Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 37

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

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Categories nominated for deletion

This CfD may be of interest to the project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

HMS Beagle replica

The article on Darwin's vessel, HMS Beagle, contains a new section on construction of a replica of that famous ship. From the photographs uploaded already, construction seems to be well along. I have started a discussion on the talk page, Talk:HMS Beagle#Replica, on whether that new content should go into a separate article. Please feel free to discuss it there. Kablammo (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

RMS Nova Scotia (1926)

I have created the article RMS Nova Scotia (1926) but had difficulty finding a photo of the ship with a clear copyright waiver. Please will you help? I have copied a photo of the ship from a body of 5,141 Merchant Navy photographs called The Allen Collection, uploaded it to Wikimedia here and added it to the article. However, I am unsure about its copyright status. Please see that file's talk page to read what I have managed to find out about its copyright. I would be grateful for any help in interpreting whether The Allen Collection's statement on copyright can be interpreted as complying with one of the various categories of copyright waivers that Wikimedia accepts. Motacilla (talk) 08:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Do we have an established fair-use rationale or template for historical ships? I am surprised I can't find such on a quick search. Dankarl (talk) 15:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

RMS Nova Scotia should be created to redirect to it. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually it should be moved to RMS Nova Scotia, as (it seems) there aren't any others to be disambiguated from? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The disambiguation page Nova Scotia (disambiguation) has another one that's been commented out (probably because it's not a shipindex, and therefore doesn't support redlinks) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 11:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

There was an RMS Nova Scotia (1947) and an MV (or possibly RMS) Nova Scotia (1964). They will need disambiguation. Motacilla (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I have a shipindex hibernating at AFC, to solve the redlink problem. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nova Scotia (ship) ‎ (waiting for approval) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to Andrew Gray, it's now gone live at Nova Scotia (ship) (well, it won't solve the problem of what to do with RMS Nova Scotia, unless someone wants to redirect it to Nova Scotia (ship) or RMS Nova Scotia (1926)). -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

This is all very interesting but it doesn't solve the problem of ensuring RMS Nova Scotia (1926) has a good photo that doesn't get deleted! I've done what I can; please can anyone help? Motacilla (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Use of shipindex template on disambiguation pages

Please see question I raised at Template talk:Shipindex#Use of template on disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 15:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought we weren't allowed to combine disambiguation pages with set indexes. People keep deleting set indices from disambiguation pages, citing dab guidelines. (or converts set index to dab page, with template change, and then deletes the entries) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Any experienced editors want to have a go at assessment?

Our stalwart editor and mainstay Brad101 appears to be taking a well-earned Wikibreak. Any experienced editors out there who'd like to have a go at assessing articles? Djembayz (talk) 23:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:British Shipbuilders evolution

Template:British Shipbuilders evolution is a very helpful chart but it omits Burntisland Shipbuilding Company. I have no idea how to edit it and its creator 82.23.124.2 is anonymous. If one of you know hows to add Burntisland to this chart, please will you? Motacilla (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The original creator was User:Emoscopes who hasn't been around for a while. The anonymous editor merely added to/tinkered with it. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 14:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Helpful though it indeed is, it has a good number of errors. Most obviously, British Shipbuilders began in mid-1977, not mid-1976 (it may be that the whole time-scale is displaced by one year, but I have not checked). Even a quick glance, also

* Harland and Wolff was never part of British Shipbuilders (indeed, competition was sometimes bitter between them)

* There is no mention of Sunderland Shipbuilders Ltd (1973), which had already been nationalized in 1976 on the collapse of Court Line. SSL was not just the former Doxford yard, but also the Tees yard of Laing and Thompson. What's more - the continuation of the grey tint to the present implies they are still in shipbuilding, which they are not.

* The Sunderland part is made worse by supposing that the A&P-Appledore emerged from the 1987 privatization - probably because the editors of the A&P Group article hopelessly misunderstand that company's origins

* BAE Systems do not operate the former John Brown, Denny, Inglis, Simons-Lobnitz or Barclay Curle yards

* Omitted altogether are Cochrane Shipbuilders, Richards Shipbuilders (still in operation), and maybe others

* not sure why hovercraft companies are included.

This is only a cursory look as I am on holiday (with a far-from consistent internet connection), but can return to this later in the month. I do think that British shipbuilding articles as a whole need considerable collaborative work. Davidships (talk) 10:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

CV-22 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect CV-22. Since you had some involvement with the CV-22 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Khian Sea

There is Khian Sea waste disposal incident, largely concerning the ship of that name - and the major incident that certainly establishes her notability. Clearly a separate ship article would not be justified for this otherwise standard cargo ship. But perhaps a ship infobox should be added, and some paragraphs on the rest of her history? If so, should the article be just "Khian Sea" with a redirect from the current title - or vv? Davidships (talk) 01:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the ship is notable and needs its own article. I'd suggest moving the article to Khian Sea and adding information on the ship and its history. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I would oppose moving the article, and instead suggest a new article at Khian Sea to be about the ship, separate from the incident article. A summary of the incident can appear at the new ship article. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, that doesn't get us very far. I'm not attracted to stand-alone ship articles that contain nothing more that the contents of an infobox, and then a separate article for the only thing of any interest that happened to the ship. I'll leave this one for others.Davidships (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

RFC on bot run to identify "start date" as NRHP-listed "built date" in all articles having NRHP infoboxes

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Start date in NRHP articles, about running a bot to implement "start date" and "end date" microformatting into NRHP infoboxes. --do ncr am 01:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Gangways and gangplanks

While stub-sorting I came across Gangway (nautical) but was surprised that it didn't match my layman's interpretation of that title (which is nearer to http://www.marineinsight.com/sports-luxury/equipment/gangway-and-types-of-gangways-used-in-the-shipping-world/ ). Not sure what's best to be done with it - over to you. Perhaps there's nothing encyclopedic to be said about gangways in the 21st century sense (development from original plank, safety, high-tech, etc ... perhaps it's all at some different title and just needs a disambiguation hatnote or addition to the dab page at Gangway?) Gangplank redirects to Plank (wood), with no link from there to Walking the plank ... Glossary_of_nautical_terms#G lists both Gangplank and Gangway, the latter as "An opening in the bulwark of the ship to allow passengers to board or leave the ship." which is not what Gangway (nautical) is about ... and so on. PamD 14:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You might want to check out accommodation ladder. Probably a disambiguation or see also might be in order. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Creation of the Marine weather forecasting article

The major article expansion is likely done. More referencing and some structural edits are likely required. Come visit and see what you think. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

California Star

California Star (disambiguation) was split off to remove redlinks from the disambiguation page, to build California Star (ship) shiplist, though a more limited MV California Star ship index also existed. These both were subsequently remerged to the disambiguation page. The disambiguation page was subsequently purged of redlinks again. So, we now do not have a shiplist article, and the disambiguation page does not link the redlinked ships. Should we go about and rebuild the shiplist? -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 04:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems there were four MV California Star, so I recreated the ship index as California Star (ship) with a bit of tweaking up. If no SS, or other prefix, California Star exists, then perhaps it could move to MV California Star. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

If no SS or other prefix exists, we could also omit the prefix completely. I hate it when people saturate articles with MS, MV etc. and start fighting about which one is the right one. Tupsumato (talk) 09:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, Tupsumato (though have appended MV to the fifth one for consistency).Davidships (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

File:USS Mohican off Tonga.jpg

File:USS Mohican off Tonga.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 03:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Photo is easily found with a "Google" and is one listed here though precisely which is not clear from the descriptions. It appears on this page with the note: "U.S.S. Mohican from the hill behind Neiafu, Vavau, Tonga Islands From the George Handy Bates Samoan Papers Collection (with special thanks to the Special Collections Department, University of Delaware Library for their kind written permission to use this photo.)" and thus it must be item 62 in that collection. Now, whether a 100+ year photo even in the special collection can be copyright now is highly questionable. In any case, the copyright notice on the Wikipedia page is pretty much nonsense as there is no evidence this is a government photo—and by the way, just because a photo is taken by a "sailor" or "employee" on official duty does not make it "government" except when photography is a specified part of that duty. Palmeira (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Given that it's not used and there's a better photo in Commons, probably best to let this one be nuked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Stratford.jpg

File:Stratford.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

File:USS Worden.jpg

File:USS Worden.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

New, sourced image added, and moved to Commons. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Amorella class

I have nominated Template:Amorella class for deletion. Tupsumato (talk) 11:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Some other cruiseferry "class" templates are also on the go, see here. Tupsumato (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

and Bushranger has raised an important point. For commercial vessels there are rarely "official" designator of a class name (outside former Soviet bloc). The nearest will be the shipyard or designer (eg SD14, UT745, StanTug 2608), who tend not to use the ship name. Owners, with multiple orders, will sometimes name a class after the first one that they have (though occasionally they will choose a different designator) - though this can lead to sisterships with different owners having different class names. Third parties probably do indeed tend to do as Bushranger suggests (using the first name of the first ship), in the absence of a ship/designer class name and, though these have no particular official standing, they are certainly a convenience. Perhaps, for WP, the question is whether these class names are used by multiple RS.Davidships (talk) 09:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The cruiseferry classes I have nominated for deletion are only used in Wikipedia. We should not go around and "invent" ship classes just because ship classes are generally named after the first ship of a series. For example, Viking Line does not refer to Mariella as "Mariella-class cruiseferry". For the same reason I didn't touch {{Galaxy class}}. Tupsumato (talk) 10:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Good call. They fail the requirement for RS.Davidships (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Then change the navboxes so that instead of being headed 'Foo-class cruiseferries', they start '"Foo type" cruiseferries'. The fact that the ships in question are sister ships is verifiable through RS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I did not question the fact that they are sister ships. However, neither "class", "type" or "family" fulfill RS, so how to name the navbox? Also, often it's just two ships. Can't we just have the links to the sister ships within the article, in addition to navboxes like {{Viking Line ships}}?

Please note that I'm not against navboxes in general. I just don't like the way some people "classify" every possible ship, either by grouping it with (near) sister ships or introducing a large number of single-ship classes. If it's done outside Wikipedia, as is the case with many large cruise ships, it's okay, but as I've said before, we shouldn't make up ship classes here. Tupsumato (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your stance on over-classification of ships. Even if sources generally talk about ships individually, there is sometimes a tendency on enwiki to group them together and build a neat-looking structure of categories and navboxes &c. (This can even happen when a ship is very much one of a kind - and even then we sometimes get a separate article on the "class"). bobrayner (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I certainly agree that having class articles etc. on single-ship classes is getting into very silly territory and should be stopped at once. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Please help identify USS Wasp

See Talk:Casimir_Pulaski#Ship_on_which_Pulaski_died. It is likely the disambig USS Wasp is missing an entry. Help from American naval history experts needed. Please direct all comments to Pulaski's article for a centralized discussion. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.awiatsea.com/Privateers/W/Wasp%20South%20Carolina%20Brig%20%5BBulfinch%20Ferrer%5D.html -- seems like it -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

TAFI

WP:TAFI is now up and running. A chance to get some ship articles improved. If a ship article is C class or lower, it may be nominated for appearing on TAFI. Mjroots (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

File:ClarissaRadcliffe1904.jpg

File:ClarissaRadcliffe1904.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 02:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, the photo with same damage appears here, also without attribution or date, with quite different information than the Wiki page on which the photo is used. There are other similar photos at the City of Vancouver Archives with dates falling within copyrightable periods and under copyright. Looks as if copyright issues could be a problem. Palmeira (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Ship FACs

There are a lot more ship FACs up than usual, and all of them need reviews: Pennsylvania-class battleship, SMS Prinzregent Luitpold, Japanese battleship Yamashiro, USS Kearsarge (BB-5)‎, USS Saratoga (CV-3), and Zong massacre. - Dank (push to talk) 15:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

SS Shuntien

I have just created SS Shuntien (1934). However, I have been unable to include details of her furnaces, boilers and engines as http://www.plimsollshipdata.org seems to be down at the moment. I have tried from two computers in different places to check that the problem is not with my computer.

For the moment I have relied on less verifiable sources for Shuntien's dimensions and tonnage; for the most part the Shuntien II page of the WikiSwire website (http://www.wikiswire.com/wiki/Shuntien_II). WikiSwire does not cite its sources and does not maintain NPOV, so I have added a caveat to its citation. I hope to obtain and cite as much content as possible from plimsollshipdata once Port Cities Southampton (http://www.plimsoll.org/) has restored site access.

I am reluctant to use WikiSwire as a source for any further articles until I have evidence of its verifiability. In the meantime, several other Second World War merchant shipping articles that I intended to create may have to wait until plimsollshipdata is back online. In my experience this is not the first time the plimsollshipdata site has gone down. If any fellow-contributor can tell me an alternative online source of 1930–45 Lloyd's Registers I would be most grateful! Motacilla (talk) 10:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Have replaced some of the WikiSwire refs with other sources. Just noticed that Plimsoll seems to be back (though still with some blank pages), but have not taken that into account.Davidships (talk) 12:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Tugboat Morania.jpg

File:Tugboat Morania.jpg has been nominated for deletion under two different deletion processes -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 05:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

A source has been added by an ip but no evidence it is public domain; probably can't be justified under non-free images policy since it is not the subject of the article where it is used. Dankarl (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

P-class sloop

I am feeling my way into this residency. A curator blogged about HMS P23 and using that and some other sources I was able to input a good number of inline references and other changes into P-class_sloop. I wonder whether I have done enough that the "This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (February 2013)" may be removed and how would this be done?TWAMWIR (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the tag is still valid. See WP:IC for info on inline citations. Mjroots (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's an example of a large class article that you can use as a model if you wish: C and D-class destroyer. Every paragraph has at least one citation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I should also point out that bare URLs are a no-no. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Krasin ice.PNG

File:Krasin ice.PNG has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 02:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Excellent dramatic photograph of Soviet icebreaker Krasin by Dimitri Debadov, used in several articles. I added author and his dates but may not be public domain. Dankarl (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

"Cruiseship changes"

For those interested in monitoring changes to cruise ship articles, we have the useful tool in the toolbar. However, the list seems to be quite out of date, so perhaps someone could use one of those fancy bots or programs to compile an up-to-date list of articles and their talk pages and perhaps put them into a fancy format like "MS Oasis of the Seas (talk)" instead of listing the article and the talk page separately. Could it be done automatically e.g. every month?

Also, I propose expanding the scope of the tool from cruise ships to passenger ships in general and not just articles in Category:Cruise ships. Tupsumato (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Consider {{la2}}: {{la2|MS Oasis of the Seas}} → MS Oasis of the Seas (talk)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Wasn't aware of such template. Tupsumato (talk) 08:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Updated the list but maintained the scope as Category:Cruise ships and its subcategories. I think we got about 50% more articles. Tupsumato (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor is coming

The WP:VisualEditor is designed to let people edit without needing to learn wikitext syntax. The articles will look (nearly) the same in the new edit "window" as when you read them (aka WYSIWYG), and changes will show up as you type them, very much like writing a document in a modern word processor. The devs currently expect to deploy the VisualEditor as the new site-wide default editing system in early July 2013.

About 2,000 editors have tried out this early test version so far, and feedback overall has been positive. Right now, the VisualEditor is available only to registered users who opt-in, and it's a bit slow and limited in features. You can do all the basic things like writing or changing sentences, creating or changing section headings, and editing simple bulleted lists. It currently can't either add or remove templates (like fact tags), ref tags, images, categories, or tables (and it will not be turned on for new users until common reference styles and citation templates are supported). These more complex features are being worked on, and the code will be updated as things are worked out. Also, right now you can only use it for articles and user pages. When it's deployed in July, the old editor will still be available and, in fact, the old edit window will be the only option for talk pages (I believe that WP:Notifications (aka Echo) is ultimately supposed to deal with talk pages).

The developers are asking editors like you to join the alpha testing for the VisualEditor. Please go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and tick the box at the end of the page, where it says "Enable VisualEditor (only in the main namespace and the User namespace)". Save the preferences, and then try fixing a few typos or copyediting a few articles by using the new "Edit" tab instead of the section [Edit] buttons or the old editing window (which will still be present and still work for you, but which will be renamed "Edit source"). Fix a typo or make some changes, and then click the 'save and review' button (at the top of the page). See what works and what doesn't. We really need people who will try this out on 10 or 15 pages and then leave a note Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback about their experiences, especially if something mission-critical isn't working and doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar.

Also, if any of you are involved in template maintenance or documentation about how to edit pages, the VisualEditor will require some extra attention. The devs want to incorporate things like citation templates directly into the editor, which means that they need to know what information goes in which fields. Obviously, the screenshots and instructions for basic editing will need to be completely updated. The old edit window is not going away, so help pages will likely need to cover both the old and the new.

If you have questions and can't find a better place to ask them, then please feel free to leave a message on my user talk page, and perhaps together we'll be able to figure it out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I hope this isn't as horrid as the thing that Wikia uses. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

(This message has been cross-posted on quite a large number of pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC))

Correction: Talk pages are being replaced by mw:Flow, not by Notifications/Echo. This may happen even sooner than the VisualEditor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

French corvette Prony

There is a notice about French corvette Prony at WT:MILHIST -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 03:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

template:sclass and disambiguated ship classes

There doesn't seem to be a way to link to disambiguated ship classes using sclass, or am I missing something? "XYZ-class shiptype (1901)" or "Ufonian XYZ-class shiptype" or "Ufonian XYZ-class shiptype (1832)" won't link. This needs something like {{sclass|XYZ|shiptype|?| |1832}} or {{sclass|XYZ|shiptype|?| |1832|Ufonian}} or {{sclass|XYZ|shiptype|?| | |Ufonian}} or something -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a real-life example?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

How about any of these three? Parsecboy (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Right now, the {{sclass}} family of templates only disambiguate ship type:

{{sclass | class name | ship type | format | ship-type disambiguation }}

I think that to disambiguate classes like the Königsberg-class cruisers, something like this perhaps:

{{sclass | class name | ship type | format | ship-type disambiguation | class-name disambiguation}} which would be written:

{{Sclass|Königsberg|cruiser|0||1905}} → Königsberg-class cruiser (1905)

{{Sclass|Königsberg|cruiser|1||1905}} → Königsberg-class

{{Sclass|Königsberg|cruiser|2||1905}} → Königsberg-class cruiser (1905)

{{Sclass|Königsberg|cruiser|3||1905}} → Königsberg-class cruiser (1905)

{{Sclass|Königsberg|cruiser|4||1905}} → Königsberg class (1905)

{{Sclass|Königsberg|cruiser|5||1905}} → Königsberg (1905)

These mock-ups attempt to interpret how such {{sclass}} templates might function for all of the currently valid format parameters. Would these be workable? Is there sufficient need or desire for someone, me perhaps (though if it is me, it won't be soon because my life is about to get busier), to take the time to make the {{sclass}} family do this type of disambiguation?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

There's vary rarely any need to have the disambiguator visible; the template just needs to link to the proper class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

If that's the case then these {{sclass-/sandbox}} templates appear to do the trick ({{sclass/sandbox}}, {{sclass2/sandbox}}, {{sclass2-/sandbox}} are also modified):

Königsberg-class

Königsberg-class cruiser

Königsberg class

Königsberg

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks good by me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Editor Saberwyn just noticed that something was amiss with {{sclass}} and then it wasn't. That was me. I have made the live versions of {{sclass-}} and {{sclass2-}} capable of class-name disambiguation as described above. That revealed a flaw in the code that the test cases didn't catch. It had to do with how the parser function #if: handles parameters that may or may not be passed to the template (mw:Help:Parser functions in templates explains that).

So, I think that's fixed and everything should be more-or-less normal. {{sclass}} and {{sclass2}} should be working as they were and do not support class-name disambiguation – that will require an admin. {{sclass-}} and {{sclass2-}} do support class-name disambiguation.

Are there any ship classes that use both ship-type disambiguation and class-name disambiguation? Does anyone know of a group of classes, like the Königsberg classes, where the class name isn't italicized? The documentation for {{sclass2-}} could use such a class to use as an example.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

There's D class cruiser (Germany), and probably some of the British destroyer and submarine classes are the same, since a lot of them got single letter names. Parsecboy (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Good, thanks. Didn't use that one but it led me to Tribal-class destroyer. Still looking for a ship class that uses both ship-type disambiguation and class-name disambiguation.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

About the only ship types that need disambiguation are minesweeper and monitor and there are a lot more minesweeper classes than monitors. Look through the British minesweepers of WWI and WWII and you might find one that fits your criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and here's another set of oddballs: British Porpoise-class submarine and United States Porpoise-class submarine. Parsecboy (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Ding! Ding! Ding! {{Sclass2|Hunt|minesweeper|3|ship|1916}} → Hunt-class minesweeper

I just wanted to prove that, were it necessary, {{sclass/core}} would correctly handle both types of disambiguation simultaneously.

It would be so easy to accommodate the Porpoise classes if they used parenthetical disambiguation ... and then there are the A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, and I don't know how many other -class submarines most of which are styled <nation> <class name>-class <ship type>. I suppose we could make redirects. For example create a redirect at Porpoise-class submarine (British) which would then redirect to British Porpoise-class submarine so you could use {{Sclass2|Porpoise|submarine|||British}}.

Or just move the articles to a proper parenthetically disambiguated name and be done with it. I do however, have some little trace of a memory that says that there are reasons why this can't be or shouldn't be done. Surely someone out there know the answer to that.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that the converation I was remembering was this one in archive 35. There, Editor The Bushranger suggests moving USCG Polar-class icebreaker to Polar-class icebreaker (USCG). At the time I noted that the {{sclass}} family of templates wouldn't be able to accommodate that kind of disambiguation but that otherwise I liked the idea. No other objections were raised. I still like the idea and now, the {{sclass}} templates can accommodate the name change. Just as we overcame some amount of stiction and have finally got most class article names hyphenated, so too we can transition to a uniform disambiguation format.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The disambiguation by nationality bit is mentioned in the naming conventions here - I can only guess that the reason we settled on that style was that it would fit better with the "nationality+ship type+name" format for individual ships. If we were to change the disambiguation style for the Porpoises, it would be better to use the noun form of the country (so Great Britain rather than British, etc.). Parsecboy (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

There's also K-class submarine illustrating both parenthetical and adjectival disambiguation. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

In that list, which I've since edited for hyphenation and consistency, was K class submarine (Soviet), a redirect to Soviet K-class submarine. That link illustrates my earlier suggestion for how we might use this new class-name disambiguation feature. That list also suggests a case where {{sclass}} should display the parenthetical disambiguator, though it might not be worth the effort. It's probably easier to type [[K-class submarine (Soviet)]] when complete article title links are needed than to type {{Sclass|K|submarine|7||Soviet}} (assumes that format code 7 produces a link like this K-class submarine (Soviet) but format code 1 could also be used).

I seem to have neglected to mention it here. The parenthetical class-name disambiguation feature is live and available in {{sclass-}} and {{sclass2-}}. Because {{sclass}} and {{sclass2}} are fully protected, I can't synchronize them with their sandboxes. An edit request for those two is pending at Template talk:sclass#Edit request #3.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it done that way because the ship articles use adjetival nation forms? ("French ship XYZ", instead of "XYZ (France)" ) -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 01:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I've only glanced through the discussions in the first archive of WT:NC-SHIPS. I didn't see any glaringly obvious reasons for adjectival disambiguation.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Tiger V.jpg

File:Tiger V.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 07:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Yasen Class.jpg

image:Yasen Class.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Showboat Branson Belle

I just created a commons category for Showboat Branson Belle. I added it in external links. I uploaded a bunch of nice images of her. I can crop the lake one down to just the ship for better use in the article. The stage curtain may be copyvio but I will check at commons. If not it may be the best for the infobox?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Style question: articles and ship names

Hey everyone, not a big history or naval guy but when working on Star Trek articles, the matter of using articles before ship names comes up and I figured I'd check with you guys on a point of style; namely whether "the" is necessary before the name. The rule of thumb I learned during my time interning at National Museum of the United States Navy (though that was a long time ago, which is partly why I'm checking) is that you only used (or needed to use) articles when referring to a ship class, etc., so "the Constitution-class USS Enterprise." Otherwise, the ship's name was treated like, well, any proper noun and didn't need it--you wouldn't say "the David", so "Enterprise attacks Reliant." Am I correct in my supposition? I looked a a random sampling of ship articles in this project's naming guidelines and saw it used somewhat inconsistently. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's correct. Ship names are treated as any other proper name—well, most proper names ;) The reason there's confusion is in part because "the" makes sense with American ships (since it would be "the United States' Ship XXXX"), but it doesn't with others (such as "the His/Her Majesty's Ship XXXX). Parsecboy (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I commented on a similar query at Talk:Sinking of the RMS Titanic#Wording propriety. It's also been at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 32#"The" before a ship's name. I'll copy what I wrote there as there are many reference works that do place 'the' before ships' names, preceded by a prefix or not:

The instances where 'the' is generally not used is only when the full usage would create a grammatical inconsistency. For example, 'the HMS Victory' would read as 'the Her Majesty's Ship Victory'. But 'the United States Ship' and hence 'the USS' and other examples are fine. As, in this instance, is 'Sinking of the RMS Titanic'. To further clarify, the use of the definite article usually depends on simple grammatical rules. When the ship is the subject, it might be left out, when it is the object it is usually included. In one of the examples I used in the above discussion; Brian Lavery's Churchill Goes to War, he has "Renown had settled into a routine..." and "The Renown's idyll ended..." In the first instance the subject is the battlecruiser Renown and the definite article is not used. In the second, the subject is the idyll that the ship is experiencing, and the definite article is used. Similarly in Jan Morris's Fisher's Face, which has on the same page "...in the Warrior he introduced the order 'still'" and "Donegal was his first ship..." The first it is Fisher who is the subject, and the ship Warrior as the object is given the definite article, in the second the ship Donegal is the subject and doesn't use the definite article. In the case of this article title, the grammatical subject is the 'sinking'. The RMS Titanic is the object, and is correctly referred to with 'the'.

So while I don't think there is anything hard and fast, you wouldn't be wrong to use 'the' before a ship's name. "Enterprise attacked the Reliant" for example. Or "During the battle, Kirk ordered the Enterprise to attack the Reliant". Benea (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks a lot. Never really thought about the RMS/USS difference factoring into it either, but I guess they stop meaning anything other than abbreviations to me :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't use "the" with ship names, as it just seems like an extra word that doesn't have to be there, but I do occasionally use it in front of prefixes. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I try to avoid using the definite article when writing about ships, but sometimes it feels suitable when I have some words between the article and the name of the ship. However, I never use it with prefixes — talking about "...the MS Oasis of the Seas..." just feels wrong when the prefix is not part of the ship's official name even if it's grammatically correct ("...the motor ship Oasis of the Seas...". But then again, I try to avoid prefixes in general in case of civilian ships. Tupsumato (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

SD18

I have just translated SD18 (ship type) from the German. Please check I have the terminology correct, add an infobox, and rate on the talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Did some copyediting. Tupsumato (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Surprised to find how wrong de:SD18 is on basic data, eg engines, derricks. Have corrected en only. Davidships (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll alert our German colleagues. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Discovery by Kenneth C Madsen.jpg

image:Discovery by Kenneth C Madsen.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Titles for ships with multiple names

Sorry if this has been addressed previously but as I am going through and editing the list of ocean liners I am noticing tons of article names that suggest that there is no rule on how to name an article for a ship that sailed under more than one name. The lack of consistency is striking and in some cases a bit difficult to justify. Such as when you have a ship that spent 20+ years as an ocean liner and a year or two as a naval transport or hospital ship, but the article is named after her military name.

If in fact there is no firm rule may I propose that the Wiki guidelines for article names be amended to specify that articles about ships with more than one name shall carry the name under which the ship was originally launched unless the original name was held only very briefly and or the ship is universally known by a later name (i.e. the RMS Majestic (1914) ex SS Bismark). Later names can be referred to the main article. - Ad Orientem (talk) 05:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The guidelines already state that 'An article about a ship that changed name or nationality should be placed at the best-known name, with a redirect from the other name'. This fits with WP:COMMONNAME. It may simply be that though the ship spent a longer amount of time as a passenger liner, that a briefer period under a military name/designation, is of greater historical note. I'd personally leave things as they are, and discuss issues with individual articles as and when they arise, rather than trying to mandate a particular approach. It can be very hard in some instances to determine just what the 'universally known' name is, or how short a time can be considered as 'very brief', etc. Benea (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

An example of this in action is the battlecruiser SMS Goeben, which spent far more time known as TCG Yavuz Sultan Selim, but the ship's few years of service during WWI as Goeben is far more noteworthy than the six decades of inactivity as Yavuz, and so the article as at the former rather than the latter. Parsecboy (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

There often is a problem with the naval or military name being given undue preeminence. The root of the problem with commercial ships of considerable note being subsumed by relatively obscure or brief naval service, whether commissioned or not, probably lies with the fact the Navy does public domain historical sketches in now readily available DANFS, A great many "articles" here are nothing more than reformatted DANFS text. Digging and finding substantial public domain information about such a ship is far more work. Commerce, aside from advertising and maintenance, did not tend to keep large files on ship "histories" in archives now readily available or even existing. We also have a few cases in the opposite direction, for example Lyndonia (1920). There obscure (though interestingly notable "to be added") Army and Navy history in the opening days of WW II was completely missing. Her predecessor suffers the opposite. USS Lyndonia (SP-734) had pretty obscure naval service but digging up her notable yacht days (there is a fair amount) involves digging in private archives and widely scattered news clippings, then weaving those into readable, cited text. My best take of the article name is similar to that of Benea. Judge which of the names was indeed most notable and use that name except in the relatively few cases where two linked articles might best serve cases in which two "lives" were of particular note. For example, books could (and have been) be written about the great liners such as the Queens in both commercial and WW II service. There has also been a persistent problem with tagging ships "USS" that have never served a day as a commissioned U.S. Naval Ship—the fundamental requirement for proper usage—and USAT for U.S. Army Transport, though that is much more understandable. There was no bright line of a commissioning involved as with the USN and even experts differ in some cases. Palmeira (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not a big problem, as long as redirects are created for all other names (with and without shipprefixes) so people can find the article in question. This may mean the need to create dab and shipindex pages to cater for different ship with the same name. Mjroots (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Citation templates (yet again)

Just to inform you, I have converted all mainspace transclusions of the following shipping-related database or registry citation templates to {{csr}} and nomitated the redundant templates for deletion:

Tupsumato (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Lake Iamonia Steamboat.jpg

File:Lake Iamonia Steamboat.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Florence 2008.jpg

File:Florence 2008.jpg has been nominated for deletion. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It is up for deletion because it has no metadata -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

MOS: Discussion regarding the use of "she" to refer to ships

There is a new Manual of Style talk page discussion that questions the practice of referring to commercial and naval vessels as "she" and "her" taking place here. One or more editors have proposed a change to the Manual of Style which would require the use of the gender-neutral pronoun "it" when referring to vessels. Please take the time to express your opinion on this matter. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

British Columbia category: steamships or steamboats

I noticed the Category:Steamships of Canada category tonight, and that the only three subcats were about BC, so created Category:Steamboats of British Columbia....but now after adding a few, I noted Category:Paddle steamers of British Columbia and some others...and am wondering if there's a wiki-distinction between "steamship" and "steamship" that's at play....don't want to spend more time on this until I know if I've even created the right category, and likewise don't want to create Arrow Lakes, Upper Fraser or Skeena categories until I know.....Lower Fraser and other particular articles are in teh works, I've been "busy" on some CfDs that have wasted a lot of my valuable time........and should it be a subcat of Category:Steamboats of the Pacific Northwest and another I saw on the most recent addition, sorry can't remember it just now......and re Category:Union Steamship Company of BC I'm gonna speedy that to "British Columbia"..."BC" is more widely used for Boston College, at least in the eastern US, and Baja California in the US Southwest....BCers (like me) have a habit of using the abbreviated name as if everyone knows it....Skookum1 (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

These categories puzzle me, too, but it's worth noting that paddlesteamers includes ocean-going vessels as well as steamboats, and steamboats includes screw-propelled as well as paddlewheel vessels. I don't know where we are supposed to put vessels with paddlewheels and internal combustion engines. Dankarl (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Well. "steamboat" should function as the general container category, I think, since for the general population, ships are a type of boat. (or perhaps, steam vessel?) -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

To me, "steamboats" are smaller and only inland (not seagoing). Conversely for "steamships". To cover both, suggest "steamers"? But perhaps general Canadian usage should prevail.Davidships (talk) 07:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

NoCGV Ålesund deletion discussion

NoCGV Ålesund is up for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NoCGV Ålesund. EricSerge (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Ship names containing the definite article

A little while ago the La Melpoméne-class torpedo boat article was moved, to "Melpoméne-class..." (ie. without the definite article), and names of a dozen or so ships listed on that page [1] and a couple of others ([2], [3]) were edited to remove the definite article from them. The same process also occurred a while ago with several other French ship class pages ([4], [5], [6]).
I’ve raised this with the editor concerned (there’s a lengthy discussion, here, about it) but I am bringing the matter up here now for comments. The reason given for these actions is that having the article in these names is a mis-reading of the French by English-speaking authors, and the lack of the article in names is supported by French sources (or one, at least [7]). The opposite view is that all of the sources for these articles (both here and on the French WP) use definite articles in the names for these particular ships.
So, what does anyone else think? Does anybody know the truth of it? And what should we be doing in these cases? Xyl 54 (talk) 10:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
PS: I've informed the other editor, Rama, of this (here) and inited him/her to comment. Xyl 54 (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, neither Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1860-1905 nor the 1906-1921 edition appear to use the definite article in ship names - on the other hand, the 1922-1946 edition does use it. Parsecboy (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That is pretty much the issue; sources like Conway's 1922-46, Jane’s (AFAICT) Whitley (for destroyers) Bagnasco (for submarines) list these ships with the definite article. It is only a selection of ships (8/12 of La Melpoméne's, 6/12 Le Hardi’s, 6/14 L’Adroit’s, 6/6 Le Fantasque, but none of the Mogador’s, Vauquelin’s or any other destroyers; 6/31 of the Redoutable’s, 2/6 Argonaute's, 2/6 Diane’s, 7/8 Aurore’s, but none of the other submarines, etc) But all the sources list the same vessels with the definite article. The inconsistency (if that's what it is) is consistent. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, my point was that you frequently see French ironclad Gloire as La Gloire, but the editors of the 1860-1905 edition chose to omit the definite article. I think the question is broader than these classes of destroyers specifically and should consider the usage across French warships generally. To follow one set of rules for certain ships and another for others is inconsistent, and while we do have a responsibility to follow conventions, that doesn't mean we should knowingly repeat false information (i.e., that the ship had La Malin painted on the side if it actually just had Malin).

By way of extension, most sources on the German cruiser Deutschland were written in the 1980s or earlier, so they didn't have access to Soviet records on the fate of the ship, which necessarily makes them inaccurate. We don't treat those accounts as factual, however, despite the fact that they represent a "consensus" of sorts. Those older sources are acknowledged in the article, but are clearly marked as inaccurate. Parsecboy (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Something else to chew on: Ted Ropp's excellent The Development of a Modern Navy does not use "La" for ship names like Gloire. Parsecboy (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It is clear to me that, for whatever reason, the French navy decided to include a definitive article in the names of a few ships (as well as those where it formed part of the name of a person or place being commemorated, in which cases these doubts do not arise). This class of torpedo boat was one. In the discussion linked above, user:Rama notes that Roche, Jean-Michel (2005) Dictionnaire des bâtiments de la flotte de guerre française de Colbert à nos jours adds "(La)" etc after some names. I do not have Roche, but Bruno Nicolas Dictionnaire de la Flotte de Guerre Française de 1671 à nos Jours (2009) does the same - MELPOMENE (LA), IPHIGENIE (L'), for example - but only in relation to this class, not for previous vessels of those names; and he refers to them as "Torpilleur type La Melpomène" [not Melpoméne, please]. This is not because the article is optional, but for ease of reference in a dictionary. The Mercantile Navy List did the same with British merchant ships - THE QUEEN is found under QUEEN (THE). In case of doubt, this is supported by the photos at, for example, L'Incomprise, L'Iphigénie , or (cannot be linked direct from WP) images-01.delcampe-static.net/img_large/auction/000/172/611/831_001.jpg La Bayonnaise.

I do not think it right for WP to change the names actually given to these ships (and by extension their Class), provided they can be cited (which they can, from Roche, Nicolas etc). This is nothing to do with conventions, just the facts - the French navy did not usually include an article in the name of a ship but in these, and a few other, cases they did. Davidships (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Parsec:I agree that whatever these ships had on their name plates would be the true name: I don’t know how we can we establish that in each case (though the pictures David provided go some way towards it) but I do know that in the absence of absolute truth, our fall-back position is verifiability. As far as that goes, all the sources on these pages say these ships names had the definite article in them.

On the subject of conventions, I don't think there are more than one in play here. Ship names with the definite article are not unheard of; I can think of The Sullivans (USN), The Ramsey (RN), De Zeven Provincien (RNeth N); it would appear only that the French Navy used them more often. Rama has already pointed out that vessels named for people or places whose names have the article (La Galissonnière, La Motte-Picquet) keep the article; he also made vague references to substantive adjectives, which (AFAICT) would cover the glorious one, the formidable, the whimsical, the skillful, and the bold: As for the others the common thread with them is that they are all mythical beings.

By contrast, all we've been given against this is the OR-ish claim that the intricacies of the French language on the matter are complicated (too complex even for the French WP) and that the stupid English have got it wrong. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

David: Thanks for chipping in: The pictures you turned up are fairly persuasive; how did you find them? I hadn’t thought it was possible.

Your comments about dictionaries being arranged alphabetically as an explanation makes sense. Colledge, who published a similar book of British ships, lists “La MELPOMÉNE” (she was in service in the RN for a while) thus (article in lower case) under M, together with all the British ships named "Melpomene", rather than under L; which makes perfect sense in an alphabetical list. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

When we say "convention", does that mean a rule that's explicitly documented in a reliable source, or a pattern that has been discerned by en.wikipedia editors? Evidence of real-world usage should always overrule the latter. bobrayner (talk) 23:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I only photographed a few pages of Roche when I had temporary access to it a few years ago as I had no idea I'd be writing much more extensively on French ships. Only one of the pages I have shows an article after the ship's name, La Havraise. In looking through Gille, Cent ans de cuirassés français, he doesn't use the article for the ironclads like Gloire, except in a general sense like English speakers would refer to the Gloire, referring to it several times as la frégate Gloire. I've seen numerous references to the WWII-era ships with an article in their name and would support revising the article titles to reflect that, but I'd want more proof, like scans from Roche, before extending that. The photos were great, BTW, and serve as proof positive, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

To bring this up to date: I've revised the pages where there are sources supporting use of the article in ship names (and, echoing Bob's and Sturmvogel's points, I would not want to see a naming convention grow out of this going beyond that) and (in view of the controvesry) I've put the destroyer pages to WP:RM (discussion is here). Thanks to all for their thoughts, Xyl 54 (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

New proposal for transportation related notability criteria

I have posted some broad suggestions on notability criteria for transportation related articles at Wikipedia talk:Notability. Feel free to offer thoughts and suggestions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Infobox problem

Hi, everyone. The "General Characteristics" section of the infobox at PS Kingswear Castle isn't in the infobox but is hanging around at the top of the lead paragraph. I tried to fix this but couldn't figure out what the problem is. Could somebody who's knowledgeable about such things please sort it out and, ideally, explain here what was needed? Thanks very much. Dricherby (talk) 09:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how what I did worked, but I think I fixed it -- saberwyn 11:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, it looks fixed so thanks for weaving your magic. :-) Dricherby (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedian in Residence

Hi all,

I'm sitting just now talking to Robertforsythe, who is the new Wikimedian in Residence at the Tyne & Wear Archives and Museums. He will hopefully be along to introduce himself shortly :-)

We're thinking about approaches for suitable projects for him to work on. Some ideas so far:

helping staff/volunteers there write on individual ships (a first example is, eg, MV Murree)
starting to construct Tyne-focused ship lists (compare to List of ships built by A. & J. Inglis)
digitisation of some material from the photo library (we have a tranche of material from flickr at Commons:Category:Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums, and Ed has already sent a first request...)

Any suggestions for how he can help, or specific requests, do get in touch :-) Andrew Gray (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

From memory, the Tyne & Wear was an important centre for warship building and repairs before and during World War I. Photos of warships under construction or repair would be invaluable if these are in the museums' collections - they're often more interesting than the PR-type photos which we currently rely on. Similarly, photos of sailors of this period would be fantastic. Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Where should requests be posted? At the userpage for the Resident (as I just did), or elsewhere? Kablammo (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

There is as good a place as any, I guess. Andrew Gray (talk) 08:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Or Wikipedia talk:GLAM/Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums Wikimedian in Residence? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I shall also say hello to folks. The subject is very close to my heart. If you click to Norfolk Wherry you will read about the Forsythe Wherry Yard. That was my upbringing, many years later I was curator to the Scottish Maritime Museum and now for a while there is this chance to work on the Tyne Wear Archives and Museums material as TWAMWIR, privately I am as I have been RobertForsythe. John Bowes (Steamship) has been added now. Foyboat is something to work on. So is the Pallion Shipyard where TSS Manxman was dismantled recently. Conceptually there are HUGE amounts to work on and the residency is quite limited. If you wish to edit any Tyneside and Wearside related pieces, always interested. I was scanning last week in the archives a beautful 1924 British Empire Exhibition Palmers of Jarrow brochure. As I am allowed I will will be uploading to Wiki Commons also as TWAMWIR.TWAMWIR (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

There's a stub reference to the Pallion yard at William Doxford & Sons. Davidships (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure Andrew forwarded our emails to you, but I would do ten cartwheels and a handstand for the images of Minas Geraes that should be in that museum. :-) Edit: just read point three above... thanks Andrew! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Here are the catalogue references to the images that would be of interest to you. I am not exactly sure of the status of the images reproduced in the site. If they are linked back to Flickr Commons you could use them easily. If they are not you would need to use the archive catalogue to make requests for scans. There seems to be plenty of images. [8] then search for Minas Gereas 1 DF.CLR/8 Series Photographs of the Brazilian battleship 'Minas Geraes' 1908 - 1909

2 DS.VA/3/1994.164 Item Yard no. 791E, Minas Geraes. Showing the launch of Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes, Elswick shipyard 10.9.1908 4_164.jpg 3 DS.VA/3/1994.165 Item Yard no. 791E, Minas Geraes. Showing the Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes firing broadside of ten 12 in. guns

In the archives site click on the numbers 1,2, 3 and you will see more information.

This is part of what shows up at 1:

F E W Coller, OBE, shipyard manager, Sir W.G. Armstrong Whitworth & Co. Ltd Collection 1911 - 1924

Click the RefNo to see other items in this collection

Level Series RefNo DF.CLR/8 Title Photographs of the Brazilian battleship 'Minas Geraes' Date 1908 - 1909 Description Includes photographs of the launch and of the vessel passing through the Swing Bridge, leaving the Tyne, firing its guns and at sea. The vessel was built by Sir W.G. Armstrong Whitworth & Co. Ltd, yard no. 791. Format 24 postcards, 6 photographs, black and white

and this shows more [9]

TWAMWIR (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Awesome! However, there is not indication of the copyright status of these images. Can you confirm that they are in the public domain, or that the T&W Archives has the authority to do so? Also, while I don't want to complain when there is an image available (better that than nothing!), the images are little more than thumbnail size. Is there any chance of getting the Archives to release higher-quality images? If it helps, they will be used in South American dreadnought race, Minas Geraes-class battleship, and/or Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Also just noting that only two images have been uploaded by them, but one of them ([10]), which is available in many sources, is the lead image at South American dreadnought race. Not sure if it would be helpful to show them that. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

This is going to get actively worked on. TWAMWIR (talk) 08:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

THREE photographs from the collection referred to above DF. CLR/8 are now on Wiki Commons at [[11]]. The archivists have cleared these for uploading under the 70+ plus years from date of publication rule. TWAMWIR (talk) 09:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks like we are likely to lose the lead image for the Krasin (1917 icebreaker) article (see below). It would be good to have a free image of high quality from before the ship was modernized. According to our article, "The icebreaker was built by Armstrong Whitworth in Newcastle upon Tyne .... The vessel was launched as the Svyatogor on 3 August 1916 and completed in February 1917." There are drawings on the web without adequate sourcing [12]; they also do not show the hull shape; that is of particular interest since the design was influential. Thanks, Dankarl (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I note this enquiry about Krasin. I have done a quick search of the Tyne Wear Archives catalogue on both names and nothing shows which translates into nothing catalogued as yet. TWAMWIR (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Dankarl (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Today I have before me Tyne & Wear Archives 450/1/1 in front of me. It is a leatherbound book headed Admiral Duarte Huet De Bacellar. Inside are what appear to Armstrong's COLOUR launch brochures. It starts with March 22nd 1898 HIJMS ASAMA and ends with HATSUSE June 27th 1899. So the items are not bound in order but there seems to be about 40 ships covered. These include KOSHIMA and MINAS GERAES. Some other names, you can expect a colour illustration, WHO launched the ship and core details. HAMPSHIRE, AFRIDI, SUPERB, ROSARIO, IWATE, LANCASTER. I am sure this material would help a lot of people. I will be trying to see what we can get scanned.TWAMWIR (talk) 10:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Some more items added today to Wiki Commons like [13] and neighbours.TWAMWIR (talk) 13:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Morro Castle 1.jpg

image:Morro Castle 1.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 06:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It would be a big help if a link to the specific discussion were provided for each of these notices. Palmeira (talk) 11:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- In this case, there is no discussion as the nomination is a no source speedy. The link to the image page is the best available link.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I added a weblink to a higher resolution version, which itself looks like a halftone. The image is in numerous locations on the web. I also added a bit to the fair use rarionale. If we do not have a consensus fair use rationale for lead images of ship articles, maybe we should. Dankarl (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no bar to fair-use images being used for ship articles where no free use image is available. Obviously we couldn't use a fair-use image of a current vessel unless it shows that vessel before modification which materially alter its appearance; but a good case can generally be made for vessels lost or scrapped. Mjroots (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

In this case there are 3 independent images on Commons, 2 of the ship on fire (one as 2 versions) and one of the wreck on the beach. Dankarl (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Lützow (1908) / Huntsend

I was looking to create an article for this captured German steamer which was renamed to Huntsend. The ship is mentioned in this article SM UB-47, and has a red link there.

I'm a bit confused because I can find what looks like a German-language article on this ship, but it doesn't mention anything about it being captured, etc. Here: Lützow (Schiff, 1908). Is it the same ship?

Any expert help appreciated! Danrok (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the bit you're looking for in the article is the following passage:

"Beim Beginn des Ersten Weltkriegs befand sich die Lützow im Sueskanal. Sie wurde von den Briten beschlagnahmt und als Huntsend eingesetzt. (Siehe Hunnendampfer.)"

which basically says that the ship happened to be in the Suez Canal at the start of World War I, was seized by the British, and was renamed Huntsend. Hope that helps. Parsecboy (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't spot that. Danrok (talk) 01:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Venezuelan Navy

A while back, on Talk:Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela, I suggested an updating of the article name, and now there is a first response. More would be welcome. Davidships (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

HMS/HSwMS etc

I was looking at the article on the Swedish warship Äran recently and I noticed it had been moved last year to the prefix "HSwMS" so as "To distinguish in title from Royal Navy"; it was moved back to "HMS" a few weeks ago, without much of an explanation. Wasn't there a discussion about this prefix confusion recently? What was the conclusion? Did it translate into a firm convention on what to do in these cases? I didn't want to move it/propose an RM without checking first. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion, and conclusion is here. It occurred last year. We did reach a firm convention, created a prefix template and all. Manxruler (talk) 02:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice if UK-RN ships were also called HBMS as 19th-century US terminology would have it. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 03:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

1. What's that got to do with anything? 2. 19th century terminology (of any country) matters not. It's important to avoid confusion between the numerous British and Swedish warship that share the same name. Manxruler (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

What all this boils down to in the end is, what does the prefix HMS stand for on English-language Wikipedia? Does it stand for "Her/His Majesty's Ship" (English language prefix - used for Royal Navy vessels) or "Hans/Hennes Majestäts Skepp" (Swedish language prefix - used for Royal Swedish Navy vessels)? Seeing as this is the English language Wikipedia, not the Swedish language version, and the Royal Swedish Navy themselves use HSwMS as their prefix in international contexts, I think the answer is completely self-evident. Manxruler (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Should we use our own internal norms on prefixes, or should we reflect what sources say? (Yes yes, you're all getting tired of me saying the same thing like a broken record

) bobrayner (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

From the experience with a number of similarly 'loaded' discussions here and elswhere, I can't help asking myself several questions:

Has anyone considered how Swedish women feel about those expensive toys purchased by their tax money so the king's son can skim the waves of the Baltic Sea in pursuit of a lady of noble birth to wed?
Carl XVI Gustaf's style says he is also king of Goths and Wends, shouldn't they be included in the prefix? How about HSwGWMS?
And does the prefix not suggest that all Swedes are actually monarchists? Are there really no republicans in Sweden? Category:Swedish republicans has eight entries. Is this enough to merit a change to, say CXVIGS (i.e. Carl XVI Gustaf's Ship)?
Many of the Commonwealth states have contemplated replacing the Queen with an elected head of state. Until they do so, should we not remain a NPOV and change the prefix to ES (i.e. Elizabeth's ship, or for smaller vessels Lizzie's boat - LB)?
Is there any chance of mistaking a British warship with a Swedish naval vessel? The last major maritime incident involving a Swedish Man-of-War I recall was the sinking of the Wasa.

This said, for practical reasons, since the {{HSwMS}}-template doesn't work if there are no articles using the prefix, it would be most welcome to move said article - and those similar - to a more suitable title. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Bob: What internal norms? The Swedish military uses HSwMS in non-local circumstances, that's pretty clear-cut. Manxruler (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

ÄDA - DÄP: Wow. Well, on the last point, we have at the present time at least four articles on Swedish warships that share names with British naval vessels. So there's plenty of room for confusion there. Last time I checked, all the Swedish ships we've got articles on, used the HSwMS prefix. If more ships have been moved back to HMS, then that has happened without any form of discussion. I'm moving Äran back right away. Manxruler (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

By all means, do it! There is no reason not to do it. Wifey says, everybody understands there is more than one king around and Sweden is not the navel of the world. Mind she is Finland-Swedish, but it's good enough for me. Judging from the state the articles are in, nobody really cares about it anyways. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Goody. A lot of people mistook me for a Finland-Swede, back when I lived in Sweden, years ago. An accent issue, I believe. Yes, the articles are mostly in a sad state, we are very much lacking in dedicated Swedish/Sweden-interested editors. A shame, really. Same thing goes for Denmark, not a lot of coverage at all. We do however have a couple of active Finns, so it's not all bleak in the Nordic region. Manxruler (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up; I knew I’d seen it somewhere.

I went to move the page back, but I see it's been done already. I’ve added a footnote to the page (somewhat in the manner of an SMS footnote I remember seeing); Is it worth adding it to any other Swedish warship articles?

Also, as there’s nothing about this at WP:NC-SHIPS; is it worth adding a bit there? Something like “several navies use HMS as a prefix; to avoid confusion with the British HMS this project follows NATO practice and adds a national disambiguator to prefixes for non-British ships eg. HNoMS (Norwegian), HSwMS (Swedish), HNethMS (Netherlands), etc”. Any thoughts? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The footnote seems sensible enough, although removing the HMS prefix from the text of those articles is probably a better idea. It's a bit of work, but necessary.

Adding a bit to NC-SHIPS is sensible (HNLMS is the English language prefix used for Dutch ships). Manxruler (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've added the proposal to the talk page at WP:NCSHIPS (finally!) It's here. Xyl 54 (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hyundai Ambition.jpg

image:Hyundai Ambition.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 06:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Charles John de Lacy or de Lacey

Would I be right to think that hitherto Wikipedia had little to say about Charles John de Lacy? I have tried to change that with Charles_de_Lacy. Questions remain: his death date is in dispute, so is the spelling of his name. I know that much more of his work in public collections could be dug out. And much is war and marine art and so of clear interest. For instance I added the picture to HMS Forester (1911). Why have I done all this? Because as User:TWAMWIR last Friday in the archives in Newcastle upon Tyne I was handling a bound volume of shipyard ephemera with piece after piece signed de Lacey. I very much hope to be able to share some of this through Commons, scans have been made. Is anyone reading this interested in participating if I could organise it in a Skype based editathon about de Lacy and his maritime connection? TWAMWIR (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Time is coming to an end for me with this residency. More uploads from pieces described above in Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums 450/1 have been made. This means a total of 9 scans from this volume to be found in Commons. In article Charles de Lacy a note gives a transcription of the volume's entire content. TWAMWIR (talk) 12:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

File:INS Arihant.png

File:INS Arihant.png has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Turbinia

During my residency with Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums, the curator charged with the care of Turbinia has discussed at some length with myself issues that were present in the vessel's Wikipedia article when the residency started. These hang around the location of this image and who the featured gentleman is. Ian Whitehead now discusses this at length and if editors wish to reflect and use his conclusions that would be good.TWAMWIR (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Possible good topic?

Here's a topic box that may only amuse me. Only four articles to improve and a short list has to be written to finish it off. Perhaps this might influence somebody's choice of articles to improve:

Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Missed a ship and rearranged it a bit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I approve of this project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Conversion templates

I noticed a comment in the talk page of CV-7 about ship's gun inch to mm conversion being off and decided to check nautical mile conversion. That seems off as well. Under "Loss" the 150 nautical mile conversion gives "150 nmi (170 mi; 280 km)" while a straight conversion would be 172.61692; 277.8. I checked the conversion for 1 nautical mile by replacing the value to one. That gave "1 nmi (1.2 mi; 1.9 km)" for the straight conversion of 1.1507794; 1.852. Those are not unreasonable roundings in the template for the small value while a reasonable rounding of the 150 value would be 173 miles and 278 km respectively—not 170 mi; 280 km. which seems to be rounding to the tens and a bit too rough in my opinion for such conversions. While I will admit that navigation of the WW II period, particularly under battle conditions, often had raw numbers miles off I have a problem with introducing that sort of rounding in all cases. Palmeira (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. Template:Convert#Rounding gives you all the information needed to adjust rounding if you feel it is necessary. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, but the basic problem remains. Most editors will use the simple convert template and we are going to get most articles with values rounded too much. I would urge the template be fixed to at least round to the nearest whole number as default. I can think of few cases, beyond astronomical, where rounding to the nearest ten in miles is particularly desirable and only a few cases not involving miles where such is actually needed. Even if we are talking inches or milimeters rounding to the nearest tens unit is a bit odd for measurements. For approximating, for example "airline distance New York to Cape Town, then I'd say the burden is then upon the writer to introduce a larger rounding factor. Perhaps the answer is to change the template format that will be copied and pasted into articles to the full form ending in "|0}}" instead of one that defaults to effectively "|-1}}" for those cutting and pasting. Palmeira (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The setting ought to be considered and picked with care in each case but in my experience is generally fairly good out of the box. For your example with USS Wasp the article says "some 150 nm" which implies anything from 145 to 155 nm. Rounding to the nearest 10 statute miles seems very reasonable in that case. GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

In practical terms any position well out to sea before regular use of LORAN-C and then GPS is pretty likely to have a circular error of two or three miles. Even survey ships using LORAN-C had absolute errors on the order of hundreds or thousands of meters at extreme range or in areas of poor system configuration. So, 150 nmi (170 mi; 280 km) or 150 nmi (173 mi; 278 km) just changes the already large circular error. Maybe it is the old navigator in me, but I don't know any systems of Earth measurement, certainly not in conversions from one measurement unit to another, that intentionally introduce "nearest ten" to rounding observed numbers no matter the known ambiguities of the original observation. Palmeira (talk) 15:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is intended behaviour, not a bug. No template can guess as to what the author wants, but Convert is well designed to give a level of accuracy based on the input (if you specify, for example, 173 miles, it'll round to the nearest whole kilometer; 170 miles would round to the nearest 10 km; 1700 would round to the nearest hundred or so, etc.) As always, it is up to the editor to read the instructions and use the template in a way that makes sense; of course, there will always be those who will blindly slap something into an article, but there's literally nothing to be done about folks like that. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

One result of this is that a conversion from what is intended to be exactly 600 feet (to use a recent example I encountered) yields a metric approximation which is much less accurate, as the template assumes that the first figure (600) is rounded, when in fact it is not. Kablammo (talk) 01:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes Kablammo, and as I noted above there is a difference in an original error and further error compounding in a conversion from one measurement system to another. My problem here is that I think most people are like me. They expect a calculated conversion from one measurement system to another to be precise at least to the nearest unit and not compound any already present uncertainty. Think of it in these terms. With a currency conversion rate of 1.3236 I wonder how many of us would accept a "cost me about 150" plugged in to our handy dandy conversion ap as being equal to 110 instead of the 113 (actual 113.33) straight conversion? I'd be getting a new calculator! I thus contend that a unit conversion system with an intended feature of defaulting to nearest tens is indeed buggy. Palmeira (talk) 15:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. In the particular example I had in mind I was able to get an acceptable level of accuracy in the conversion simply by adding a decimal point after the 600 in the conversion template[14], but that decimal point shows in text (at least to those with good eyes). I think I will just go back to my old method of obtaining or cross-checking conversions elsewhere and foregoing use of the template (which I often do in text which I first write). Accuracy should not be reduced simply because a value ends in 0 or 00; a three-meter difference in the reported surface elevation of a body of water is very significant. Kablammo (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the syntax so it now rounds as it does in the source given for the original figure. I am right to assume the 12 cm (4.72 in) difference in elevation is acceptable?ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 05:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you. Kablammo (talk) 10:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Problems on British Destroyer articles

User:Rgdem999 (Special:Contributions/Rgdem999) has recently being creating a lot of articles on pre World War I Royal Navy destroyers, and modifying existing articles (by deleted large chunks of cited text)- unfortunately, on checking, much of the editor's additions do not appear to be supported by the sources claimed (for example, on HMS Ouse (1905), citing information to Conway’s All the World’s Fighting Ships 1906 to 1922 and to [15] - which does not even mention HMS Ouse. When an attempt was made to copyedit the article and tag the unsupported information, the editor just reverts with no discussion. Help is needed to sort this problem out.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Your problem may have gone away. In an impressive display of foot stamping and teddy throwing, Rgdam999 has declared "I am done with people who do not know how to write factual articles on Royal Navy Ships", "The Royal Navy is not run by the US" (?) and "Oh yeah you can delete this account as I am done with you." No loss, on the whole, given his unwillingness to engage, but he has left a large legacy of spelling mistakes, formatting errors, un-cited text (or text unsupported by the cite given) and possible copyvio. He has confined his edits to WWI RN destroyers, mostly C-class destroyers, D-class destroyers and River-class destroyers. Interestingly, he's had a major upsurge in work since 14 June - do I detect someone who's just finished their exams? There are some old edits to V and W-class destroyer pages, pre-December 2012. Thanks go to Nigel Ish for being so patient with him against strong provocation, and to Benea for offering some good and entirely unheeded advice. Shem (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a fair number of the creations were more or less boilerplate copies of each other, meaning that infobox, formatting or idiomatic construction problems (there are a few) in one are replicated across the lot. I've tackled a few but now they all look like correct duplicates of each other. If ~~another editor~~_more editors_ would like to have a pick over one or more we might get a bit of variety in the prose. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to credit User:Shem1805 among others who have been working on these articles. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Graeme, thanks - and I'm glad to know it's not just me! Shem (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)