sailing under a license from the EIC. Malabar may be identifiable too. The others are a mystery. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: - The source quoted above says all vessels were "English". Harrias may be able to help you with Lloyd's List queries. The newspaper sources I quoted are online via the Gale News Vault. I get access via my public library website. I don't give an url because they are very long, and only of use to those who possess a Kent library card. I think you're in the USA, so this is the link you require for the Gale News Vault. I've already made the necessary corrections and additions at the list of shipwrecks in December 1827. Mjroots (talk) 04:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Shipwrecks Sep 1815

Hi Mjroots, we have Adrian being lost on 6 & 7 September. As for Gale, my library has some access to it. I will have to ask the reference librarian if our access includes Brit newspapers. Regards,Acad Ronin (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Malton

Hi Mjroots, we have Malton being lost on 14 October 1841 and 14 November. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Margaret & Jane

Hi Mjroots, we have her being lost at Bridlington on 25 and 27 December 1820. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Jane

Hi Mjroots, we have Jane being lost off Cephalonia on an unknown date in January and again in February 1816. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Swallow

Hi Mjroots, we have Swallow being wrecked off Pico/Pica island on 11 July 1829 and 11 August 1829. Regards,Acad Ronin (talk) 15:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Jane

Hi Mjroots, we have Jane sinking off Pembrokeshire on 16 October 1836 and 27 October 1836. These would seem to be almost the same item, though the later item may represent some recovery. Also, was the master in either case Tather? If so, that would fit with an article I am doing on Jane (1813 Hull ship). Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: - apologies for the delay in replying. I wanted to get the 1858 list finished and I'd got behind schedule due to the Gale News Vault outages in August and September.

The Jane lost on 16 October was registered at Solva. That lost on 27 October was under captain Cork's command. It's a common enough name that I see no justification to merge the two entries. Mjroots (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Roger that. Vessels with female names are the bane of my research. Marys, Harriets, Janes, Elizas, etc., are incredibly difficult to sort out, especially when burthens are similar. Acad Ronin (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Evander

Hi Mjroots, we have Evander foundering on 9 September 1828 and Asia rescuing the crew. The Times puts the foundering on 23 August (article dated Sept states "23 ult."). Lloyd's List dated 23 Sep 1828 doesn't give a date for the foundering, but credits Medusa, Sampson, master, with the rescue. I am working on Medusa so would appreciate a ping if you have a chance to confirm or deny. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: The Liverpool Mercury of 26 September 1828 stated that crew of Evander were rescued on 14 Sep by the brig Medusa, Evander having foundered five days previously. They were transferred to HMS Asia and landed at Kinsale. No captain given for Medusa but her homeport was Whitby - "Naval Intelligence". Liverpool Mercury. No. 905. Liverpool. 26 September 1828.

Prince George

Hi Mjroots, we have her being lost on both 12 June and 24 June 1815. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Glenbervie vs Glenburnie

Hi Mjroots, The Times made a mistake. It had Glenbervie being run down on 27 July 1843 by Lochliboo. Then it had Lochliboo running down Glenburnie. We carry the Glenburie sinking as occurring on 26 August, but a careful reading of the article in The Times reveals that the date it gave was 26 July 1843. What do you think? I am willing to consolidate the two items under the 26/27 July 1843 heading, but am not sure how we want to deal with the error. By the way, Glenbervie was a real ship, lost in 1860; I am working on the article. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

It's not unheard of for The Times to make a mistake. Make whatever changes you think appropriate. Am a bit under the weather atm with man flu so I'll leave it for you if that's OK. Mjroots (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Comet

Hi Mjroots, we appear to have her being lost on 13 & 15 November 1840. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in May 1822

Hi Mjroots, we have Earl Fitzwilliam being lost on 23 and 25 May. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 03:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit and request for references

Good afternoon, I just wanted to drop by and thank your for your edits on the Wiking 6. The article looks great a just very well polished. I really only have any experience in plant taxon articles, but I have recently moved to editing some ship articles because the history behind some of them fascinate me and it is a nice reprieve from species whatever. I was just wondering where you get your information from and if you had any tips for a someone just dipping their toes into the project area. Thank you and have a great day! Fritzmann2002 ^{T, c, s, t} 19:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@Fritzmann2002: as you have seen, knowing where to look is part of the trick to writing articles. For ships, we have WP:SHIPS/R, where there are links to many good sources. Not all links work, so feel free to cull any dead links. The Lloyd's List link on my user page is good for any merchant ship in service 1930-45. Mjroots (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

PS Edith (1870)

I know you have an interest in railway ships and have access to lots of old newspapers so could you help on this article? The gun running claim is sourced to a dead link so I can't verify it and miramar and tyne ships both have her scrapped before this event albeit with different places and dates Lyndaship (talk) 09:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

"SS Elllen" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect SS Elllen. Since you had some involvement with the SS Elllen redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 05:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Shipwrecks August 1827

Hi Mjroots, Herald appears to have been lost on 20 AND 22 August. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 10:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Spirit in List of shipwrecks in September 1863

I did the Gaines work too long ago to remember what I did regarding specific ships, and I can't get the Gaines link to open this morning, so I can't trace Spirit for you. (If you can get the Gaines link to open or find Gaines via a different route and search on ""Spirit", then power to you.) I don't think Spirit was one of mine though, because her entry mentions her captain by name, something some editors are fond of but which I never do unless the captain is of some historical significance in his own right.Mdnavman (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)mdnavman

Konarak vessel incident

Hello.

First, you cannot locally override wikipedia-wide guidelines. See WP:Categorization, especially the part on set and topic categories, and WP:INCOMPATIBLE.

Second, there is an article on the incident, and don't you think it looks a bit odd if both are in those categories you re-added?

Regards

HandsomeFella (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@HandsomeFella: - why do you say that this was not a friendly fire incident? As I said in my edit summary, the "Maritime incidents in (year)" categories are for shipwrecks (however caused) and also for maritme incidents which do not result in a hull loss. In this case, Konarak is a total loss. It is not odd that both articles are categorised accordingly. Mjroots (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

What a funny question. Like "Have you stopped beating your wife?". I did not "say that this was not a friendly fire incident". What I said was that this is not an incident at all, it's a ship. I didn't remove the categories from the incident article, did I?

Using your logic, why do you say that you can locally override wikipedia-wide guidelines?

Btw, did you read those guidelines? And yes, it is odd.

HandsomeFella (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@HandsomeFella: - Yes, the article is about the ship, which was involved in a friendly fire incident, which is why I added the category. That there is currently a separate article about the incident is not relevant, as said article looks like it will be merged back into the ship article. This will leave the ship article covering the ship and the incident, so the category is valid. Where a ship and its sinking are notable enough to both have articles, it is appropriate that both appear in the relevant mari¨´time incidents category (and also on the relevant shipwrecks navbox, which I noticed another editor had removed from the Konarak article, so I reinstated it) - see RMS Titanic and Sinking of the RMS Titanic. Mjroots (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Your reasoning is circular evidence. Did you read WP:Categorization and WP:INCOMPATIBLE att all?

HandsomeFella (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I read them. WP:INCOMPATIBLE is about redirects, is it not? Mjroots (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Redirects are one way of avoiding writing the same article twice over, like with the 24 Heures example I assume you're referring to, while still populating categories correctly. If the incident article is indeed – which is not certain – merged into the ship article, this could be one way of solving it. If both a ship article and an article on an incident in which it was involved, are notable, it seems weird to me – and additionally violates WP:INCOMPATIBLE – to have both in the same categories. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

In cases like this, I usually mention Honey Lantree. Oh wait, I already did - see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shipwrecks#Categorization issue. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

We have indeed been here before, and one way of not having to come here again could be to finally get it right. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

You've got a good memory, Redrose64. HandsomeFella, as we've been here before and still disagree, perhaps the best way of getting wider input on this issue would be a RFC at Wikiproject Shipwrecks. Said RFC can be advertised at WP:SHIPS, WP:MILHIST and other relevant WPs. Mjroots (talk) 04:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Aberdeen Built Ships

Picking up on your comments on Twitter, where you asked me to contact you.

As regards the project to gather data from Aberdeen Built Ships I've added some more background to the Readme file of this Github repo.

Best wishes

Watty62 (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Watty62: - I don't get involved in all that background stuff at Wikidata. However, there are other similar databases the you might want to give a similar treatment.

• Clydeships - ships built on the River Clyde.
• The Sunderland Site and Sunderland built for ships built on the River Wear.
• Tynebuilt for ships built on the River Tyne.
• The Yard - ships built by Harland and Wolff, at Belfast and on the Clyde.
• Teesbuilt - ships built on the River Tees.
• Shipping and shipbuilding - Ships built across the UK, not covered above

That should keep you busy! Mjroots (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Ha! Let us get our Aberdeen stuff done and we'll see! Could happen. Cheers, Watty62 (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Shipwrecks

Yes, thank you, I got the message after the first two reverts. You don't like my edits. But I would like to ask, why do you insist on using 20em columns? It's very narrow, and Template:Reflist notes that 20em should be used Where Shortened footnotes are used, which is not the case for these articles. This is pretty much the standard for all other articles, why should these be different? kennethaw88 • talk 05:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kennethaw88: - I was going to post on your talk page. "Charlestown" is an historic spelling of Charleston. I'm not that bothered by the change to the modern spelling, which is why I've been leaving that change in.

Not sure why you removed the bolded article title. As for 20em, that is so the refs display as two colums, seeing as the ability to force refs into two columns was removed. Where references in a list run into the hundreds, it looks better as two columns rather than a single one. There are over 1,000 shipwreck lists, so it is preferable that they are kept as similar in appearance as possible. Mjroots (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm actually aware of the historic spelling. The article on Charleston does mention it, and the current spelling took effect in 1783. I've left alone other articles about the 18th century, but anything 19th century onward I have been changing.

Re the columns, 20em definitely produces more than 2 columns on any desktop screen (5 very narrow columns for me, only fitting about 4 words per line). I still believe they should use the default column width of 30em.

Re the bolding, I somehow remember reading or just thinking somehow that titles like list of xyz isn't the actual name of anything, and doesn't need bolding. I've probably just interpreted something wrong. But just now, reading MOS:BOLDLEAD: If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold, I'm still not sure if these titles meet that criterion. Maybe something else like This list of Shipwrecks in 1800 would be better? Or maybe I'm the only one with that interpretation. If so, I'll leave them alone. kennethaw88 • talk 06:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kennethaw88: 20em produces 2 neat colums for me. Firefox browser and enlargement set to 170%. Like I said, it's a pity that the ability to force 2 columns, whatever the screen resolution, was removed. Mjroots (talk) 06:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Two columns on an iPhone could be unusably narrow; two columns on a modern widescreen desktop monitor might yield large blank areas. There's plenty on the matter at Template talk:Reflist/Archive 32 (and several previous archives back to Template talk:Reflist/Archive 25). In short: because you don't know how much space anybody else has available (screen width and zoom level being just two factors), you shouldn't configure a page to suit your own setup. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Surely the solution here has to be a technical one that allows {{reflist|2}} but which is disabled when viewed on a mobile device. Is that something which is technically possible? Mjroots (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

We've been through all that before, in the archives that I linked, going back to March 2014. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

SS Jagiełło

First, apologies - I put in an edit summary that Miramar didn't suggest an IMO number - it does have that number in its joint LR/IMO column - not that that makes it right or even possible.

Second, engines - I'm trying to understand what the arrangement was with two steam engines, two low-pressure turbines and two screws. One thing though is important to note; LR, for some strange reason, when a ship had twin engines - one per shaft - decided to add all the cylinders together and call them one engine in the register, hence C4cyl and, as in this case, T6cyl. Only LR adopted this, other registers describing them - as they were - as "2/twin T3cyl, 2-screw" and most modern authors do the same. Hopefully a suitable source will emerge (I've ordered a book on Soviet passenger shipping - fingers crossed).

and lastly, I meant to ask for some time, for LR cites is there any particular reason you prefer to quote the volume name in French for those pages where it's like that at the top - they alternate? It's not in the name of the book itself at the front, eg [18]. cheers - Davidships (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Davidships: - 1, no need to apologise, we all make mistakes. 2, Interesting, but the {{Hansa A type ships}} all had a single propeller. Forum chat is that they had a single engine which was well liked by the crews. Two engines driving one shaft seems unnecessarily complicated to me. How good is your Russian? Maybe you can make better use of the Russian sources I found re Jagiełło's engines? 3. I just go with the title at the top of the page in question as one has to use a title to avoid a ref error. Mjroots (talk) 05:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Re IMO numbers, pretty sure there were introduced c.1963, but their use did not become mandatory until the late 1980s. Mjroots (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Engines: There are many reasons for choosing two propellers (or more), but one is sufficient for most straightforward cargo ships until this day - twin is much more common with passenger vessels. I would be interested to find a source for the Turks' initial twin-screw choice, with some increased power from bolting on a low-pressure turbine to each T3cyl engine (might have been speed requirements, draught limitations or something else). Have you found anything more specific on Jagiello's engines than the description in LR? A Russian source? I don't read Russian, but am confident about understanding factual details with the help of Mr.Google, especially in my own fields. But that wouldn't work for things needing linguistic nuance, so I avoid that.

By the way, Lloyd's Register of Shipping (later titled Register of Ships) has never been published by Lloyd's of London, a quite different entity Davidships (talk) 11:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Some books use the term "engine" to refer only to a cylinder (and directly-associated components: piston, connecting rod, crank, valves and valve motion) or group of cylinders that work from the same steam supply at the same pressure and act upon the same shaft. In such books, a compound arrangement might be described as two (or three) "engines". So a twin-screw triple-expansion system could be seen as having six "engines", but perhaps only one boiler. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

That's certainly true in the 19th century, but from memory seems to have largely died out with the introduction of multi-stage compound and triple expansion engines which were clearly seen as a single units. I don't recall ever seeing reference to a six-engine reciprocating installation. I'll ask LR if they can throw any light on their reasoning at that time. Davidships (talk) 00:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

List of Shipwrecks in May 1869

Apologies if I'm bothering you, but I have fulfilled your request and added the (copied) template to the talk page. I have never done this so I hope the result is acceptable, if not you can always contact me again. Have a fine day. Indylover2010 (talk) 4:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Red ensigns on British ships registered in India

See also: User talk:Acad Ronin § Indian flag

What's this about Indian merchant ships flying the British Red Ensign? The new Indian flag was introduced in 1858 1863, replacing the previous flag of the HEIC. As the flag of India, it was flown by Indian merchant vessels. Pretty sure I've seen photos of ships with said flag at the stern. Mjroots (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC) (Copied from User talk:Davidships#Indian flag)

Re your query, from at least 1854 the only defaced red ensigns that could legally be flown on British ships registered in colonial (or similar) ports were those which had received a Royal or Admiralty warrant to be used as such. No such warrant was ever granted to British India (only to certain Indian princely states). On page 7 of this is an authoritative list of the warrants that were issued in colonial times (which I have added to Red Ensign). This reference, already used elsewhere on WP, includes "For merchant vessels registered in British India (as opposed to the princely states) the proper ensign was the British Red Ensign. A Red Ensign with the Order of the Star of India in the fly was used to represent British India in international organizations, leading some sources erroneously to identify it as the national flag of British India." There were many British colonial territories where there was never a defaced red ensign warranted for maritime use.

The defaced Indian red ensign was not introduced, for any purpose, in 1858 - certainly not before the 1860s, more likely in the 1880s (the Indian blue ensign warrant for Government vessels was in 1884), though possibly as late as the 1920s, and then only for civil use on land. In India, the official national flag remained the undefaced Union Jack until 1947. Davidships (talk) 00:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

[later] Found the 1863 article you mention. That does certain produce an earlier date for the Viceregal flag than given in, for example, Star of India (flag), but there is no suggestion in the report that it had wider use - or that there were white/blue/red ensign derivatives. Not really relevant to merchant shipping. Davidships (talk) 02:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Does this mean that we need to add a civil flag to {{Country data British Raj}}? Mjroots (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC) (Copied from User talk:Davidships#Indian flag)

Regarding {{Country data British Raj}}, I don't know. If the main flag in these templates is supposed to be the national flag (or in this case a colonial equivalent) then this one is hopelessly wrong, as it should be the Union Jack, with the present main one in "Flag variants". That would have the additional practical advantage of not having to be date-limited as it was correct for the whole of 1858-1947. The actual dating for the red ensign in Star of India (flag) and its variety of uses seem highly problematic and need attention from an editor with access to better source material, as does identifying which flag was the civil flag. It seems that the only other British Raj flag which was constant for the whole period was the undefaced red ensign on British ships registered at British Indian ports - it was the plain one - but it was not the civil flag of British India, it was the civil ensign. Underlying this question is the awkward fact that in general terms for most of its history the red duster as a civil ensign has not been a specifically UK ensign, but a British one, relevant to ships owned by British subjects wherever they live and, subject to the detail of the Merchant Shipping Acts, wherever the ship was registered. Davidships (talk) 10:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC) (PS - I would much prefer to conduct this discussion on a single User Talk page, though do not mind which one; do you concur?)

@Davidships: Agree that it is probably better to have this discussion in one place. What I was proposing was the addition of a label on the country data template. If we call it "civil", then {{flagcountry|British Raj|civil}} would visually produce India, although clicking on the flag itself would take you to the British Raj article. Mjroots (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for moving your part of the conversation. Visually that would seem OK for the purpose in question, as it avoids the erroneous "UK" (though not the specific ship that started this). But I wonder where that leaves the country data page - and the correct use of the defaced red ensign in, for example Member states of the League of Nations. Do you know how else it is done where the civil flag differs from the civil ensign? (I'll be out for the next few hours, so will look in again in the evening). Davidships (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The use of a label can be for many different reasons. It can be used to depict a country's flag for a certain period of time, eg {{flag|Belgium|1830}} the Belgian flag from 1830-31 (Belgium, compare with the flag in use since 1831 - Belgium), or where a ship's civil flag is vastly different to the country's national flag (e.g. / Malta, / Singapore). Flagcountry is used to display a different name to that which it is wikilinked to, but I suspect you already knew that. I'm not seeing any errors in the flags in the League of Nations list, assuming that the flag used is that in force at the date of joining. Mjroots (talk) 12:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

It's best I suppose to just focus on what the presentation of the symbol/data on the Wrecks lists is for - I assume it is to indicate the nation of registration and the ensign that, in consequence, would have been flown (at the time of the casualty). As that precludes description of nationality, which for all plain red ensign registered under MSA would be "British", it seems that we have to fall back to the state where the chosen port of registry is located, even though that often had no real significance (UK-owned ships were registered in Bombay and, as with Nerbudda, British-Raj owners' ships could be registered in Liverpool - but in reality their status, rights and obligations were exactly the same).

In a way, it is fortunate that the civil ensign for British ships registed in British Indian ports was the un-defaced red ensign, as that enables us to stand aside from the dubious history of the Star of India version, and whether it was even an official civil flag - I'm trying to find more reliable sources, but at the moment the evidence points towards it being invented in the 1920s. Davidships (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

"SS New York (Brown, 1888)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect SS New York (Brown, 1888). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 30#SS New York (Brown, 1888) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.

John Brown was mentioned in the former ship list, but did not start building until 1899. Davidships (talk) 01:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Virgin Galactic SpaceShipTwo prefix

-Hello, this is from PythosIsAwesome, I am not sure if this where I am supposed to comment, and if not my apologies, I am new to editing Wikipedia. I added a sentence or two to the Ship Prefix page about Virgin Galactic naming their spaceplanes with the VSS prefix. I figured this was a good place to put it because I believe this is the first time a spacecraft has been given a prefix like a surface ship (outside of fiction). I saw your message in the edit log, and I am simply wondering where I should add this. Should I make a completly new page for spacecraft prefix? I feel like this would not be worth it's own page, just a mention somewhere else, perhaps a subsection in the 'in science fiction' section? I understand you are sick from the banner, please don't rush, this isn't super important to me or anything, thank you!--PythosIsAwesome (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@PythosIsAwesome: - you did the right thing by asking the editor who reverted you. As I said, that page is for surface vessels and submarines. As for starting a list of spacecraft prefixes, that is a question best asked at WT:SPACEFLIGHT, which is the talk page for WikiProject Spaceflight. As for the banner, well sometimes I have to take breaks at short notice, so I can't guarantee that just because I was editing 5 minutes ago I am going to be editing now. Mjroots (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mjroots: - ok thanks for the advice! hope you get better soon!

Duplicate entry

Hi Mjroots, we have Duroc wreaking on the Mellish Reef on 13 August 1856 and on 13 July 1857. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

April 1821

Hi Mjroots, the items for Neptune for 11 April and "Unknown date" appear to be the same item. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: despite the discrepancy between Saint Petersburg and Baltic Port, I've gone with the original source and removed the entry for 11 April. Mjroots (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Small details

Hi Mjroots i've seen your note [19] ... good idea :-) thus relating you might like to read small details[20] concerning the Odyssey of Rhosus. Happy sailing :-) --80.187.106.49 (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Ship Alicia wrecked october 1807 at Jutland

Looks like you added information about the apparent fundering of the ship of the line Alicia off the north coast of Jutland in october 1807, find it here.

I have found no further evidence of this ship on http://threedecks.org or http://ageofnelson.org or other websites, so probably there is a misspelling.

This happened weeks after the Battle of Copenhagen and in the days of departure of the captured danish fleet. No danish naval vessel had a name similar to Alicia.

Can you help? --Ribewiki (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ribewiki: - I've checked the source, and was is said is accurate to the source. The entry reads (original punctuation and spelling retained) -

A letter from Loeken, in Northern Jutland, of the 5th, states that the diving apparatus invented by M. Kall, Consul of the Grand Duchy of Mecklenburg-Schwerin in that town, was about to be used, to examine, and endeavour to raise, the English ship of the line the Alicia, which foundered in October, 1807, at the Northern extremity of Jutland. At the time she sunk she had on board 1,200 men, to reinforce the army of Lord Cathcart, and 500 of whom, and almost all the crew of the vessel perished. When the water is clear the hull may be plainly seen, half buried in the sand, and many of the breeches of the guns may also be seen, as well as broken spars, lying on the deck. - "A Long-lost Prize". The Standared. No. 8741. London. 14 August 1852.

Alicia was probably a hired merchantman which had been armed and pressed into service as a transport ship. Hence the blue ensign in the list of shipwrecks. Mjroots (talk) 05:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

IRIS Kharg

Hi Mjroots. Do you see a chance that this article can become a good/featured article? Pahlevun (talk) 10:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Pahlevun: - I'd certainly try for GA status to start with. I'd change the infobox parameter from "hull number" to "pennant number" but other than that it looks fine. Good luck! Mjroots (talk) 10:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I would appreciate any input from you. Pahlevun (talk) 10:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

HMS Surly

Thanks for your fix on HMS Surly. Could you do similar for Albacore-class gunboat, on the same article, which I think should link to Albacore-class gunboat (1855)?— Rod ^talk 08:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

HMS Hong Kong (1857)

May I ask about the disambiguation page for where you said HMS Hong Kong may refer to one of two vessels - HMS Hong Kong (1857), a steam tender (is that all we know about it?). Is this the ship? The date on the web page is dubious it could easily be 1861? --Broichmore (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Broichmore: - That link is to a log-in page. I'm not registered and don't want to. Mjroots (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Here it is a picture by Tomaso De Simone who has a good reputation for accuracy, did not paint fantasy. She's in port so the funnel is down. The date on the picture given by the museum is 1841, but it could be 1860, 1861 or indeed almost anything you could imagine after the 18. I have seen a close up of the date already.--Broichmore (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Broichmore: It's possible that it is the vessel. "Tender" doesn't necessarily mean a small boat. Quite large vessels were employed as tenders, particularly where flagships are involved. Mjroots (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Do we have a reference for launch / build as 1857? Broichmore (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Broichmore: - 1857 would be the year of commissioning, rather than a year of build. Can't find a ref atm, but I must have come across one in the British regional newspapers when researching the 1867 shipwrecks in September. Thought I might have asked a question at MILHIST but apparently not. Mjroots (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mjroots and @Broichmore:: The NMM museum database has two Hong Kongs. One was a Lend Lease frigate: HOLMES (ex-HONG KONG; renamed TOBAGO), which was returned to the US in 1946. There was also a tender that in 1857: Broad Pendant Hon. H. Keppel 1 June 1857 Fatshan Creek. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin:Thanks AR, the NMM article mentions Keppel's vessel, the paddle tender 'Hongkong' and the steamer Hong Kong. Use of spelling 'Hongkong' is commonplace at the time.

Over at this article, are references to the tender Hongkong, and it also mentions the "chartered river steamer Hong Kong. One half of the page you cant see on my screen, the text is missing, but it can be seen by highlighting the empty space. It says Keppel hoisted a broad pennant May 1857 to August 1858 in the Canton River.

A couple of references here are of the tender Hongkong.

Here it gets a mention as small steamer Hong Kong.

Here on 13 May 1859 its chartered by the Americans.

I'm going to transfer these notes to the talk page at commons for the picture by Tomaso De Simone. I'm beginning to wonder that the HK is not the prominent ship in the picture but one of the others. Perhaps there are three HK ships? Questions, questions. --Broichmore (talk) 14:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Duchess of York

Hi Mjrooots: We appear to have Duchess of York being lost at an unknown date in March 1798 and again at an unknown date in April 1798. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Moved to March. Mjroots (talk) 06:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Ta. Acad Ronin (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Shannon

Hi Mjroots, The Shannon of 11 May and 15 May 1824 are the same vessel (same master). Furthermore, she pops up again in the 7 September 1824 issue of Lloyd's List; #5943) when HMS Parthian captured a schooner with bits from Pilgrim and Shannon on it. I will add Parthian to my list of things to do. In the meantime, is there someway of combining all the mentions? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in May 1835

Hi Mjroots, we have an Isabella being wrecked in Davis Strait on 13 May 1835 and 18 May. Acad Ronin (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Shipwrecks in February 1807

Hi Mjroots, a number of vessels appear to have wrecked in the same storm between Deal and the South Foreland, being listed on both 17 and 18 February. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: - Think I got them all, feel free to consolidate any I've missed to the earlier date of the two. Mjroots (talk) 07:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Great. I ran across the duplication while looking for a Betsey lost that month. Turns out she was an "unknown date". Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

"Ballyholme Bay" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Ballyholme Bay. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 26#Ballyholme Bay until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Lyndaship (talk) 13:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Year built ≠ Year launched

Of course it does sometimes (and in the days of sail usually did as not much to do except rig the sails and load the grog), but since steam and iron the process generally took longer, especially for larger ships and those requiring extensive passenger-related outfitting, such as the Espagne. I long ago stopped fretting about the long-ago decision to categorise and dab ships by year of launch, unhelpful though I find it, as it is water long under the bridge. But when writing prose in articles shouldn't we should give English it's natural meaning, bearing in mind that WP is for the ordinary reader? Of course the detail is in the article below, but I just don't see why we have start an article by telling the reader that a ship is built when it is only half-built (10 months more work before completion in this case). Davidships (talk) 03:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Davidships: I've tweaked the lead slightly. Mjroots (talk) 05:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

When I was small, my father told me that ships were launched as soon as they were watertight and there was nothing else to fit on the outside below the waterline (such as propellers). By launching it when there was still the superstructure and much interior fitment to complete, space was released in the yard for the next keel to be laid down. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that tweak is not too clunky (and OK as we don't have a keel laying date - it could have been in 1908) and I'll try to remember. It is a pity though that we have to tip-toe like this round basic English

@Redrose64:Sr was right about the reason, though despite it being generally true, many were launched without their propellers, from the era of Espagne to the present day. At that stage they weren't "built", only "being built" and at an arbitrary state along the track. Davidships (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Southern Empress etc

Hello
I've taken the liberty of adding the vessel numbers as footnotes to the shipwrecks here, and replaced the six LCMs listed in navypedia as losses of unknown cause: I hope this is acceptable, but if you feel this is inappropriate, please revert (in fact, please revert back to the version prior to my 29 March edits if you are unhappy with them). I've left a note on the talk page saying the same thing. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 01:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

USS Pima County (LST-1081)

Hi Mjroots. I've just created the above article on a US Navy tank landing ship. She later served as a merchant freighter and was lost to fire in 1979. I guess she should be added to List of shipwrecks in 1979 and the template? - Dumelow (talk) 06:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dumelow: - I've added her to the template. Will let you add her to the list of shipwrecks. Have you sorted out all the redirects, added her to the relevant list of ship launches? Infobox needs expansion to cover her post naval service. Mjroots (talk) 06:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Bit of a novice with the ships articles, I haven't sorted any redirects, but I'll drop onto that now. There is a more famous MS Baltic Ferry, I guess that ought to be hatnoted with a link? I must confess I get a bit confused when mixing the military and merchant infoboxes, would you perhaps be able to drop a blank template in there for me to add the details? I'll add her to the shipwrecks and launches pages (on the wrecks page I guess "country" is country of registry?) - Dumelow (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dumelow: - country is whatever flag she was flying at the time of loss. Baltic Ferry needs to be turned into a shipindex page, as this one was a steamship. For an example of how to cover military and civil service in an infobox take a look at the HMS Audacity article. Mjroots (talk) 07:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Redirects needed from merchant career - MV 518 N, 518 N, MV Baltic Ferry (1945), Baltic Ferry (convert to shipindex), MV Sable Ferry, Sable Ferry, MV Nickel Ferry, Nickel Ferry. Mjroots (talk) 07:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

If redirects from prefixed names are necessary at all, they will need to be the right one. Davidships (talk) 11:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@Davidships: - do you mean some/all of them need disambiguation? Mjroots (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

No. But the vessel wasn't a steamship. Davidships (talk) 11:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Well spotted! links amended. Mjroots (talk) 11:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I've sorted the infobox now, I think. Though I am not sure I have covered here decommissioning/recommissioning correctly - Dumelow (talk) 10:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dumelow: - it's getting there. You could lose the MV prefixes from the infobox. the |ship registry= field needs populating. Mjroots (talk) 10:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I've removed the prefixes. I added the only registries I know for sure (US Navy originally and Panama in its final operator). I don't know the others, unless there's some way to find out - Dumelow (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, the article says she was under the British flag as Baltic Ferry, then went back to the US. Mjroots (talk) 06:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, I'll add that. Didn't know if I needed to name the specific port (London etc.) - Dumelow (talk) 10:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Name the port of registry if it is known. FWIW, ASN were headquartered in London, other ships of theirs such as Empire Baltic, Empire Cedric, Empire Cymric etc. were registered in London. Mjroots (talk) 10:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Disappeared ships

I was about to ask how you allocate disappeared ships to year-lists when they are last seen in, say, late December. But the moving of Ivanhoe from "unknown 1874" to "24 August 1874" perhaps answers the question. Are you using "last verified date recorded" as the criterion or something a bit different. Perhaps it would be useful if that were noted somewhere to help achieve consistency, especially if it is a recent change in practice. To avoid reader uncertainty, it might be helpful if it is specifically stated in the narrative that it was the ship sailing that was on that date, rather than a supposed date of loss? Davidships (talk) 10:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, last verified sighting or date of departure gets the entry. It should be apparant that the loss was between the date given and the date of publishing of the newspaper, if that is the source. Will take another look at the Aug 1874 list and amend wording if necessary. Mjroots (talk) 10:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Having looked at the Aug 1874 list, it seems clear enough to me. Mjroots (talk) 10:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

OK (but note that many entries are sourced from books). You didn't say whether this is a new practice or whether Ivanhoe was just an exception that you noticed. Davidships (talk) 11:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

It's established practice. I missed Ivanhoe when I first split the 1874 list. Mjroots (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of MV Missourian (1921)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article MV Missourian (1921) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The article MV Missourian (1921) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:MV Missourian (1921) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The article MV Missourian (1921) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:MV Missourian (1921) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Tigress

Hi Mjroots, We have Tigress being lost on both 26 September 1848 and 10 October 1848. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin and Mjroots:Please excuse the interjection. I've deleted the October date - The Melbourne paper's report is credited to "S A Register", a straight copy of an article in the South Australian Register of 30 September 1848, see here. Not only a fortnight old, but they forgot to tweak the date. Davidships (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Davidships: Excellent. Thanks. Acad Ronin (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

PS Comet

Hi. Your additions are not right as they stand, partly due to the booboo in the 1875 Greenock Telegraph. It was the wreckage of the second PS Comet (1821) (not "Comet II") that was partly used for building Ann. If the two vessels are to be covered in one article, two infoboxes will be needed. I've been pulling together some sources, including Ransom's 2012 book Bell's Comet with a view to expanding the article, which already had a good bit of nonsense when I used what refs I had to hand in March. There is probably enough for a small article on the 1821 Comet. I'm out the rest of the day but will try to get to grips with it over this weekend (and meanwhile will leave as is). Davidships (talk) 11:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Davidships: Thanks for the info. I agree that separate articles are the best way to avoid confusion. Had something similar myself recently with a source getting Empire Gaelic and Empire Gallic confused. Mjroots (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Davidships - I've altered the wikilink at the list of shipwrecks in February 1875 to point to PS Comet (1821) in anticipation of the new article being created at that title. Mjroots (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1807 –Hazard

Hi Mjroots: we have a Hazard being lost off the Isle of Man on 19 November and at an unknown date in November. The second mention is from LL 4 Dec 1807, with the vessel being the Hazard, Johnson, master, of Maryport. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin:  Done Mjroots (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I am currently researching a Hazard, which is how I came across this. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Tall ships of Malta

A tag has been placed on Category:Tall ships of Malta indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in August 1856

I'll leave your reversion alone (except to correct the ship details later) but although discussion died without resolution at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 59#Lists of Shipwrecks it was clear it was felt non final groundings should not be included. I would also draw your attention to a later comment of your own defining a shipwreck "A shipwreck being defined as an event which leads to the loss of a vessel. Therefore a ship running aground and being declared an economic loss would be a shipwreck, but a ship that sank and was refloated, repaired and returned to service would be a maritime incident." Lyndaship (talk) 06:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Lightships and ensigns

I think that I have mentioned this before, but cannot find it (perhaps buried in an article talk page somewhere). When Trinity House light vessels are mentioned in wreck articles they are (usually? always?) accompanied by a Blue Ensign. There are at least three examples in List of shipwrecks in 1920. This cannot be right - the houseflag and ensign of TH is a defaced Red Ensign. TH's actual ships are occasionally seen with a blue ensign, but that is only because the master enjoys RNR privileges. In most cases I do not think that these appearances should have any flag or even italics as they are purely mentioned a locations for events - there is a difference between a "light vessel" and a "light vessel station". Painting the station name on the side does not make it the name of the ship, and is no different to a "buoy station" or a fixed mark. The 'names' of individual TH lightvessels are, at least in the last century or so, Light Vessel No.xx or LV No.xx. Or have I missed something? Davidships (talk) 11:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Davidships: - AFAIK, British lightships/lightvessels fly the TH flag, so any with the blue ensign are incorrect. You are correct re the individual ships and their stations, but in the absence of knowing which the individual ship involved was, I find it preferable to name them by their assigned station - e.g. the South Goodwin Lightship. If the identity of the vessel is known, the I'd pipe it [[LV No. xxx|''Foo Lightship'']] Apologies for delay in replying, I have internet connection issues at the moment. Mjroots (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll change the ensigns as I come across them. Davidships (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1908

Hi Mjr. I edited your recent addition to the wrecks on 7 Nov 1908, initially to expand the location and to give credence to the name given by your source, Pontoon No. 5 (clearly translated from "Pontón"). But it opens a small can of worms. The ref from Wrecksite is helpful - storm/broke moorings etc - but states clearly that date was 11 Jul 1908 (but note the 'History' box where it starts as 11/7 in the French, then changes to 7/11 for En/Es/Pt versions). The Histarmar page is riddled with typos, but clearly goes for 7 Nov in Spanish but then, for variety, has "1908-06-11" in English (11 Jun in the site's normal format). All three sources are somewhat iffy. There must be better sources out there somewhere - the normally reliable Chilean Navy historic ships site doesn't have an entry for this one (though some other Pontoons are covered). What do you think is best? It could go at "Unknown date" with explanation? Davidships (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

PS: completely mystified about how the minnow got caught - managed to blank the whole page except the entry amended. Weird. Davidships (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Davidships: "1908-06-11" could be 6 November 1908, meaning "the night of 6 Nov" i.e. the early hours of 7 Nov. I'd say leave it where it is for now. According to the List of decommissioned ships of the Chilean Navy, she was renamed Yungay before becoming Pontón No. 5. Maybe a search of the Chilean Navy site under that name will be fruitful. Mjroots (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - and that leads off at another tangent. The only Yungay listed on the Chile Navy site is a different pontoon. They do list Kate Kellok[sic], but with no relevant detail.

The Martinic ref given on that List article, supports the renaming, but nothing else: "The first of these [ie coaling] pontoons was the Kate Kellog[sic], an English merchant barque that had apparently run aground in mid-1878 in the vicinity of Cape Horn. Once the accident was known, Governor Wood dispatched the corvette Magellan to rescue the crew, which brought back - in tow - the damaged barque. She was abandoned by her shipowners and was acquired by the Chilean government that transformed her into a coal pontoon for their warships. Renamed Yungay, she remained in service for more than twenty-five years." And no reference to any other Yungay, nor to anything being renamed Pontón No.5. Ah well, put on the back burner for now. Davidships (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in November 1878

Hi Mjroots. You introduced a cite error into this article. You used the refname NC221178a, but never defined it. Did you mean to modify NC081178a as you change the issue in the reference but not the refname? ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: thank for spotting that, it was a typo in the ref name. Mjroots (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Need to check my eyeballs, if I had spotted that I would have just corrected it. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Use of IMO

Hi Mj. Thx for your longstanding good work for WP. I'd like to discuss your edit. You removed information, stating that it was unnecessary. Isn't that a subjective viewpoint? In principle, isn't any data useful to an encyclopedia? The data in question is the IMO Number of the capsized ship, as you will know. So, this link allows a reader to see a photo of the vessel, and all about it, including its detailed journey and position at the time of the incident. Can you be sure that these details are of no use to any reader? Also, if the fatal accident leads to an article, the article-writer has a head start. Isn't this useful to such editors, and indeed many editors previously unfamiliar with the useful IMO template and what it can readily provide? Trafford09 (talk) 10:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Trafford09: - If you take a look at all the other shipwreck lists going back, you will see that IMO numbers are not mentioned. They are proper to individual ship articles. An editor wanting to research the vessel in question has the name, flag and year of launch already in the shipwreck list entry. Given it's a contemporary vessel, that should be more than sufficient info to enable a decent internet search to be made if an editor wants to write an article. Mjroots (talk) 11:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Maritime incidents

Hi Mjroots, I have been meaning to ask for some time now: what is the consensus on what qualifies as a maritime incident? War creates a lot of ambiguous events, such as being captured and burnt, vs. just being captured. And how badly does a vessel have to be leaking or damaged for it be worth adding to the pages? I have no dog in the fight, I just would like some rules of thumb. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: - The bar is a low one AFAIK. If an event merits an entry on a list of shipwrecks or a list of ships captured then categorise. Some other events may also be categorisable, on a case-by-case basis. Mjroots (talk) 06:46, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mjroots, thanks for getting back to me. Unfortunately I mangled my question. Issue is that when I write up a vessel, sometimes I will find an incident in the vessel's career that is not in the lists of shipwrecks. Sometimes this is due to the incident being mentioned in a book but not having reached Lloyd's List or other papers, but sometimes the incident is in the press, but not in the lists of shipwrecks. Vessels putting into port leaky can go either way; when do we put that into the lists of shipwrecks and when do we not? I have also seen some cases where vessels were captured and scuttled or burnt at sea but the incident did not make the lists, and other times when it did. Also, sometimes vessels were chased on shore and destroyed there. If the casualty is a result of military action, should it or should it not be in the lists of shipwrecks? Do we have a consensus? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: - re leaky vessels - I'd say that putting into port in a waterlogged or sinking condition is over the bar, merely springing a leak doesn't qualify. All other scenarios you mention qualify. Any vessel lost at sea should be entered in the relevant shipwreck list. Mjroots (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Ta. Will comply going forward. Acad Ronin (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

"French ship Saint Pierre" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect French ship Saint Pierre and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 7#French ship Saint Pierre until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Shipwrecks on 5 July 1829

Hi Mjroots, the two wrecks on 5 July 1829 (Cambria Castle and Carn Brea Castle), appear to be the same vessel. Hackman in his compendium of EIC and EIC-linked vessels gives the name as Carn Brea. Lloyd's Register has a Carn Brea but no Cambria Castle. I would combine the two, but am not sure how to do so while staying true to the sources. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin:  Done Mjroots (talk) 13:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I have just created and uploaded Carn Brea Castle (1824 ship), which I linked to the shipwrecks page. Acad Ronin (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: - don't forget to add {{1829 shipwrecks}} and to add the ship to the template. Mjroots (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Done. Acad Ronin (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Shipwrecks in 1810

Hi Mjroots, the description of the loss of Hope on 10 November is identical to the one on 17 November. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: - well spotted. I've removed the later entry. Mjroots (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Am currently working on a Hope that I thought had been lost in 1810. I was wrong, but in passing I spotted the possible duplicate. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Dromedario

Hi Mjroots, I was digging around for info on a privateer named Dromedario when I came across the following site: [21]. Any idea what this second wiki is? The article looks like an automated/low quality translation from the Spanish. I would be willing to do some cleanup, but don't want to waste my energy if it is not somehow related to WP and incorporatable there. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Acad Ronin: It's a Wikipedia mirror, some of the the text content was copied verbatim from our site back in November 2020, some was machine-translated from other language Wikipedias. Don't rely on it, see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/STU#second.wiki. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Redrose64, many thanks for the info. A lot of the article info seems correct, once one adjusts for machine translation. I will probably put a WP article on her on my list of things to do eventually. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Because it's a mirror, you cannot use it as a ref source since that would violate WP:CIRCULAR. You need to find a different source. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

HMS Guachapin (1801)

Hi Mjroots, Guachapin appears actually to have been Spanish, at least at the time of her capture; I believe that 3decks is incorrect (They are usually correct, but I believe not in this case.) Some time ago I tripped over the London Gazette notice of her capture by Sans Pareil, which makes it quit clear that at the time of her capture she was Spanish. The relevant info is under the section "Privateer". Her name is also Spanish, suggesting that she was launched under another name before becoming Spanish. I checked their website, but expect to revert, while adding in the Bayonne launch. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, we might need to tweak the List of ship launches in 1800 and move her to a "Name unknown" entry, depending on what you discover. Mjroots (talk) 06:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Orange Bay on shipwrecks articles

Are you able to disambiguate Orange Bay on List of shipwrecks in 1819 and List of shipwrecks in May 1871 please?— Rod ^talk 15:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rodw: - I've unlinked both. Mjroots (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks - I couldn't work out where they should go.— Rod ^talk 16:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

"Rate" on ship launches

On List of ship launches in 1794 and List of ship launches in 1798 there are wikilinks to rate but doesn't appear to be Third rate or Fifth rate etc. As they are not British I din't think they should link to Rating system of the Royal Navy so I wan't sure what to do with them - any ideas?— Rod ^talk 15:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rodw: - I've removed the stray links. Appreciate your thoughts re the RN system, but AFAIK Threedecks gives the equivalent rating. Mjroots (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Monarch

Hi Mjroots, the reported loss of Monarch on an unknown date in August 1829 looks highly similar to the loss reported of a Monarch on 24 October 1829. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Possibly the same vessel, but given the events are two months apart it is possible there were two vessels of that name lost on similar voyages. Will leave as is. Mjroots (talk) 06:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have misread the November newspaper reference. The report was date-lined 15 September, so "24th ult." was in August.Davidships (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin and Davidships: removed from Oct list, moved to 24 Aug. Mjroots (talk) 06:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I created a "shipping-related" page. Could you look it over?

I finished it, but it still needs some polish. Link to page: Arne Pettersen. Thank you for your time, Thebrakeman2 (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Thebrakeman2: - needs a little improvement with referencing. If you want to use the MT prefix (motor tanker), then use the ship template {{ship|MT|name|dab|6}} replacing "name" and "dab" with the relevant details. If no dab then just use {{ship|MT|name}}. This will ensure that the name is displayed correctly per [[MOS:SHIP}}. Mjroots (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mjroots: - Done. Anything else? Maybe with the talk page? Thebrakeman2 (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Thebrakeman2: - I've added a couple of WikiProjects to the TP. No need to ping me on my own talk page, BTW. Mjroots (talk) 08:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

So, what do I do with the page draft for it now? Like, is it deleted? Link to draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thebrakeman2/Draft/Arne_Pettersen Thebrakeman2 (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Thebrakeman2: See WP:G7. Tag it with one of the templates there. Mjroots (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Which one would be best? They all look the same to me. Thebrakeman2 (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Thebrakeman2: any of them, the are in effect all the same. Mjroots (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I added one of the templates. Thank you for the advice. Thebrakeman2 (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Calcutta lost in 1794

Hi Mjroots: we have two listed next to each other. I believe, but cannot prove, that they are the same vessel. There is no Calcutta in the 1793 and 1794 volumes of Lloyd's Register, which suggests that they are both US vessels. A route NY→Savannah→Bahamas (Allwood Keys)→Havana seems entirely reasonable. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

John Wesley

Hi Mjroots, we have her being wrecked on 28 March 1854 and 30 Marvh 1854. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: consolidated to 28 March. 06:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Vorpostenboot topic reorganization

Hello Mj, I wanted to run something by you if you don't mind. I think that articles surrounding the Vorpostenboot topic are rather poorly organized. The List of Vorpostenboote in World War II‎ article is long and clunky, but I think the information value is still high. I would like to move around and restructure some of the articles to make it easier to navigate and find relevant information. Here is an outline of what I'd like to do, please let me know your thoughts:

• Move List of Vorpostenboote in World War II‎ to Vorpostenflotille. This article would describe what a Vorpostenflotille is and list all of the different flotillas with a brief description and history of each. They could each have just a list of the ships, without any further information.
• Create articles for each of the flotillas (1 Vorpostenflotille, 2 Vorpostenflotille, etc.). These would discuss the individual flotilla histories in more detail. They would also include information moved from List of Vorpostenboote in World War II‎; specifically, the tables with details on the ships in the flotilla.

For a list of all the Vorpostenboot, there is the navbox I made which has all of them. I feel an article going into all their details is both redundant, and overly complex and niche. I think all the flotillas are notable in their own right, even if just as faux-list articles. I think this new organization would make the topic more approachable and better organized, while allowing for greater nuance in the information presented. Again, your input and suggestions on this idea would really be appreciated. Fritzmann (message me) 12:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fritzmann2002: - The Kaiserliche Marine also used vorpostenboote in WWI, so a move of the WWII list is not optimal. The individual Vorpostenflotille are probably notable enough to sustain articles, but check WP:MILUNIT. As for the individual ships, almost all of them are going to be notable enough to sustain stand-alone articles. Mjroots (talk) 12:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Good point. Perhaps Vorpostenflotille in World War II or something similar would be more appropriate? My concern is that the list in its current form is just really clumsy to work with, so I'm not married to a particular solution or path forward. Fritzmann (message me) 12:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fritzmann2002:, losing the "list of" would work. No objection here. Mjroots (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1921

Hello Mj. About a decade ago you added SS Megali Hellas to the List of shipwrecks in 1921, with an appropriate redlink. I have just created SS Byron (1914), which was called Megali Hellas from 1921 until 1924. However, I am not sure whether this is the same ship, as your entry on "List of shipwrecks in 1921" describes her as a cargo ship. The Megali Hellas I have written about was, in effect, the flagship of the Greek transatlantic passenger fleet. On the other hand, she is the only Megali Hellas in Lloyd's Register for 1922, and I cannot find a copy of the 1921 edition online.

The source you cited is The Times. Please will you check your source to see whether the two articles refer to the same ship? Thankyou. Motacilla (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@Motacilla: - it was the ocean liner. I've corrected the entry and added an additional ref which makes this clear. You can add the incident to the ship's article if you wish, along with the relevant shipwrecks navbox and category. Nice article; one observation - it's missing the navbox and categories for the 1926 fire. Mjroots (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Thankyou Mj! I will add it to the SS Byron (1914) article. Thankyou for the reminder about categories. But what is the navbox that it should have? Motacilla (talk) 06:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Motacilla: {{1921 shipwrecks}} and {{1926 shipwrecks}}. Entries in the "other incidents" section. Mjroots (talk) 06:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in November 1880: Nationality

Lately I have been looking at a number of wreck pages, particularly where there are large numbers of entries with unknown date as, in practice, use of a wider range of contemporary reports often fills those gaps, as well as revealing some duplications and misidentifications where newspapers make or copy mistakes. Happenchance brought me to November 1880 but revealed a new problem: the mis-attribution of British nationality. I did think it odd that the nationality was known for almost all of the entries, but it seems that GBR has been entered as a kind of default-nationality where the sources are silent. So far I have come across four examples, though I have not even completed the "A" ships: ALF (unknown date, added here), ALWARD (unknown date, turned out to be a duplicate, added here, ALBERT (unknown, now 2 Nov, added here, and now ANNA (8 November, added here). Frankly, I just don't know what to say - except to ask whether there is an explanation that I may have overlooked. Davidships (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Generally, British newspapers would say if a ship was a foreigner. Sometimes one would and one wouldn't, so when discovered a correction is made. Remember, at that time, the UK had the largest merchant shipping fleet and navy in the world. Am happy for and errors I make in good faith to be corrected. I'm currently working on 1881 from The Times. Haven't decided yet whether to complete the rest of the 1880s from that paper or complete 1881 from local newspapers. Mjroots (talk) 05:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

That's a dreadful combination of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and completely fails the fundamental of WP:VER. On that basis, there must be hundreds, in not thousands, of wrongly described ships throughout the shipwreck pages. These are not errors made in good faith, but deliberate fabrications. It is only a moment for you to make such an entry, but much much longer for a subsequent editor, firstly to check the reference given, and then to review a range of other sources for more complete information.

Just what is wrong with "not known"? That is exactly the kind of trigger that encourages other editors improve the content. I am sorry to be blunt but, regardless of what is already done, I urge you to stop this practice. Davidships (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I am disappointed to see that you have decided to continue to add made-up information in shipwreck lists, at least from time to time. A couple of recent examples: here, here (Trafik). As I said above, it takes much longer to check, research, edit these kinds of errors that it does to get them right in the first place. Davidships (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Trinity House lightvessels

"Varne Lightvessel" is not the name of a ship, it is the name of a "light vessel station", effectively a floating lighthouse in a specific geographical position. The individual lightvessel that is on that station at any particular time will have a name - I am not sure how Trinity House lightvessels were denominated in 1880, but in modern times they are usually LV or Light Vessel followed by a number. For example, in recent decades occupants of the Varne station have included LV 21, LV 19 and, more recently, LV 6, which was previously on the Sandettie station. Davidships (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but whatever LV was on station, it would have been flying the TH ensign, not the UK civil flag. If there is a specific LV known to be on station at the time, it can be piped, otherwise a generic link will suffice, such as that for the Sevenstones Lightship. Mjroots (talk) 03:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Which flag is not in question, and if you really want to have one for a lightvessel station I am not that bothered. But my main point was that it should not be in a ship template, firstly because because Varne is not the name of the ship (and that is not how articles on lightvesel stations are supposed to be written), and secondly because the redlink denies the reader any idea of where the casualty took place - hence the helpful link you reverted, Varne Lightship, exactly like your Sevenstones example.

By the way, I noticed that in some otherwise useful cleaning up, you have been deleting valid and pertinent info initiated by other editors. Is there established guidance or a rule on what should or should't be in the wreck descriptions? Davidships (talk) 12:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

It would seem that we could possibly create redirects for lightships to their areas where articles exist on those, such as the Varne example. Whether the correct name of the vessel should be Varne, the Varne Lightship or the Varne Lightship is something we can sort at WP level. I'm not minded to object to the disambiguated style should there be consensus.

Valid and pertinent info, or unneeded trivia (tonnage, homeport, cargo). I'm trying to maintian a consistent approach across the lists. Vessel, reason for loss, casualties, voyage, or as much as that as can be discovered. I'm also trying to keep the language encyclopedic, so steamship, not steamer. Mjroots (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Created Varne Lightvessel, following Sandettie Lightvessel, Greenwich Lightvessel, Channel Lightvessel and Lightvessel stations of Great Britain (and will move Sevenstones Lightship to match). It's a redirect at present as, although I've added a little to Varne Bank, there are still only a couple of lines; I've edited article links accordingly, but have left any italicisation alone for the moment. Davidships (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Query

Hi Mjroots, I am trying to pin down some info re the EIC's William Pitts. We had William Pitt (1803 ship) being wrecked at Algoa Bay on both 16 Dec 1813, and 16 Dec 1814. I removed the unrefed 16 Dec 1814 listing, only to discover a number of reliable sources (including some EIC sources), that put the year as 1814. If the Caledonian Mercury article is correctly dated, then the 1813 year is correct and the other sources are incorrect. I don't have access to the Caledonian Mercury and would appreciate your verifying the 1813 citation. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: Caldeonian Mercury, 28 March 1814. - The following is an extract of a letter, dated Cape of Good Hope, Jan 28. "The William Pitt, extra ship, foundered of the Cape, with all her crew, 16th December; another ship, name unknown, it is supposed, shared the same fate." Mjroots (talk) 05:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

WooHoo. Perfect. Many thanks. I also found a Lloyd's List mention. The EIC records are wrong. In the grand scheme of things it is a minor thing, but I still get a kick out of setting the historical record straight. Acad Ronin (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Good afternoon Acad Ronin and Mjroots. Excuse me joining in. There was further, more specific, news published a little later, including a report to his superior by Capt Hornby of HMS Stag (1812) which set out from Algoa Bay in search of William Pitt (quoted in The Sun of 7 May 1814); and there was a later, shorter and slightly different letter by an un-named officer on HMS Stag "to a friend in London" (The Times of 19 May, p3). They differ on the dating: the captain's report says, as informed by Capt Evatt, Army commander at Algoa Bay, that they saw a large ship passing Algoa Bay westward on 16 December, gunfire was heard off St Francis Bay (alias Camptors Bay) in the darkness a little before midnight on 17 Dec, and identifiable wreckage was found in that area thereafter. The second report, while adding some later wreckage details, moves those two dates forward to 17 and 18 December respectively. I will email the cuttings to Acad for consideration. Davidships (talk) 13:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Davidships, how does the info move the date forward? The Caledonian Mercury and The Sun both have the date as 16 December. Mjroots (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The Caledonian Mercury on 28 Mar, quoting an unattributed letter of 28 Jan, claims the 16th. The same paper on 2 Apr quotes another anonymous Cape of Good Hope letter of 28 Jan: "The William Pitt, extra ship, foundered off here on or about 16th ult. with all the crew; it is feared that another ship shared the same fate." (nb CofGH is 300 miles away from where the wreckage came ashore.)

The Sun (which on 29 Mar had expressed some incredulity over the loss reports appearing the previous day) on 7 May published the official report by Capt Hornby of HMS Stag (he had been sent to Algoa Bay to investigate the loss). He reported that a large ship was seen passing Algoa Bay on 16 Dec and "on the Friday night (17th), about 11 o'clock, five signal guns were heard, as if fired in distress, in St. Francis (or Camptors) Bay... and much wreck was thrown up over the whole of the Bay", including items attibutable to William Pitt. Supposed date of loss moved forward from 16th to 17th.

The Times on 19 May published the unattributed letter from an HMS Stag officer, stating that the ship passed Algoa Bay on 17 Dec and "in the night of the 18th five guns were heard in the Bay of St. Francis..." Supposed date of loss moved forward from 17th to 18th.

On the face of it Capt Hornsby's report seems the most credible; but there are greater or lesser doubts about all of the reports. Davidships (talk) 01:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

We have two choices here, either move the entry to 17 December, as the most likely date; or move to Unknown date in December and state "between 16 an 18 December". In either case, additional refs will be needed. Can I leave it to you to do the honours, Davidship? Mjroots (talk) 05:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Nassau (1819 ship)

Hi Mjroots, In the Shipwreck lists we have her listed at 9 June 1825, but also at 31 August 1825. She was reported missing in December 1825 as she had wrecked on 31 August and her crew was not found until December. Should there be cross-references between the two dates in the list? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the June entry and added a wikilink to the August entry. Mjroots (talk) 05:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Duke of Portland

Hi Mjroots: We have her being destroyed by fire on 22 November 1857, and again on an unknown date in March 1858. I suspect that the first date is correct and that these are the same vessel. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin:, entries combined. Thanks for the catch. Mjroots (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Sir George Osborne

Hi Mjroots, I have found a reference (Lloyd's List 22 September 1829), that says she was wrecked in the Seychelles on 24 April 1829. Unfortunately, the one newspaper archive I have access to does not include LL past 1826, and there is no other mention of the loss in any other paper the archive follows. Do you by any chance have anything. Thanks, and regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 09:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: - nothing showing in local newspapers, sorry. Mjroots (talk) 10:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. Why can't all vessels be lost in the Channel, preferably on the coast with onlookers? I have found another reliable source so I will add her in eventually. Acad Ronin (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Why can't everything have been recorded about everything by reliable sources in the past? Would make our lives a lot easier. Mjroots (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Turns out, sometimes you don't get what you want, but you do get just enough of what you need. Sir George Osborne is up, and I have added the loss to the April 1829 shipwrecks page. Thanks again for looking. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

HMS Triumvirate

Hi Mjroots, we have an HMS Triumvirate being lost at Honduras on 2 September 1787. There is a lot wrong with this entry. First, the reference is now a dead link. More critically, I can find no trace of any Triumvirate serving the Royal Navy (I have checked Colledge, Winfield, Hepper, and the NMM database). Lloyd's List #1944 for 25 Dec 1787 does have a gale destroying a number of vessels there on that date, but it specifically lists Triumvirate, Brown, master, as sailing on 6 October for London. Lloyd's List reports that Triumvirate, Brown, master, did sink at St Georges Quay, Honduras in 1789, and we have that in the shipwrecks list. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: - if the entry is clearly in error, please delete it. Mjroots (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Icebreakers of West Germany

A tag has been placed on Category:Icebreakers of West Germany indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Maiden voyage sinkings

Template:Maiden voyage sinkings has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 12:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Liberty ships Z

Template:Liberty ships Z has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Liberty ships W

Template:Liberty ships W has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Liberty ships V

Template:Liberty ships V has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Liberty ships U

Template:Liberty ships U has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Liberty ships T

Template:Liberty ships T has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Liberty ships S

Template:Liberty ships S has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Liberty ships R

Template:Liberty ships R has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Liberty ships P

Template:Liberty ships P has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Liberty ships O

Template:Liberty ships O has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Liberty ships N

Template:Liberty ships N has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Liberty ships M

Template:Liberty ships M has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Liberty ships L

Template:Liberty ships L has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Liberty ships K

Template:Liberty ships K has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Liberty ships J

Template:Liberty ships J has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Liberty ships I

Template:Liberty ships I has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Liberty ships H

Template:Liberty ships H has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Liberty ships G

Template:Liberty ships G has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Liberty ships F

Template:Liberty ships F has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Liberty ships D

Template:Liberty ships D has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Liberty ships E

Template:Liberty ships E has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Liberty ships C

Template:Liberty ships C has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Liberty ships B

Template:Liberty ships B has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Liberty ships A

Template:Liberty ships A has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Liberty ships index

Template:Liberty ships index has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Liberty ship templates

A tag has been placed on Category:Liberty ship templates indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of MY Titanic for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article MY Titanic is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MY Titanic until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Ironmatic1 (talk) 00:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

MoWT ships - templates

I wonder if I am missing something, but is there a reason why the Empire ships templates are entitled "Department of War Transport", a body which, so far as I know, never existed? Davidships (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Davidships: No idea, but I've made the necessary adjustments to correct the category. Might take a little while for the software to catch up. Mjroots (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw that you were not the creator of those templates; but I didn't want to do any damage inadvertently. Davidships (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Olenegorsky Gornyak

There is no confirmation yet that Olenegorsky Gornyak is a shipwreck either sunk or stranded on the shore. --Wisdood (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Wisdood: I never claimed either of those things, per the quoted reliable source, the ship was attacked and severely damaged. A vessel need not be a hull loss for an entry in a list of shipwrecks. Mjroots (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

The ship looks damaged and moored in the harbour, not wrecked, on that satelite imagery : https://twitter.com/ceobs_org/status/1687464602831814657 Wisdood (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Saukko for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Saukko is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saukko until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Llammakey (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation of cutter in Template:Sclass

On List of ship launches in 1828 & List of ship launches in 1829 I was trying to disambiguate cutter to Cutter (boat) but find these are within Template:Sclass and I can't work out how to do this - any help appreciated.— Rod ^talk 13:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Rodw: Couldn't work it out either, reverted to manual formatting. Mjroots (talk) 13:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Brazilian naval ensign

I think that is intended that the flagicon for naval ships in shipwreck lists should be the naval ensign using the "navy" flag template, rather than the navy's flag, which uses the "naval" flag template. If that is correct, the flag showing for Brazilian Navy ships is the wrong one (and has been since 2018!) - example at List of shipwrecks in 2000#December. I have raised it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Brazil. Davidships (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Messina

Hey Mjroots, I noticed you added a link to a frigate Messina supposedly launched at Castellammare in 1862 here; I know of no other such vessel that was launched at that time. There was a Messina originally ordered as a screw frigate in 1861, which was indeed built at Castellammare, but Conway's gives her launch date as 20 December 1864 (and the Marina Militare site gives her launch simply in 1864 - and they list no other frigates named Messina). I would think the Italian Navy's records are correct, so I'm curious as to what the newspaper said. Parsecboy (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: - "... At Castellamare, near Naples, are on the stocks, are a paddlewheel steamer, The Gaeta and the Messina, and a frigate of the second class. The Gaeta and the Etna will be launched before the end of May, and the Messina in July. ... Mjroots (talk) 14:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

That was my hunch - that it was an upcoming event, not a record of the launch itself. I'd wager that July 1862 was the planned launch before the ship was selected for conversion to an ironclad.

To add to the mystery, Conway's lists a screw frigate named Gaeta that was under construction as of 1860, but no launch date or place of construction. The Marina Militare lists the screw frigate of that name as having been built in Castellammare, but launched on 31 August 1863. Parsecboy (talk) 14:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: feel free to add/amend as necessary. Mjroots (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Empire Z ships

Template:Empire Z ships has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Empire Y ships

Template:Empire Y ships has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Empire W ships

Template:Empire W ships has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Empire V ships

Template:Empire V ships has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Empire U ships

Template:Empire U ships has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Empire T ships

Template:Empire T ships has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Empire S ships

Template:Empire S ships has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Empire R ships

Template:Empire R ships has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Empire P ships

Template:Empire P ships has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Empire O ships

Template:Empire O ships has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Empire N ships

Template:Empire N ships has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Empire M ships

Template:Empire M ships has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Empire L ships

Template:Empire L ships has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Empire K ships

Template:Empire K ships has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Empire J ships

Template:Empire J ships has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Empire I ships

Template:Empire I ships has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Empire H ships

Template:Empire H ships has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Empire G ships

Template:Empire G ships has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Empire F ships

Template:Empire F ships has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Empire E ships

Template:Empire E ships has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Empire D ships

Template:Empire D ships has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.